but in the ag sector, that's hard work, and it's hard to find enough american-born workers to actually get it done. but we've got to treat them fairly and make sure that it's good for workers, good for business. that we could not do much about through executive action. so those are two big components that are of interest to this group that need to get done. border security -- the truth is, we're already doing a lot. we're going to be doing more as a consequence of the executive actions. there was a spike in concern about the borders because those kids had been coming up from central america during the summer and it got two weeks of wall-to-wall coverage until everybody forgot about it. it does reflect real problems in central america with their economies and violence, but also active marketing by smugglers to

parents, saying that they could get kids in. we brought that back down so the numbers are now below what they were two years ago. overall, the border is less porous than it's been any time since the 1970s. and we make huge investments down there. we can still do more, but the truth is, were working that part of it real hard. and then there's the issue that i did deal with in executive actions, although not for everybody, and that is the 11 million people who are here undocumented but the vast majority who are law-abiding. and the one principle i guess, if, in fact, we can still get a comprehensive deal going forward, even if it's somewhat piecemeal, is i am not going to preside over a system in which we know these folks are in the kitchens of most restaurants in

the country, are cleaning up most of the hotels that all of you stay in, that are doing the landscaping in most neighborhoods where you live, whose kids are going to school with our kids, and we tolerate it because it's good for us economically to have cheap labor and services, but we never give them a path to be part of this country in a more full and fair way. that's just not who we are. that's not how most of our forebears got to the point where we had the opportunities we've got today. so i'm not going to perpetuate a system of that sort. i've taken executive actions. what i'd like to see, and i'm

happy to negotiate, is to see if we can solidify that into law. but it's going to be hard, i think, for me and for other democrats to vote for a big package that says, all right, were going to still not deal with that and just deal with those aspects of it that are of core concern to the brt. that doesn't mean i can't have that conversation, but i want to be honest about the complications of us doing something piecemeal. >> well, and we support -- >> i know you do. >> the components. >> you guys are all there. you guys have been terrific on this. i have no complaints at all, and, in fact, i have only gratitude for the way that the brt stepped up. i think everybody here sincerely understands what immigration has meant to the life of this country. and just in terms of macroeconomics. it's not a sexy argument to make to the public, but we are younger than our competitors.

and that is entirely because of immigration. and when you look at the problems that china, japan, europe, russia, are all going to have, a lot of it just has to do with they're getting old. and we stay young because were constantly being replenished by these striving families from around the world. and we should want that to continue. all right. i'll take two more, what the heck. right back here and then right over here. >> mr. president, almost everyone agrees that u.s. trade representative michael froman is doing a herculean job of driving trade agreements around the world. it seems to be common sense that more access to global trade is good for the creation of u.s. jobs. how can we get tpa passed so that michael can have the clear support that he needs to drive these agreements?

>> well, i'm going to be talking to mcconnell and boehner, reid and pelosi, and making a strong case on the merits as to why this has to get done. it is somewhat challenging because of a factor that i mentioned earlier, which is americans feeling as if their wages and incomes have stagnated. and there's a half-truth that is magnified i think in the discussions around trade that global competition has contributed to some of that wage stagnation. it's an appealing argument. i think when you look at the numbers, it's actually an incorrect argument that over time, growth, investment, exports all have increased the capacity for working families to improve their economic standing. but i say it's a half-truth

because there's no doubt that some manufacturing moved offshore in the wake of china entering the wto and as a consequence of nafta. now, more of those jobs were lost because of automation and capital investment, but there's a narrative there that makes for some tough politics. we have to be able to talk directly to the public about why trade is good for america, good for american businesses and good for american workers.

and we have to dispel some of the myths. part of the argument that i'm making to democrats is, don't fight the last war -- you already have. if somebody is wanting to outsource, if any of the companies here wanted to locate in china, you've already done it. if you wanted to locate in a low-wage country with low labor standards and low environmental standards, there hasn't been that much preventing you from doing so. and, ironically, if we are able to get trans-pacific partnership done, then we're actually forcing some countries to boost their labor standards, boost their environmental standards, boost transparency, reduce corruption, increase intellectual property protection. and so all that is good for us. those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to american workers.

and i'm going to have to engage directly with our friends in labor and our environmental organizations and try to get from them why it is that they think that -- for example, mike is in a conversation with vietnam, one of the potential signatories to the tpp. right now, there are no labor rights in vietnam. i don't know how it's good for labor for us to tank a deal that would require vietnam to improve its laws around labor organization and safety. i mean, we're not punishing them somehow by leaving them out of something like this. let's bring them in.

on the environmental front, i haven't looked carefully at the environmental laws in malaysia recently, but i suspect they're not as strong as they are here. it's not a bad thing for us to nudge them in a better direction, particularly since we now know that environmental problems somewhere else in the world are going to ultimately affect us. so i think that there are folks in my own party and in my own constituency that have legitimate complaints about some of the trend lines of inequality, but are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to opposing tpp, and i'm going to have to make that argument. but i will tell you, though, when you talk to boehner and mcconnell, that some of those

same anti-trade impulses are more ascendant in the republican party than they might have been 20 years ago as well. and some of you may have encountered those in some of your conversations. and this was why it goes back to the point -- we're not going to get trade done, we're not going to get infrastructure done, we're not going to get anything done in this town until we're able to describe to the average american worker how at some level this is improving their wages, it's giving them the ability to save for retirement, it's improving their financial security. if people continue to feel like democrats are looking after poor folks and republicans are looking after rich folks and nobody is looking after me, then we don't get a lot of stuff done. and the trend lines evidence the fact that folks have gotten squeezed.

and obviously, 2007, 2008 really ripped open for people how vulnerable they were. nick. >> mr. president, thank you for being here today. we talked about many issues that are on the 2015 agenda for the business roundtable. one of the real pervasive issues that i know you've talked about before is the regulatory burden in this country, and still it remains the major issue that many of us deal with. in my industry, american electric power, we're in the midst of a major transition in our industry. we have environmental rules, obviously, that we continue to advance and have done quite a good job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so forth.

and i know that we've had billions being spend on mercury removal at the time when we're now having greenhouse gas rules being put in place that even independent system operators say that there will be impacts on the reliability of the grid. and i know you've been seriously responsible and involved with the reliability implications for our grid due to super storm sandy, from the cyber physical standpoint. and it really is interesting for us to see this transition occurring. we've got to be reasonable and rational. and it goes to the overall regulatory question: how do we continue to make progress -- and i'd like just your views on -- you've talked about this before -- how do you see the progress that's been made and what you anticipate occurring in the next couple of years relative to removing some of this regulatory burden that makes us all uncompetitive? >> i think it's a great question. it's probably a good place to close because i think this is an

area where i'd like to see us do more together. i've said before to my staff -- i haven't said this publicly, so i've got to be careful here. you get a little looser in your last two years of office. and this is a little tongue-in-cheek, but it will get to a point. the republicans -- and maybe i'd throw the brt in here -- are actually about 25 percent right when it comes to regulatory burden. now, you say the numbers are different. but what i mean by that is nobody wants to be regulated, and there are some regulations that are burdensome on businesses. they'd rather not do them, but the common good that is served is sufficiently important, the benefits so outweigh the cost that, as a society, we should go ahead and do them.

and we were talking about china earlier. i would just point to one simple example, and that is you would not want your kids growing up in beijing right now, because they could not breathe. and the fact of the matter is that used to be true in los angeles -- as recently as 1970. and the reason it changed was because of the clean air act. and in my hometown of chicago, the chicago river caught fire right around the same period, and because of the clean water act, you now have folks paddling down the water and fishing. and the commercial renaissance of downtown chicago is, in large part, driven by a really big, radical piece of environmental legislation that, at the time, people said would destroy our businesses and our competitiveness. so there's an example of

something that -- it's inconvenient, it's tough, but it's the right thing to do. and, over time, i actually think it's not only good for our quality of life, it's actually good for our economy. because we've got some really innovative companies here and you guys figure out how to adapt to those regulations. but remember what i said at the beginning -- you're actually about 25 percent right. what is absolutely true is, is that as we comb through our regulatory structures, there are old regulations that have outlived their usefulness. you have regulations on railroads that don't take into account gps, so they have folks doing a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't acknowledge technologies that have sprung up over the last 20 years. you have regulations that are poorly written. you've got regulations that are

not properly synced up so that you have different agencies with different responsibilities and so compliance costs end up skyrocketing. you have regulations that squash innovation, because at times some of the agencies, the regulatory agencies treat every problem like a nail and only have a hammer, and aren't engaging with industry enough to think, all right, here is the problem we're trying to solve, is there's a smarter way of solving it. so what we've tried to do is to set up a structure in which we can engage directly with various industries, explain here's the goal we're trying to accomplish, solicit as much feedback as possible, and then try to design systems that provide some flexibility, allow for creative adaptation, but still hit the mark, still hit the goal. and, for example, on the power plant rule, which obviously you're having to spend a lot of time with, i recognize that this

is a big expense for a lot of companies. on the other hand, i think gina mccarthy has tried to have a sufficiently open process so that she's working with not only industry, but on a state-by-state basis, recognizing not every state is the same, to figure out is there a smarter way for us to do this, but still meet the mark of reducing our overall carbon emissions. what i'd like to do in these last two years is figure out how we can improve the system to find that 25 percent -- and again, we may not always agree on what the 25 percent is -- and can we institutionalize it so that it outlives my administration. we already instituted a cost-benefit analysis system that -- or we inherited one that had been instituted.

it was controversial for a while -- mostly criticism from democrats. i actually believe in cost-benefit. i think it makes sense for us to engage in a vigorous review. and my essential rule has been we're not going to promulgate new regulations unless you can show a significant benefit relative to costs. and we've been able to do that. we've been able to document it in the most rigorous way possible. but are there some other institutional things we can do to build the process so, for example, there's more input on the front end rather than the rule gets promulgated, published, and then there's this big, cumbersome, inefficient, unwieldy process of comments. are there smarter ways of doing that? we're spending a lot of time on the regulatory look-back process, digging back into old

rules and seeing what don't make sense. so what i'd like people to do, the brt to do is, perhaps industry by industry, work with jeff and let's inventory what are the rules that bother you most. we'll go through them. i'll tell you, if it's child labor laws, i'm probably going to hang to them. we're going to keep that rule. if it's some basic issues around environmental protection, i'm going to be -- want to preserve them. but in those instances where there are significant costs, i may say we're not going to change the goal; do you think there's a smarter way of doing this, because we're willing to listen if you think there is. less command and control, more market incentive -- we're open to it.

and on that list, i suspect there may be four or five regulations out of 20, 25 where you can persuade us, you know what, this actually should just be eliminated. it doesn't make sense anymore. or it should be replaced. and we will be open to doing that. the job council that we put together, that some of you participated in, gave us a list of recommendations, and some of them involve, for example, streamlining infrastructure projects. we adopted almost all those recommendations. and business was absolutely right -- it wasn't that they minded having an environmental review; they didn't like the idea of having permitting, environmental review, all this stuff go consecutively, and you end up with an eight-year time frame, when, if you put in on parallel tracks, you could compress it down to one year.

so we are open to common sense. and what i have assigned jeff to do and my entire cabinet to do -- penny pritzker and tom perez and others -- is to sit down, listen to you, and if you can show us either that something is counterproductive and doesn't work, or there's a smarter way of meeting the goal, we will embrace it, happily. there are going to be times, though, where we just disagree on the goal. and i'm going to be -- workers' safety -- my instruction to tom perez is i want our workers to be safe. and we now do have probably the safest workforce that we've ever had in history. made huge strides on that, partly because of just continuous improvement that you've instituted in your own companies. this has been good for workers. it's been good for business. but, frankly, if it hadn't been for some initial laws to prod you, some of it just wouldn't have happened. so we're going to hang on to worker safety rules. the question then is going to be, is there a way, for example,

for us to enforce it in a more efficient way and a less disruptive way, but continues to hold you accountable. that's a conversation tom perez is going to be happy to have. all right? happy holidays, everybody. it's good to be in america. god bless us. thank you. (applause.) [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> coming up on c-span, the vice chair of the federal reserve board of governors stanley fischer talks about the economic outlook. then we hear from national security advisor susan rice. demeanor from senator bob corker and john mccain on u.s. foreign-policy. the senate panel looking at

antitrust exemptions. we will from officials at the fcc, and this sports coalition. our live coverage begins tomorrow at 2:15 eastern on c-span 3. later chuck hagel will talk about sexual assault reports in the military. the vice chair of the federal reserve ordered of governors stanley fischer talks about the u.s. economy. he spoke to a wall street journal economics correspondent at an event hosted by the wall street journal ceo council. >> good morning everybody. thank you vice chairman fisher for joining us.

we have a special treat, in addition to being the vice is then of the fed, former governor of the bank of israel and the number two at the imf so you have a unique perspective on the global economy and global landscape. people in this room have footprints all over the world so i wanted to talk to you for a little bit about the global economic backdrop. i think everyone is talking right now about oil prices. yearare falling 25% this and in the last few weeks what does that tell you about how the economy is behaving? >> there is clearly a big supply factor which is the united states in particular. a sort of unexplained increase in libyan output that is taking place at the moment. factor isnderlying the change in the situation of

the united states. import energynet but much less significantly. that is a big thing. then we have the issue of what the did and it is clear producers and opec are tried to do what they did in the past which is to get some of the other guys out. sharentain their market in this. -- in this period. it is mainly good for the united states economy but not good for the oil producers in the united states. whole foron the growth in the united states. >> want to talk you a little bit about china, the world's second-largest economy, the chinese have experienced almost three years of wholesale price deflation.

by some measures consumer prices are lower in china than the united states. how serious is china's capacity problem? -- i can never quite figure out how to think about this. they're having a real problem growing at only 7%. then you have to do a reality check. they are having a real problem because they say they need to grow at something like that to maintain social peace by their definition. they over expanded in the response to the great recession and it particularly hit real estate and they are trying to adapt to that. they are tough on credit for a while though they had eased up lately. so they have a problem adapting

to growth at more normal rates for country doing well at their level of income. is fromorical patent japan and other countries, korea. you can grow at 10% for many years, the chinese have done it longer than anybody in that it comes down and eventually you become a normal country. they are getting onto that process and the period through which you move down to lower rates of growth is not comfortable. that is where they are right now. still have to remind ourselves that china is a factor in the world economy, growing at 7% now is much more important and china growing at 10% even 10 years ago. gdp has doubled during that. -- during that period. >> christine lagarde said last

night that talking about china that chinese authorities deliver. the expectation is they will deliver a soft landing. i become suspicious of soft landings having lived through a number of hard landings, do you have confidence they can deliver a soft landing? believe in full confidence in anybody's ability to work miracles. they have done it every time. i'm not sure the period around tiananmen square was such a nice soft landing, they had trouble than. they're basically done it with one major crisis since the late 70's and early 80's and it will not continue forever but four you -- 40 years is close to forever in our lives. we'll see if they can pull it off again but it is tough. >> i want to turn our focus to europe, you were mario draghi's

professor at m.i.t. some years ago, what advice would you give to the student on whether you we >> are you his deputy in this? >> i would be happy to relay the information. -- my goodness. >> i don't know if that is some kind of a signal about qe. [laughter] be a signal of a hard landing. >> not to embarrass anybody, but toldlle smith of the fed me if i did something she was going to press the fire alarm. [laughter] i guess it just happened. get somewhere. i don't think the structure of the markets and the outstanding debt, and the complicated

intermission between nations, distribution of the debt, is as easy for them as it was for the fed. but they would do better to do some of that. none of this will solve the problem. there are other aspects that need to be undertaken, particularly in germany, which needs to let its demand grow more rapidly. it could certainly make a difference and i suspect they are heading that way. i have absolutely no inside information. u.s., ie we turn to the want to ask a couple questions of the audience. if we could get the first question up on the screen. we want to ask where you are investing. we want to ask where your ispany is seeking -- planning its biggest investment increase in 2015.

japan, united states, china, euro area, latin america, or other. where are you seeing the biggest increase in your investment in the coming year? while we wait for the audience to respond, maybe we could talk a little about japan. it looks like abenomics has hit a bit of a bump. let's talk about this because this is very interesting. -- 70% of the audience sees the biggest increase in the united states. that is a pretty impressive vote of confidence for this economy. let's ask the next question about where you see the biggest downside risk in the world economy next year.

we are going to give you the same selection. maybe we can talk about japan while the ceos make their inputs on downside risk. how serious is this stumble that japan has experienced? what mistakes have they made? >> the stumble is serious, but i think what they are doing is appropriate, that is postponing , theer the tax increase second half of the tax increase. these things have a massive impact. it happened in 1997 and we got an absolute rerun right now. undertaking --a putting his foot on the accelerator, which was nearly very close to the floor, was also a good move in terms of what they are doing.

and well, it didn't say upside .isk in japan i'm not sure that if i had money i would invest there, but it is better than zero in terms of its prospects for growth. >> it is zero in this room. >> in the first run, it was where are you going to invest -- >> japan got a single vote. let's move on to the united states. discussionn a lot of at and around the fed about the timing of left off, when you start raising short-term interest rates. this conversation has been driven as unemployment is falling in the united states and the job market is getting better. can the fed be raising rates at a time when there is so much

downward pressure on inflation in the rest of the world. europe, china, japan is also trying to get out of its deflationary slump. what do you do in a situation where the job market is improving but there is still downward pressure on inflation from abroad? of foreignthe impact slow demand or negative growth of the u.s. economy? but its such an impact is not the main driver of the united states economy. unemployment continues to decline, if the labor market continues to strengthen, and if we see some signs of inflation thenning to increase, then natural thing is to get the interest rate up. we call it normalization. it is important to recognize, we almost got used to thinking that

zero is the natural place for the interest rate. it is far from it. furthermore, i think the first step is very important but there is a process that is being set off when the first step starts. interest rates are going to go up. they are going to go up for some time. we need to start thinking about what is going to happen in the year and years to come, as we go back to a normal situation. we are still far from it, we will be far from it when the interest rate rises for the first time, and there will be another process as we continue to try to return this economy to a normal situation. >> you laid out one scenario, the fed's expected scenario of inflation moving gradually towards 2% and unemployment continuing to fall. what do you do if unemployment continues to fall but inflation

doesn't move? can you afford to let things run a little longer in this abnormal state of very low interest rates? that, and if inflation is really hitting south, we will have to do that. data-driven we are and if that is where the data drive us, that is what we will do. but the most impressive thing about the u.s. recovery is that it has gone on now for a long time -- the unemployment rate keeps declining, the economy is at a growth rate of somewhat and if that continues, we will have to face the problem we really have, which is that productivity growth is way down.

that is what is driving the slow growth. we have to get to measures which will affect productivity positively. a meeting coming up in a couple of weeks. you've been saying -- the fed has been saying since last march that it would keep interest rates low for a considerable time. after the bond buying program. the bond buying program ended in october. is it time to stop giving the public that assurance that rates will stay low for a considerable time? >> i think you saw in the minutes of the last meeting, there was some discussion of that. it is clear that we are closer to getting rid of that then we were a few months ago. but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to give you a guess as to what we are going to do at the next meeting. >> maybe you could help us

understand what it will mean when you do it. the market takes important small phrases in these fed statements. when you stop saying, rates will stay low for a considerable time, what does that mean? does it mean rates are going to rise? >> you may assume but we are not going to not say anything. just take it out and leave no guidance on how long interest rates will continue. approach, as the likely date nears, or the likely situation nears, we will use different words to describe the situation. we don't want to surprise markets. on the other hand, we can't give precise estimates about data we don't know.

that is why the emphasis always goes back to the data and not to the date. you may say, how can the markets ever correct data if you don't tell them? when the data will be in a situation that suggests starting the process of raising the interest rate. the first increase is the start of a new process. it is not the end of something that matters any longer. rates high do you think can go? there is a lot of discussion at the fed and economic circles about the idea that we are in a period of secular stagnation. >> the secular stagnation discussion is very interesting. it has two definitions, one of which i think everybody can accept.

growthn of productivity is much slower than it used to be. is that temporary or permanent? if you are an optimist, you think we are going to get back to something which will take the economy closer to 3% growth because of the many innovations that you see around you all the time, and because of the dynamism of this economy. -- how much does our knowledge improve, how much does our technology improve? the other view is a more dark one which says you have got to have negative interest rates to get full employment. that is a different definition. case, then wehe couldn't raise the interest rate very much. i don't believe that's the case. our long-term interest rates are positive. that is the current interest rate minus expected inflation.

, don't think the markets think nor do i think, that we need to operate with a negative interest rate over long periods to have full employment. >> i want to ask you about some of the criticisms that we all hear about the policies that the fed has employed over the last few years and other central banks are now employing. there is a feeling i think in this room and outside that the concerns there are that the qe programs have potentially stoked asset bubbles in financial markets, that they have taken governments off the hook for putting through difficult structural reforms. respond to those they ares, that

stoking bubbles and taking policymakers off the hook? >> we have a very clear mandate set out in the law. the law is that we should use monetary policy tools to achieve maximum sustainable employment and stable prices. we cannot be in the position of saying, we won't do that. that is wholly inappropriate. we have given a message. we have given tools. they have to use them to try to achieve the goals that have been set. taking governments off the hook would put the fed in a difficult position of saying, we could do that, but we are not going to do ,t until you do the other whatever the other thing is. i'd much rather they did more infrastructure investment, but if they don't, i don't see that we have any right according to the law to say, because you are

not doing that, we are not going to reduce the growth rate relative to what it could be. that is a political game that we should be very far from getting into. the bubbles question is more complicated. in an economy in which the financial system is sound, operating with a zero interest rate is likely to produce , taking on asset prices them close to possibly bubble proportions. i have to deal with that in the bank of israel because the financial system with stood the crisis without any problems. in countries where the financial system is broken, as it was in the united states in 2008-2009, you do not necessarily create bubbles. in particular, i don't think anyone things we have our real estate bubble in the united states. if you look at the financial difficulties that lead to crises

, they typically involve real estate and construction. there are other times -- there was the high-tech bubble a few years ago at the turn-of-the-century. but basically it is real estate. we are very far from that. there are a few areas with risk premiums lower than you would like to see them but i don't see a problem. what is being done is those countries with healthy financial systems, norway, hong kong, singapore, israel, there are another 10 or 12, have had trouble with real estate prices that are very high and frequently rising. other countries in the crisis haven't had to deal with that problem because the financial system isn't doing what it would normally do. >> in the united states, we are

seeing booms in leverage loans, junk bonds, doesn't that worry you? >> we can't sit around judging every single asset price and deciding which one the fed will deal with. you've got to leave the markets basically to do their thing. for us to make an overall judgment on the overall level -- if we see a crisis that looks like a bubble or a boom in a sector that looks like it will have major consequences for the whole economy, we need to intervene. the markets should correct it. we are trying to figure out if it was the chinese are the u.s. bond markets sending a signal with the building collapse. >> stanley, i know it is difficult to generalize but how

would you describe the spirit of corporates at the moment? are they focused on investment and growth or cost? are they making capital investments? it is difficult to make generalizations, but could you give a view from your lofty perch? shave thisfrom my morning where i thought about that. i don't know if we arc award needed. i was away for eight years. coming back and living again in the united states, you have a sense of a certain loss of confidence in society. a whole lot of reasons we don't need to go into. thate a slight sense animal spirits are not as animal-like as they used to be. it will take a while for

business to regain confidence in the environment in which it works and for the society to begin to trust business and banks again. i think there is more rebuilding to be done. in the that is visible fact that the level of investment is not as high as you would expect given interest rates, given the rate of employment, the low rate of unemployment, etc. i have a sense that factor is around. recentlyscher, i participated in a conversation where the gist of it was, the pace of technology, the pace of innovation, is occurring at such a rapid rate, much more rapidly than employment, and that was

causing some of the unemployment and income inequality. i'm curious as to your reaction to that. well, the pace of change looks very rapid and one of the problems with that view is, when you look at the data, you don't see it. my former colleague at m.i.t., in the early 1990's, the computer revolution is visible everywhere except in the data. a few years later, it became evident in the data. i think we are at that stage with regard to the current technology. --ther current producing current technology is producing inequality, there is some of that. there are a lot of phenomena

that one can describe in those terms. my guess is as the economy begins to grow faster, we will declineuality begin to somewhat. >> let me ask you a question that was sent in on the tablet. the unemployment rate in the u.s. for skilled positions is near zero and for unskilled positions, hi. is it the fed's responsibility to deal with this issue through monetary policy, rather than congress' responsibility? >> as long as we are very aware that we are dealing with the overall rate of unemployment, that we don't have tools to discuss one or the other -- and it would be good to have government programs to deal with a variety of issues like the ones you are talking about -- so i don't think it is the fed's -- i don't know if it is the fed's

job or not but there is another factor. the fed doesn't have the tools. so those are important to society. it is incumbent on others to do it. tools, i don't know whether we would try to use than given our mandate, but we don't. >> so, the tapering is done tapering. quantitative easing is over, at least for now, and that has all been met by a big yawn by the bond market. 10-year note's are trading at 2.25%. do you find it surprising that in light of the buying by the fed ending that interest rates

in the 10 year and 30 year sector of the market have not moved up? >> it is very hard to do controlled experiments. we almost did one unintentionally when the then chairman of the fed announced there was going to be an end to tapering. that was a controlled experiment. it was said, one day, and the next day, you saw the market reactions. it seemed to work in the many other which things happened in the economy. so, we expect the term structure to be up with sloping. we expect it to be affected by what the fed does.

i don't think we need at this stage to worry that normal fed policy will not have effects on interest rates. i want to ask you a question of for this ends about bank regulation. this is important to a lot of people in the room. i want to ask a broad question. there are a lot of people who think there is too much of it. i wonder what you think of them. the most pathetic question is, the fed relies heavily on models through the stress test programs . given the failures we have seen in these models to predict how the economy is going to perform, why should we have so much confidence that the models will work to find the next source of financial instability? >> they are not the same models, for one thing. this, you would

imagine that the banking system was working wonderfully well when there was less regulation, up to 2007-2008. i'm reminded of little bit about what happens when you visit a country where something has apartheid has disappeared in south africa -- turns out nobody ever supported apartheid in south africa. that we didn't have this banking crisis. and everything was going well, then the fed somehow got involved and made a mess. there was a huge mess that had to be cleaned up. there y be too many regulations. there may not be. what a lot of my colleagues say is if we can raise capital requirement higher, than we can reduce the amount of regulation. we are always operating on a margin where banks are trying

various things to raise their rates of return. they've got a lot of money. assigned the task of trying to maintain financial stability. if anybody thinks financial stability doesn't matter, you have a very, very short memory. we went through the worst recession since the 1930's and it is only thanks to a very courageous actions by hank paulson and ben bernanke at the time of the crisis, including doing stress tests on banks when it wasn't clear what the results were going to be, that we got .ut of it comparatively cheaply i wouldn't say it is cheap because we are sitting with a period of low growth that has gone on for seven or eight years.

re-examining -- we don't want to do more examination than necessary. it is difficult. the illusion that the public has that the examiner should know everything that the management of the bank knows and should be able to spot every problem in the bank, when the management presumably is not interested in having a london whale or something like that, is an illusion. we have to do our best. we have to set a framework of regulations that will be supportive of stability in the banking system. leveredat in a very framework -- the for the crisis, they had about 2% capital, they levered 50 times. you never thought of that.

but banking systems are vulnerable. when they are vulnerable to a loss of confidence, you have a tremendously difficult time putting it back together. that is what we are trying to do. i think the united states banking system is in very good shape now. we will keep on re-examining regulations. i hope the private sector will make clear which regulations toy find are unnecessary produce financial stability and keep letting us know. , asts like this professional groupings, groups of banks, all can have an influence if they write or talk with us about what needs to be reduced. be reduced without creating greater risk of financial instability. >> with that we have to end.

please join me in thanking stanley fischer. [applause] from the wall street journal ceo council meetings, the national security advisor, susan rice. she spoke about turkey's role in the fight against isis. [applause] >> good afternoon, welcome back. ambassador rice, thank you very with us.ed for being a lot of bad stuff happening in the world and most of it ends up on your plate. let's start with the fight against islamic state, isis, whatever we call it. the president, when he announced the reaction, said the goal was and destroy the

islamic state. how much has it been degraded, and when can we expect it to be destroyed? >> if it has been degraded, i think the president has been clear, this is not a campaign that is going to be won overnight. it is a long-term endeavor and a multifaceted endeavor. it is not just a military run. it is also about preventing the flow of foreign fighters. it is about degrading and it is about of losing its narrative of hate and its bastardization of islam. we have brought together about 30 states in a coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. ine are involved

humanitarian assistance. some are in a military campaign. it is a very endeavor. taking two forms -- primarily one, we have begun what will be a long-term process of working with the iraqi government under the new leadership of prime minister of i.dy --abbad efforts to hold up the capacity of the sunni tribes, ultimately in the form of a national guard, also our support for the kurdish aetschmer got -- to provide viable ground force that can take that territory from isil. seen in the effort to hold back and repel the assault,

taking the refinery and the mosul dam, we have seen success. holding back an assault on baghdad. incrementally and it is very tough going in anwar, seeing some progress there. there will be good days and bad days. that will be rebuilt. hasair campaign, which consisted of hundreds and hundreds of stripes has contributed substantially to that progress. timesil campaign will take and in syria in particular it will be more challenging because, unlike in iraq, we do not have a government with which we can and will cooperate. you are looking to do more of the of the administration and its allies, to do more, and we have had too, discussions

with turkey, creating some sort of safe haven, no fly zones. the fight against islamic state, -- you cantinues also then from the turkish point of view, of course it is obligated by the fact that they and want to remove policy get rid of a sauce. -- of assad. is there going to be a no-fly zone? >> the reporting has gotten ahead of the policy decisions. can i give you some granularity? turkey has borne the brunt of the refugee outpouring and has a critical role to play in many asked x -- aspects, counter

financing, countering the flow of foreign fighters, and could play an increasingly important role in the military site if it chose to do so. already turkey has committed to providing a training facility, as has saudi arabia, for our efforts to train the money it -- the moderate syrian opposition. that is a very important contribution. we are able to use turkish facilities for different parts of our operations. is, would turkey be willing to go all in, as some of , withab countries have their positions? they share our strong view that lost all legitimacy and you cannot have a stable syria as long as he is in power, but their statement on the counter-isil campaign has

established a broad swath of a no-fly zone and safe even. our view is that given that this is a multi-front, multifaceted campaign, the weight of our effort ought to remain in iraq and the airstrikes in the support for the moderate opposition in syria will in the first instance support our efforts in iraq and in the second instance, deny isil a is that we face think the establishment of a no-fly zone or safe zone at this andt is at best premature, would be a major investment of resources, that would be something of a diversion frankly from the primary task at hand. even though we are very much continuing to can out and exchange views -- consult and exchange views with the turks and looking at all ideas short of a no-fly zone or safe haven that we might agree on that

would accomplish our shared objectives, those conversations are ongoing. -- so, no safe haven right now? >> we are going in the direction of no safe haven at this point. left of strategic clarity here about what you're trying to do. you are flying on multiple -- fighting on multiple fronts. you are not fighting, but some of your allies are fighting -- isil, but also syria. there are critics who say -- what is your strategic objective here with regard to both isil, we know, but with regard to area and the assad regime, what will the three look like? are those who like us to broaden the campaign to go beyond countering isil, to take

on other causes in the region, inc. looting using military force directly -- including using military force directly to take on a side -- assad. that settlement ultimately needs to come through political means. trying been invested in to accelerate that settlement by trying to build up the capacity and the moderate syrian opposition. haveve sought and thus far received support from congress to begin and wrapup that effort. >> is there a reliable moderate syrian opposition? >> there is a moderate syrian opposition. on multipleo fight fronts, and yes, it is facing significant strains, particularly in the north. in the south, we have seen greater regrets. >> [indiscernible] sorry. >> not at all.

challenge for our states and these allies joined in this coalition is tuesday focused on the challenge of countering isil. for that to succeed, ultimately we need to see a political transmission in syria, in which assad is removed, but the ultimate goal has to be to destroy eiffel and not get sucked into a multi-front military endeavor. >> be president has been very clear, you have been very clear. many inthe criticism of the military, saying this can be achieved without the deployment of u.s. ground forces -- >> in combat. >> in combat. you still believe that can be achieved? >> yes. this is by no means our first experience on the ground. any battlefield progress ultimately to be sustained,

because at any event, at some stage, united states and coalition forces will leave. it has to be owned and maintained by the indigenous forces, and in the case of iraq, the iraqi security forces and syria, ultimately by syrians. in iraq, the approach we've that is trying to a build iraqi capacity in a sustainable way. will recall the president announced that in addition to our military presence, we will be advising and assisting and training, but it will not be in calvet -- combat. it will be at forward training facilities, outside baghdad, outside reveal -- but if they are not doing it and owning it and committed to it,

in a multi-sectarian fashion, it will evaporate, and we have seen the proof of that. we've got to do this in a way that will be sustainable. >> one final question. if this administration had not withdrawn all u.s. forces from iraq, which was pretty much one of the president's goals when he , do you.s. president think we would see the kind of chaos and turmoil we are seeing now? >> what we're seeing is not a function of the decision -- that in fact president bush made when he signed the transition agreement to downscale our presence. >> there was an option to leave forces? >> yes, and the united states was prepared to do that will stop the iraqi government under maliki was not prepared to do that, to provide the exceptions where that would be possible. we have been ready and willing

as we have been in afghanistan, and as we will do in afghanistan, to leave behind a aduced american presence -- little under 10,000 -- to provide that kind of ongoing training assistance. reason why, the real in iraq it has been twofold -- one, the rise of isil. an outgrowth of al qaeda in secondly, the really dismal governing authority that maliki divided, which was sectarian, which was corrupt, which didn't invest in maintaining the capabilities of the iraqi security versus that had -- forces that had been built up. lunch where we witnessed in a two size and cross-dressing, i think -- [laughter] bob menendez, the

democrat, and rand paul, the republican. randre talking about iran, paul was completely supportive of the administration from negotiation strategy with iran. menendez said he would bring forward a resolution in the next three weeks that would intensify the sanctions regime, increase the sanctions regime on iran from march, first of april of this new two-part deadline from march to make sure pressure is maintained. iranrries, he fears that will play this out and the sanctions will gradually be , that he- weakened will produce legislation that will require you to increase the sanctions on iran. what do you say to that? >> at think our view is that would not be constructive.

let me explain why. we say that we have an agreement to extend the negotiations for an a distant -- for an additional set of months. more months for policy framework, three more months for the technical implementation details. why? the negotiations have made progress. while there are significant gaps that remain, they have been --ce antley narrowed substantially narrowed and we have found throughout this process, negotiations have been serious, they have been substantive, and they are moving in the right direction. secondly, we have an interim agreement that was negotiated and agreed a year ago. if you look back where we were a year ago and where we are now, we are in a much better place today than we were a year ago. a year ago, there were 200 enriched of 20% highly

uranium that the rainy and sat at the ready they could quickly a nuclear weapon. all 200 kilograms are no longer usable for that purpose. they are not progressing beyond enrichment at 5%, whereas before the renault constraint. the iraq plutonium facility, which had been on a fast track to giving iran the plutonium pathway to a nuclear weapon has been frozen, and there is no continue progress on the iraq facility. we have unprecedented trends baronetcy -- transparency. whereas prior to this agreement, iaea had very little

insight. -- whichrim agreement many said would come at the expense of sanctions -- is not , has not only been upheld by the ukrainian side buspar, but has halted the nuclear program and rolled it back in key respects, prolonging the breakup time and giving us far greater insight into their capabilities than we have ever had. the sanctions have largely held together -- actually, more than largely. they have held together. and there it is a degradation of the sanctions regime that everyone fair that has not come to pass. it would be foolish to jettison when the prospect

of a comprehensive agreement remains insight, if not imminent . know if the united states were to unilaterally impose additional sanctions, we would blow these negotiations. the international community would blame the united dates rather than a round for the collapse of the negotiations, and the iranians would conclude there was little point in continuing the process at the negotiating table. that does not make good policy sets from the perspective of achieving a sustainable and to iran from nuclear program. >> let's move on quickly to actor. bat after -- bad vladimir putin in russia. buspar, he sanctions has not disgorged any of the legitimate gains he has made in

ukraine. he is putting pressure on other countries in the region. you have not stopped him. what can you do to stop him from these rather grandiose territorial ambitions? >> what we have done is built and maintained through american europe andunity with key partners outside of europe and the g7 in a where, who all ande -- and elsewhere, while agree, that russia's actions are illegal and destabilizing and have to come at a cost. in a formhas come that few expected would be as economicnd significant sanctions as we have imposed and continued to impose. these are not just targeting individuals are individual companies, but broad sectors of the russian economy, and they have been joined -- we are actually joint every step of the

way by the europeans and we have maintained that solidarity. russianwhere the economy is. it has suffered substantially over the last year as a result of sanctions and as a result of declining oil prices. powerful. is pretty says they are barely growing if it all. >> you expect that all to make him back down? you do? >> it is a significant cost on russia for his actions and these are factors putin has to take into account when he considers his next step. russia has pulled back from its pipeline to southern europe is also important. that, to, is indicative of the mounting costs russia is waiting for his behavior. europe is looking at russia and saying we do not want further

economic and energy dependence on putin's russia. as a result, a project championed by putin and the russian government is not likely to materialize. meanwhile, we are maximizing what europeans and others have supported. we have put $100 million just this year in security assistance, including a range of increasingly severe kidded support-- sophisticated radar. and of the same time we have considered and will continue to consider other forms of support desk economic, political, and security -- to the government of ukraine. one quick question before we open it up to questions. china. the president has just come back from a summit meeting with president xi jinping and a

series of other leaders in asia, made a great deal out of a deal that was done, particularly on climate change, but doesn't that deal to some extent get at what some people worry about right now? there is an unequal relationship between the u.s. and the rest of the world these days that seems to require the u.s. to make what a lot of sacrifices, and with some long distant date on china's carbon emissions, which people think that china is probably going to hit anyway. this isear here that the way unfortunately the world is going? the united states and these -- in these relationships [indiscernible] neverst of all, china has , until a month ago, agree to any constraints in any binding fashion on his carbon emissions. >> they are serious? .> they are quite serious

and if they are met, it will be a major contribution, along with ours, to curbing global emissions, giving us real momentum also going into the conference next year of the larger global turn -- climate change initiative. are different countries of different sizes, different stages of development. china has never before made the kind of concrete and significant commitment that it made. think that that is not a result of a lakh of american leadership, but quite the opposite. leadership that we put together, that they were able to achieve. of your colleagues might be most interested -- the economic forum.

we made real progress in the information technology agreement that will probably be the breakthrough for the global understanding. the united states and china will also look to extend these of validity from one year to 10 years, and for student visas from one year to five years. the economic impact of that is projected to be within the next 10 years to 15 years, worth about $85 billion a year to the u.s. economy? interest.a's economic >> it is in our mutual economic interest. about 400 million jobs will be supported. that is a big deal. that is one more element of the economic relationship, the global issues, and we also have an important breakthrough on

military transparency measures military's come into proximity, we can hopefully manage that with minimal risk. chalked upmmit that successes on a variety of fronts to show the multifaceted nature of the u.s. relationship with , where we also differ, we will continue to make sure that our interest and values are upheld. china has a history of unequal treaties. maybe this time it will be another way around. >> no -- >> to questions. the microphone is coming around. >> there are many geopolitical risks. which one do you worry about the most? >> clearly, we need to be concerned about the things that

can shake the foundations of the global economy. i am not a congressman and i'm not going to get deeply into this. we need to worry about growth thank you parcells in the world, including in europe and in asia, and any number of things can shake that. even things that one would not have anticipated a few months ago. we spent a lot of time, for instance, as you suggested -- this is the has of your a lot of we have spent time trying to combat the ebola epidemic, which was on for seen beyondago and spread west africa to other parts of the world. it could be one of those exogenous factors that could undermine growth. amongst thee are

things that one has to worry about, and that is one of the many reasons we are invested heavily in trying to stop the epidemic at it source and build the global health security infrastructure. this is the kind of shock one might not expect from one day to the next, but one has to be prepared for. >> next question, the microphone is coming around you. >> thank you, ambassador rice. i just want to go back a little youroo your comments -- to iran.ts on there is a point of view emerging, that affects the markets, as we get closer to

we may be faced with getting closer to that time before the interim agreement where there were serious can about- serious concerns the potential size of the military option. i would be interested in your observation and comments, as we get closer to march and potentially of june of next year and we do not have an agreement -- can you share with us your thinking of what is next? what are these that? what is the scenario thereafter? >> let's remember what the objective is. the objective is to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. and to do so in a sustainable way. the best way to accomplish that is for iran to decide and commit at the negotiating table to give

up nuclear capacity. where countries have done that, we have seen it as sustainable. united states, we have been very clear and president obama has been very clear, we're not taking any options off the table. interest and our first desire is to accomplish this at the negotiating table. sanctions, which we were discussing previously, both the un's sanctions and our withnal sanctions combined the eu sanctions, have had an led iran to come thus far to the negotiating table, and i think in the up failurethe full of the talks, that is something that we and others would look at again. i want to be clear, the idea that senator menendez it forward is not wrong in and of itself.

i think the timing is still considered. it would not be timely while we are still working through negotiations to propose additional sanctions, because that would in fact fracture of and the two hour discredit in terms of international perception. all of these tools remain potentially at hand. ate of them are sustainable achieving -- as sustainable at achieving this result as the negotiating table and we're continuing our efforts in that regard, particularly while we are in a better certain than with the interim agreement than we were without it, and we would be if it were to expire.

>> let me ask one final question if i may. there is concern in the world among america's allies that there has been a lakh of strength of conviction of leadership, a lakh of real leadership. the president says there is a and syriawhich assad did not cross over chemical weapons. jv teams to isil as a and now we are engaged in a long-term struggle. he says we cannot let presidents take hold of these games, and yet nothing seems to be changing very much. is there a sense that there is a lack of clarity? and given how much excitement there was one president obama was elected, around the world in particular -- broadly speaking it is an application of american leadership.

>> we must be traveling in two different worlds. this. say when you look at the challenges we are facing internationally, an isil that has gained ground , and ebola syria epidemic that arose and spread without great morning, putin, who had gone into georgia and did so with no cost, no international sanctions under the previous administration has impressive, ,ultilateral biting sanctions the response to be a bullet epidemic, the building of a coalition with 60 partners, all of this has been american leadership.

none of this would have happened without the united states and president obama. epidemic would be raging in west africa and the response would be piecemeal and feckless. anybodyuld not be leaving the coalition against isil. the notion that the u.s. is not playing a leadership role, believe me, is not when we are hearing when we go to aipac where the economic leadership is unparalleled. where the economy is growing, coming out of recession over the last six years to a position of growth. u.s. is in a strong position here. we are leading, building coalitions. addressing global challenges. seizing opportunities, whether the opportunity to lead the

world to combat climate change. to build a long-term, sustainable health and that keeps the american people safe. whether it is concluding what we hope will be a trans pacific trade agreement. these are things that are a a product of an energetic, economically strong and recovering american leadership. without which i shudder to think where we would be. her daynk you can tell is busy and she has been kind to spend some of it with us. please join us in thanking her. [applause] will look atanel whether the blackout of certain sports broadcasts are harmful. ofwill hear from officials

the fcc. live coverage begins tomorrow morning from the senate judiciary committee at 10:15 on c-span3. chuck defense secretary hagel will talk about a report on sexual assault in the military. ,hat starts at 1:30 eastern also on c-span3. >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on the c-span networks weird saturday at 11:00 a.m., live coverage of the memorial service for marion barry. 8:00, andning at compton who retired after 40 years. 10:00, jasont at on how the northeast u.s. was not always the haven of racial equality and supportive of civil rights. sunday at noon, a live

three-hour conversation with arthur brooks. with your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. american history tv, saturday t 8:00 :00, martha jones on female slaves. us -- bush'sw put secretary james baker. schedule onplete c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> now incoming foreign relations chair bob corker talks priorities.n policy

topics include syria, russia, and iran. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. on behalf of my board of directors, it is a pleasure to welcome you to our forum. i want to thank the presenting sponsor raytheon. before introducing the first panel, i want to note that the framing issue is a world in crisis. we could have no better introductory panel to address bob corkerhen addressing the question of what the u.s. should do. fred will be moderating the discussion. he served in 2000 as the editorial page editor for the washington post.

every monday, he publishes a column which i believe everyone reads religiously. he has also served as bureau chief in tokyo and moscow. it is a great pleasure to welcome him. thank you both. >> thank you all. corker.u, senator he was elected to the senate in 1996. 2012 active on the banking committee for purposes ranking member of the foreign relations committee. our schedule says we are supposed to talk about iran. i would like to begin with that.

the senator has agreed we can branch further afield. we will solve all the problems of the world. let's start with iran. better to postpone and come back with a bad what would a good agreement look like? is it still possible, based on what you know the administration and its allies have already agreed to? felt in a bipartisan way. city sir -- senator menendez has been vocal. we begin with the initial agreement that put us online not to do the kind of deal that most americans that would be an appropriate deal with iran. anyplace where

we are already behind the curve. how do you figure out a way to make it better. one of the ways to put it in context, if you think about where the negotiators are, they are hoping to stave off for a time until there is a different regime in iran. iran is hoping to alleviate sanctions until they can quickly moved to a nuclear weapon. this is an interesting dynamic. length think about the of term of the agreement, it becomes pretty frightening. we all began talking about a 20 year term with incredible .nsights now the administration is

talking about a double-digit length. which means 10 years. iran is talking about five. you get the concern that likely they will split the baby in and up with a 7-8-year deal. overly, you realize that seven or eight years, based on the way they are going, you end up in a situation where iran is in a situation where they are treated like any other country. they have had all their sanctions removed. they are in a much different place. all along the way have been developing the ability to deliver. one of the things that is not covered in the agreement is their ability to develop delivery systems. it is pretty problematic when

using about it in that context. what can congress do? do, theest thing to simple as thing to do -- it is probably not going to happen. away with the -- national security waivers so they would have to come back to congress. some article two people and others would criticize that approach. the other thing we can do is what the bill now states. to comehat they have back to us for an approval which i think gives the administration utility to negotiate a much stronger arrangement. if you look at everything that has happened within iran, the ayatollah's the one that is the backstop from keeping something more moderate from occurring. i think congress has played a productive rolled us far. i think the negotiators would agree.

robust thanr more where they are today. secondly, getting into the pa military dimensions, to go beyond that is a total loser for us. we have to get them to come clean with what their past military dimensions were. intogives us some energy the operations that otherwise we would not get. i am very concerned about where we are. i think we are headed to a place lose leverage and not get much. we used to talk about this -- now we are talking about basically unplugging, dealing with plumbing in a different way. robust,see a more see congress and the senate play a more robust role.

>> some in congress want to go further than your bill. impose more sanctions now. this would help the negotiators. season -- susan rice says it would blow up the talks. what is your view? >> i cosponsored the bill that does that. we had some language in there what a good deal would look like. these sanctions are not sanctions that would go in place today. remember you go, what would happen is they would put sanctions in place, should a deal not be reached. it also would snap back the sanctions that have been eliminated should a deal not be reached. it is difficult to understand how that is problematic. adding any sanctions at present. you are saying if you don't reach a deal, it is going to get tougher on the country. there is not a lot of

credibility that exists relative to the threats. say,e other hand, i will you can write letters and say a that you know are never going to make it into legislation. we are going to be in the majority. we are in the majority come january. knew -- dothat we ed to be helpful. i think there needs to be a lot more discussions about why imposing additional sanctions, if we do not end up with a deal, would cause the situation to dissipate. it is hard to understand why that would be a problem. >> you refer to the things iran is doing. part of what is underlying this is there are people who argue , if notnaturally a u.s.

an ally, a partner. we don't have competing interests. both countries look at isis as a threat. administration has looked at these talks as opening the way to broader cooperation. other people have a view that is naive. were in agreement, would it open up the possibility of a better relationship? >> we don't know, do we. it looks like an agreement, if one is reached, will be of a short-term nature. , one ofy of state kerry his traits is to see the world as he wishes it to be. i think that is an and knowledge to worldview.

it is hard to say. it worked with us. in south africa, to deal with them in a way, they came forward end up with the world community relative to their nuclear weapons. there is no indication that is with iran. pre-1970 nine, they were an ally. things have changed. prudence would go on the side of not being naive about what could happen. actually wanting to see some changes of behavior as things are taking place. not just should these negotiations include the nuclear component but their role in the region right now. they do have u.s. blood on their hands. there's no question about that. us, ine, contrary to

many places. the fact that these negotiations are taking place and have not come to consummation at present. that is keeping the administration from doing the syria.that maybe done in >> explain that. what should we be doing because -- that we are not because of iran? isi think that there certainly sort of private side the agreement -- is certainly at least one component of a more robust policy in syria because of the ties that exist between the regime and a sod.

there is no question that there is a tie their. -- there. the president is not in a place where -- this is a personal thing, i believe he is at a place where he is not ready to have a more robust policy in syria and still has concerns. i would be be first to admit we have a complex situation there. i would also say negotiations with iran are another impediment to that. there are discussions about cooperation, as you just mentioned. that cooperation means at doesnt, the administration not want to overly agitated regime. arguments i have, aside from whatever personal feelings and convictions he may have against more robust action, there seem to be two.

one is it would take it to the united states in iraq. the other is you would open the way for extremist to take over in syria. howdy respond to those concerns, if you are advocating a more nti-assadtire sod -- a campaign. ssad does not mean -- if you listen closely to the conversations, there is a desire for him to leave. also to figure out some way to have a government. this is easy to talk about, harder to do, as we have seen over and over. -- sorte some side of of partnership between the bureaucrats that exist within syria and have the ability to cause the government to

function, so we don't do the same thing we did in 2003 in iraq. populationthe sunni into the full degree a again, that is easier said than done. keeping many of the intellect, if you well, in place. back to iraq. at the end of the day, it is not in iran's interest. they have actually a live interests -- allied interests with us in many ways. it's not in their interest for sunni extremists to gain territory. we have allowed a complex situation to become more complex syria having a policy in for as long as we have had it. it has made it more difficult. at present, that is the reason

we have continued to talk to them. we talk to the administration about the issue. they are not ready to come to .ongress for an aumf they are not in a position to articulate a strategy in syria the common sense test. i do think general allen -- >> the president said he wants congress to pass an aumf. >> everyone here is steeped in the tradition of how we deal with foreign policy. when an administration seeks an authorization, they seek it by setting up a draft of what it is they are seeking. thing, and i became particularly upset with secretary kerry, he said, we

don't need an authorization. but if you guys want to be constructive and right one, that is fine. that is a silly game. what is left out of that is the administration coming up and explaining clearly, selling to congress what they are attempting to do. that is why to me it is very important, as i stressed yesterday, for them to come and ask. the piece that is so important is, they have to lay out the outcome they are seeking. they cannot really do that today. lay out how they are going to go about making it happen. it is easy to say what i just said, but more difficult -- by the way, it is difficult, i've knowledge that. what i hope is going to occur is they are going to come forth explicitly. toondarily, they are going -- and importantly, they are

going to talk about how they are going to achieve that. they have no idea yet. general is making some good strides. the focus on the northwest triangle, where around the aleppo area, you do not creating we a no-fly zone. it is in essence a no-fly zone. there is also training of the moderate rebels. assad in to do with such a way, because turkey becomes more of all, he realizes maybe there is a reason for him to negotiate a settlement where he is out of there. i think alan is making good strides. them some time, although the nuclear negotiations create complications, they may come

forth with something congress can buy into. one of the things we need to ensure does not happen is they come seek an authorization. we are not able to pass it. that is a loser for our country. a loser for middle east policy. need to be we working together to begin talking about what that should look like. laide it is especially -- explicitly laid out. if you look forward six months, and they did not manage to come up with an agreement, which seems plausible given how far apart they are. the president has always said options are not off the table. been speculation about whether he means it. a lot of people who say military

options are losers because at most you set them back to years. if it is morally justified, it is strategically a mistake. you are going to be a position -- in a position where your views will be important. >> i don't think that, first of all, you go back in time to read we did what we did in iraq. i think it is a knowledged it had a big impact on iran. believe theypeople had an illicit program underway. it had military dimensions. it stopped for a time. the threat of force, the concern about maybe the same thing happening in their particular

situation, had an impact. i don't they have any throttled -- thought today. i think they believe this president, i think our intelligence officials say they are nuts gushing in iran the threat of connecticut activity. -- kinetic activity. oh with day,part, with a presidential election coming up in another potential president coming in, would that be of concern to them? i think it would. is why people have been, like senator menendez, that is why people have been so concerned about the path we are on. we have had extreme leverage. the international community has her in a unique way.

it appears we are about to let the leverage dissipate over a the that will change dynamic of what we have to work with. the is where administration, i know they get caught up in their own rhetoric. people have concerns about the deal who are warmongers. it is the opposite. people who are concerned about the deal are concerned we are giving up the leverage that, in a bipartisan way, we have worked hard to create. we are will -- we will end up in a situation where they have more capability relative to break up capacity. >> if they came back with an agreement, a short-term agreement, that you thought was do in theatever you senate, won't every other country say, this was good enough for president obama?

is there any possibility of keeping the sanctions up at that point? >> that is a great point. i was talking to a democratic senator yesterday not on the foreign relations committee. foreign policy is something you want to develop a bipartisan consensus on if you can. him about thiso bill. wouldn't it be good if the president had to come back to for approval? his response was, what senator would really vote to approve a deal with iran? is i think when you get to that situation, what a senator is going to have to wait is, the international community is going to fall apart .

in essence, what iran is urging go aheaddent to do is and temporarily suspend. they are not concerned about whether congress approves or not. the he temporarily suspends deal is over. the international coalition has broken apart. that is why they have said directly to the administration, it doesn't matter to them whether it is permanently done. the temporary suspension meets their needs. they understand exactly what you are saying. as all of us have concerns about where we are, i do think a congress faced with the situation of approving or not approving would certainly take into consideration the reaction of the international community. our ability to work together towards an and relative to iran. that will be on any thoughtful person's mind.

most people, when it comes to issues like this, the thoughtful component comes out. we have time for one or two more questions. let me ask you one on russia. of arming ukraine, also of nato stationing troops in the balkans, some say, why provoke? other say, let's to two or -- deter. howdy think a republican senate will look at the question? i think the worst moment in american foreign-policy since i have been here, as far as signaling to the world where we were as a nation, was august a year ago. we had a 10 hour operation that was getting ready to take place

in syria and it did not happen. not only did not happen, we did not communicate with those folks we're going to be a part of it with us until they watched the .resident on cnn that was devastating to us. soared to bee, putin'sal, jumped in lot. we are where we are today in syria. we lost momentum with the syrian rebels, the moderate opposition. let's go to russia. that was a learning experience for putin. some effect on his calculations in ukraine. when he had 40,000 troops on the before anything had happened in eastern ukraine, that is when we should have hit them with significant sanctions. we did not. we tweaked some folks around him.

and so we let the genie get out of the bottle. he is writing a nationalistic wave that everybody in the room knows about. it is difficult to dismount from that. especially when you have economic issues. you have to have something holding things together. i have been disappointed in the administration withheld off for some time. still, i don't think is fully clean here. we had intelligence of died ukraine.- inside we knew exactly what russia was doing, where they were doing it is not sure that. we urge them to do what they did. we were not share that becau