attention has been put into community policing that works so well under the david dinkins's administration. we reap the benefits of that type of policing today. every police department in the nation, one way or another, they get federal money, federal funding. the justice department. i don't know whether that should whether or not legislation should be required. the same way the police department put so much attention into stats, whenever they see robberies are happening. crimes are happening. they go and target that like a laser. we should do the same and bring accountability.

whenever we see complaints being filed by civilians and citizens who complain about their civil rights being violated. about police misconduct. when the justice department should receive a report quarterly or annual he or every or every sixy months to decide whether or not special attention by the department of justice should happen. >> going through a public database of police complaints. >> correct. filed and submitted to the department of justice. >> thank you, everyone. spokeas congressman green about the ferguson protest and what is called the hands up movement. he also responded to recent

criticism from talkshow host jay scarborough. i rise today to say thank you to the many persons who serve in law enforcement. their difficult jobs and they do their jobs well. i salute them. the many people engage in peaceful protest. what they have attempting -- have been attempting to do i support. aliveul protest can make -- a difference in the lives of people. i know because i stand here today because of peaceful protests. on what i said yesterday when i indicated i would give a response today to a query made on morning joe. i want you to know that i do not believe the query was made with malice aforethought.

i think it was a genuine expression of concern. while intonations and expressions may, tate otherwise to some i believe this is a question that needs to be answered. the question was, what is wrong with these people? meeting three members of congress. what is wrong with these people that they would come to the well of the house of representatives and hold their hands up. what is wrong with them. here is the answer my dear brother. wrongme thing that was with the pilgrims and cause them to come to plymouth rock. the same thing that caused a persons to throw tea into the boston harbor. the same thing that caused farmers to traverse the country on tractors and come to the united states capital to protest. the same thing that cause rosa parks to take a seat on a bus against the law. the same thing that caused dr.

king to march from selma to montgomery. the same thing that cause what is known as bloody sunday. what's wrong with these people? they refused to accept injustice. i refuse to accept injustice. what happened in ferguson was an injustice. i refuse to accept injustice. injustice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere. injustice in ferguson is a threat to justice in houston. a threat to justice in boston. injustice anywhere is still a threat to injustice -- to justice everywhere. i will continue to hold my hands up. i will continue to support those who engage in peaceful protest because holding one's hands up is an indication that you don't have anything that would be areful, an indication you

willing to move freely and give an opinion about something you believe to be important. i think this will symbolize a metamorphose will far beyond the initial reason for being developed. i'm convinced this will not eviscerate, it will not evaporate that it will not go away. i also want to note that what happened with the rams players was a seminal moment and i want to legitimize what they did. that i willdy said have flags flown over the united states of america in each person's name. some but he will say, what about those who may have committed a crime? washington was not perfect but we honored him. jefferson was not perfect but we honor him.

i am going to honor them for what they did at that seminal moment just as i believe john carlos and tommy smith should be honored for what they did when they held their hands up indicating that they were protesting at the olympics in 68. i am a mr. speaker, am honored to have this opportunity today to indicate to the world finally that dr. king was right when he said, the truest measure of the person is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience. when everybody is patting you on the back and everybody loves. the truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience. the truest measure is where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy? when people are throwing the slings and arrows of life

because you took a simple stand against. injustice and it was injustice. i regret iin it and was not invited to the program to give my point of view go-ahead to take to the floor of the house of representatives to give what i would have given if given the opportunity. >> on our next "washington journal." islandok at the staten decision not to indict a police officer in the eric garner case in new york. jeffries will join us to discuss that case. later republican sean duffy will talk about federal funding and immigration policy. live atton journal" 7:00 each morning on c-span. a senate panel look at

whether the blackout of certain sports rad casts and the antitrust exemptions are harmful to fans. our live coverage begins tomorrow morning from the senate .udiciary committee on c-span 3 later defense secretary chuck hagel will talk about our report on sexual assaults in the military. here are some of the programs you will find this weekend. saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, live coverage of the memorial service for marion barry. 8:00, andning at compton who recently retired after 40 years as the abc news white house correspondent. saturday night at 10:00 on c-span two, jason sokol on how

the northeastern u.s. wasn't always the haven of equality. our livey at noon three-hour conversation with arthur brooks with your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. history lectures in history on c-span three. martha jones on female slaves and the law. sunday at 8:00, president george bush's james baker on the fall of the berlin wall. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. e-mail us. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook follow us on twitter. the feist chair of the

federal reserve board of governors stanley visscher talks about the u.s. economy. he spoke to a wall street journal economics correspondent. >> good morning everybody. thank you vice chairman ficsher for joining us. we have a special treat, in addition to being the vice chairman of the fed, mr. fischer was the 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. they have fallen 25% this year

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. the deep underlying factor is the change in the situation of the united states. people say we net import energy but much less significantly. that is a big thing. then we have the issue of what opec did and it is clear the opec areproducers in

trying to do with they did in the past which is to get some of the other guys out to maintain their market share 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. very good on the whole for 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? >> the chinese -- 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 credit in the response to the great recession and it particularly hit real estate and they are trying to adapt to that. they have to be fairly tight on credit for a while though they have eased up lately. so they have a problem adapting to growth at more normal rates for country doing well at their level of income. the historical patent is from japan and other countries, korea in the past. 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. we still have to remind ourselves that china is a factor

in the world economy, growing at 7% now is much more important than china growing at 10% even 10 years ago. its gdp has doubled during that. -- during that period. it is adding more to global demand now than it was 10 years ago. >> christine lagarde said last in 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? >> i never 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 then. 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 can help europe -- on whether qe can help europe? >> are you his deputy in this? >> i would be happy to relay the information. [laughter] >> i think -- my goodness. >> i don't know if that is some kind of a signal about qe. [laughter]

that could be a signal of a hard landing. >> not to embarrass anybody, but michelle smith of the fed told me if i did something she was going to press the fire alarm. [laughter] i guess it just happened. i think they could get somewhere. i don't think the structure of the markets and the outstanding debt, and the complicated shternational -- interme 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.

>> before we turn to the u.s., i 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 company is seeking -- is planning its biggest investment increase in 2015. we should have a few choices. 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. 77% increase -- 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 further the tax increase, the second half of the tax increase.

these things have a massive impact. it happened in 1997 and we got an absolute rerun right now. secondly, kuroda undertaking -- 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 risk 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. there's been a lot of discussion 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. we talked about europe and we talked about 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? >> what is the impact of foreign slow demand or negative growth of the u.s. economy? there is such an impact but it is not the main driver of the united states economy.

if unemployment continues to decline, if the labor market continues to strengthen, and if we see some signs of inflation beginning to increase, then the 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? >> we can do that, and if inflation is really hitting south, we will have to do that. we have said we are data-driven 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 over 2%, 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. >> the fed has 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 signals from 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.

so as the 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? they can guess 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.

>> how high do you think rates 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. the sign of productivity growth 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. that is just -- 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. if that were the case, then we 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. i 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 fed, that there are concerns

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. how do you respond to those criticisms, that they are 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. unless you the politicians do something. 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 it 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 pressure on asset prices, taking them close to possibly bubble proportions. i have to deal with that in the

bank of israel because the financial system goes through crisis. when the financial system is broken as it was in the united states in 2008-2009, you do not necessarily create bubbles and thinkticular i don't anyone thinks we've got a real estate bubble in the united states. the financial difficulties that lead to financial crises, they typically involve real estate construction. there are other times, there was bubble a the high tech few years ago at the turn of the century. but basically it real estate. we're very far from that. areasare a few local where it's lower than you'd

like. i think what's being done is that those countries with systems,inancial norway, hong kong, singapore, israel as well, have had australia, have had trouble with real estate are very high and frequently rising. ther countries which under crisis haven't had to deal with that problem because the financial system isn't doing would normally do. >> in the united states we're loans,booms in leverage junk bond, other asset classes. you?'t that worry >> we can't sit around judging every single asset price and we'll dealis one with rather than let the market deal with it, and that one we'll with. you've got to leave the markets to do their thing and for us to the an overall judgment on overall level of what's going on. if we see a cries is that looks a bubble or a boom in a

sector that looks like it will for theor consequences whole economy, we need to intervene. if it's something which the markets should be correcting, the markets should correct it. >> we're trying to figure out if it was the chinese or the u.s. market sending you a signal here.he building collapse >> i know it difficult to generalize, but how would you describe the animal spirits of corporates at the moment, are focused on investment and growth, are they focused on cost? are they making capital investments? to maket's difficult generalizations, but could you loftyhe view from your perch. perch, not from my lofty

it's from my shave this morning it. i actually haute about but there's a way for, i was years, coming back and living again in the united states you have a sense loss of confidence in the society. lot.t's got a whole reasons which we don't need to go into. i have a slight sense that animal spirits are not as be.al-like as they used to and it will take a while for business to regain confidence in the environment in which it works. and for the society to begin to banks again.s and so i think there's more rebuilding to be done. think that is visible in the fact that the level of not as high as you would have expected given rates, given the rate of employment, the low rate of relatively low, et

cetera. .o i have a sense back., in the >> dr. fisher, recently participated in a conversation was thee gist of it pace of technology, the pace of is aoccur, at such a rapid rate, much more rapidly than the employment or people that was to that, and causing some of the unemployment and income inequality. curious as to your reaction to that. >> well, the pace of change thes very rapid, and one of problems with that view is when you don'tt the data see it. the famous quote due to my m.i.t. when i was

there, robert solo, in the early was the computer revolution is visible everywhere data. in the and then a few years later it data. evident in the i think that we're at that stage to the current technology. technology ist producing inequality, from is, that.is some of phenomenaa lot of that one can describe. but my guess is as the economy begins to grow faster we'll see to declinebeginning somewhat. >> let me ask you a question that was send in on the tablet. unemployment rate in the u.s. for skilled positions is for unskilled positions remains high. is it really the feds thisnsibility to deal with

issue through monetary policy rather than congress' withnsibility to deal education, a safety net, et cetera? long as we are very aware that we're dealing with the overall rate of that we don't have or theo sues just one other and it wouldn't be good if there are government programs to a variety of issues like the ones you're talking about. the, in't think it's don't know whether it the fed's job or not. but there's another factor. the fed doesn't have the too manies to deal with the issues you've mentioned. it is, if those are important to society, and they to, it's incumbent on others do it. if we had the tools, i don't why whether we'd try to them given our mandate, but we don't. >> yes, please.

is donee tapering tapering, quawnity tative easing over at least for now, and that's all been met by a big market.the bond 10-year notes last i looked are about 2.25%. do you find it somewhat of theing that in light buying by the fed ending that interest rates in the 10-year and 30 year sector of the market have not moved up? >> it very hard to do controlled didriments, and we almost one unintentionally when the then chairman of the fed there was going to be an end to tapering. that was a controlled

it was said one day, and the next day you saw reactions. it seemed to work in the direction you think didn't over the period, long perfect in which many other things have happened in the slowdown,hinese japanese, et cetera. on.could go so we'd expect the term structure to be upward sloping, it is. we expect it will be affected by fed does. at i don't think we need this stage to worry that normal havee policy will not normally fek on interest rates. you a questionk about bank regulation. it's important to a lot of people in the room. want to ask you a broad question and a more specific question. the broad one is, lot of people here who think there's too much much it and it's restraining bank

lending. the more specific question is now heavilyes right on models through distress test programs,. inen the failures we've seen these models to predict how the economy is going to perform, why muchd we have so confidence that the models will work to find the next source of financial instability? >> well, they're not the same thing. for one the when i listen to this, you would imagine a banking system was working wsmly well when tore was less regulation, up 2007, 2008. i'm reminded a little bit about you visit a when country where something has apartheid has disappeared in south africa, supportedno one ever apartheid, at least no one i pefer toke to supported

africa.d in south you would think we didn't have crisis.king and everything is going well, and then the fed somehow got involved and made a mess there. a huge mess that had to be cleaned up. there may be too many there may not be. lot.e, what a my colleagues say is if we could rates, capital requirement higher, then we ofld reduce the amount regulation. but we're always operating on a banks arenwhere the trying various things to raise return.tes of they've got a lot. money, they can use for that purpose. and we are assigned the task of trying to maintain financial stability. if anybody under, if anybody thinks financial stability matter, you have a very, very short memory. we went through the worst

recession since the 1930's and to veryy thanks courageous actionings by hank by ben bernanke, tim geithner, at the time of the stressincluding doing tests on banks, when it wasn't clear what the results were going to be, that we got out of it comparatively cheaply. say it's cheap. because we're sitting with a in ad of, we're sitting period of low growth that's gone on for seven or eight years, growth is going up a little bit. reexaming.to be we don't want to do more examination than necessary, it's difficult. the illusion that the public has examiner should know everything that the management of the bank knows and should be every problem in the bank, when the management presumably is not interested in

a london wale or something lining that, is an illusion. we have to do our very best. we have to set a framework of beulations that will supportive of stability of the banking system. that in a very levered framework. crisis they had about 2% capital, they levered 350 times. you never thought of that. you thought they were very stable. but banking systems are vulnerable. are vulnerable to a loss of confidence and when the confidence goes, you have a tremendously difficult time putting it back together. that's what we're trying to do. states the united banking system fortunately is in now.y good shape and we will keep on reexamining regulations. i hope that the private sector will make clear which they find are

produce financial stability and keep letting us know. like this, groups, professional groupings, groups of banks, all can have an influence if they right things with usain or talk about what it is that needs to bereduced and that can reduced without creating greater instability.cial >> with that we'll have to end. stane join me in thanking fisher and john. [applause] >> more now from the "wall street journal" c.e.o. council meeting. coming up, we'll hear from national security advisor susan rice. she spoke about turkey's role had the fight against isis.

>> thank you for joining us. let's start with the fight isis,t islamic state, isil. the president when he announced few monthsy action a ago said the goal was to degrade isil.stroy can you give us an update on how that's going. how much has it's been degraded when can we expect to it be destroyed? >> well, it has been degraded. i think the president has been clear and we've all been clear from the outset that this is not that's going to be won overnight. it a long-term endeavor. multifaceted endeavor. one.t just a military but it is also about preventing the flow of foreign fighters.

it's about degrading and ability toil's finance itself. it's about opposing its hate and its bastardization of islam. nowwe have brought together 60 countries in a broad based inlition that are engaged all as respects of the effort to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. some are involved in providing humanitarian assistance, some in military campaign. endeavor.ied on the military side we have made progress and that progress taken two forms. primarily one, we have begun long-term process of working with the iraqi government under the new leadership of prime minister abada i to build back what have been substantially reduced the

number and quality iraqi secure forces. and to combine those with efforts to build up the exat of the sunni tribes ultimately in the form of a national guard, and also combined with our for the kurdish, to viable ground force that can take back isil.ory from we have seen in the effort to back and repel the assault success. the refinery and the dam, success. taking the border crossing, success. holding back an assault on baghdad, increment alley, and anbar,ry tough going in seeing some progress there. but there will be good days and bad days. that capacity has begun to be rebuilt. it's going to be a long-term process. which is inaign, both iraq and syria and

hundred of strikes, has contributed substantially to that progress. campaign is going to take time. in syria in particular it's even moree challenging because unlike in government't have a with which we can and will cooperate. >> let's look at syria in particular. obviously you're looking to do the administration and its allies are looking to do more and we reported today about discussions with turkey over the possibility of creating some kind of safe haven, no fly zones turkish border so the stateagainst the islamic can continue and can be actually -- of course it complicated by the fact that they also want to remove, they have a policy of wanting to get rid of assad.

what's the latest there? going to be a safe haven, a no-fly zone? >> i think the reporting on this gotten ahead of the policy discussion. bit more give you a clarity. first, turkey is an important in this entirer counter isil endeavor. brunt, likeorn the other neighbors, of the refugee outflow of the destabilization playas a critical role to in many as respects of this counterfinancing, countering the foreign fighters, and could play rolecreasingly important on the military side if it chose to do so. toeady turkey is committed provide a training facility, as has saudi arabia for our efforts train the moderate vetted syrian opposition. veryhat in itself is a important contribution. we are able to utilize turk irk for certain aspects of iraqperations inside

and syria. but the question has been, would turkey be willing to go all in, as some of the arab countries have, in terms of their contributions. and the turkish position has been that they share our strong all that as sad has lost legitimacy and you can't have a stable syria as long as assad is power. but their answer for how to deal with the counterisil campaign establishmenthe of, along a broad swath of the turkish-syrian border of a no-fly zone and safe haven. given this is a multi front campaign that the weight of our effort initially remain in iraq, and the work that we're doing in the air strikes and the support we're doing for the moderate opposition in syria will, in the first instance support our iraq, and in the second instance deny isil a

viable base. we think the establishment of a safe zone atr a this point is at best premature. a major investment of resources that would be diversionfrankly of a from the primary task at has been. so even though we are continuing to consult and exchange views with the turks short of a at ideas full no-fly zone or air haven,on zone or safe that we might agree on that would accomplish our shared objectives, those conversations ongoing and there haven't been any decisions finally by either side. right now,fe haven that are welan for are not moving in the direction of that at this point. >> there's a lack of strategic clarity here. because you're fighting on

multiple fronts. isil, buthting obviously you're not fighting, but some of your allies are fighting, also assad in syria. saye's a lot of critics who look what is the strategic objective here with regard to both isil, we know, but with regard to syria and assad regime what will victory look like? >> first i would argue that there isn't a lack of strategic clarity. that there are who would like us to broad ten go beyond countering ,sil to take on other cases causes, including using military force to take out assad. our view is that ultimately in syria where there need to be a resolution of the conflict, that that settlement ultimately needs to come through political means. we have invested in trying to accelerate that political settlement by trying to build up the capacity of the moderate opposition. we have sought and thus far have

from congressrt to begin and to ramp up that effort. reliable moderate syrian opposition that has the capability -- a moderate syrian opposition. it is having to fight on multiple front, and yes it is facing significant strain particularly in the north. we've seen greater success, greater progress, south .f syria the challenge is for the united allies who are joined in in coalition to stay focused on the challenge of isil.ring ultimately for that to succeed, undoubtedly we need to see a transformation and transition in syria. in which assad is removed. but the immediate challenge has to be to degrade, and as we previously, ultimately destroy isil, and not get sucked a multifrontes, military endeavor.

>> and the president has been you've been very clear, despite what a lot of the betics say, this can achieved without the deployment inany u.s. ground forces combat. that you're still confident that that can be achieved. >> yes. the approach we have taken, learning the lessons of the past, because as you know this no means our first experience in this region on the is that for any battlefield progress, ultimately anye sustained, because in event at some stage the united states and coalition forces will to be owned and maintained by the indigenous forces. in the case of iraq by the iraqi security forces. in the indication of syria syrians.y by so in iraq the approach we have ofen, learning the lessons the past is to try to build that iraqi capacity in a sustainable way. yes, we will advice and train

and equip. recall that the president announced an addition of our presence our military who will be advising and training, but they will not be in combat. them atl be at some of training facilities outside of baghdad, outside of irbil where we've had a consistent presence, to support that training and assistance. but if they're not doing it and ining it and committed to it a multisectarian fashion, it we have evene, and the proof of that. so we've got to do this in a way sustainable. >> if this administration had not withdrawn all u.s. forces which was very much part of the president's goals president, had there been u.s. forces in some number there, do you think we'd turmoilg the chaos and we're seeing now? >> i think what we are seeing is

the decisionn of that in fact president bush made when he signed the transition agreement to downscale our presence. >> but there was always an option to leave some force there's. states and the united was prepared to do that. president obama was prepared to do that. the iraqi government under maliki was not prepared to commit to provide the necessarys that were for that to be possible. willing as ready and we are in afghanistan and as we will do in afghanistan to leave a reduced american presence, roughly about the same afghanistan,re in a little under 10,000, to provide that kind of ongoing assistance. but what we saw, the real reason why iraq has deteriorated has twofold. one much course the rise of isil, which as you know came from iraq, then to syria, back

to iraq. qaeda an outgrowth of al in iraq. dismalondly the really governing authority that maliki which was sectarian, which was corrupt, which didn't thest in maintaining capabilities of the iraqi security forces that had been built up. on quickly.e you weren't here for the lunch had where we witnessed an exercise in political cross dressing. menendezhad had expressing hawkish views. iran.k about rand paul was supportive, broadly speaking, of the administration's negotiation strategy with iran. senator menendez said he will very soon inution wouldxt few weeks, that intensify the sanctions,

regimee the sanctionings , the first phase of this from march toine, make sure the pressure is maintained on iraq. iran is stringing this out, they're going to play this out and the sanctions are weakened,radually be so he's going to produce legislation that will require sanctions onse the iran. what's your response to? nothat i think that would be constructive at this point. let me explain where we are and i say. that first of all, we have agreed with the iranians other members of the p5 plus one to extend the negotiations seven months.nal four months to reach a policy framework, three more months to the technical implementation details worked out. why did we do that. two reasons. one, the negotiations have made progress. while they are still quite

significant gaps that remain, substantially narrowed on important dimensions. and we have found that the negotiations have been serious, they've been substantive, and they are moving in the right direction. secondly, we have this interim agreement that was negotiated agreed a year ago. and if you look back where we and where we are now, we under a much better place today. we were a year ago. a year ago there were 200kilogramss of uranium that they could convert into a nuclear weapon. all 200 killo grams are no form and usable for that purpose him they are not progressing beyond 5%, where as previously there were no constraints. iraq plutonium facilities,

which had been on a fast track to give iran a plutonium pathway to a nuclear weapon has been frozen. and there is no continued facility.n the iraq we have unprecedented transparency and insight into iran's nuclear program. where as previously over a year this interim agreement, the iaea had only access tomittent iranian nuclear facilities. dailye now in there on a base and is we have much greater insight than we ever had into iranians can do and are doing. interim agreement, which many said would come at the regime of a sanctions and the sanction was evaporate, has not only helped, has not been upheld by the iranian side thus far, but has halted progress of their nuclear program and rolled it back in

prolonging the breakout time and beginning us far greater insight into their capabilities than we've ever had. and the p5 plus 1 has hung sanction have largely held together, and actually more than largely, they together. degradation some feared hasn't come to pass some we are better safer place today. it would be foolish to jettison progress when the prospect of a comprehensive agreement sight, if not imminent. thewhen we know that if united states were to unilaterally impose additional we would blow up these negotiations. the p5 plus 1 would fracture, the international community would blame the united states rather than iran for the collapse of the negotiations. iranians would conclude that there's little point in

this process at the negotiating table. so that doesn't make good policy the perspective of achieving a sustainable end to program.clear onto another '5 plus 1 which is vladimir putin. imposed on sanctions hasn't -- he's putting pressure on other countries in the region. you haven't stopped him. what more can you do to stop him what seem seem be these grandity -- ambitionings? >> we've been working to attain unity with europe and other key partners in the g 1k3-7

and also who all agree the broader international community that russia's actions and destablizing and have to come at a cost. that cost has come in the form expected to be as painful and significant economic sanctions as we've managed to impose and continue to impose. these are not just sanctions or eveng individuals individual companies. but broad sectors of the russian and they have been joined, and our actions have the joined every step of way by the europeans and we've maintained that solidarity. so where theook at russian economy is, it has suffered over the last year as a sanctions and also as a result of declining oil prices. and the combination is pretty powerful, the rube el is down about 37%. overapital outflow 100 million estimated this year. the i.m.f. says they are barely if at all.

i think it is imposing a significant cost on russia for its actions. putinese are factors that has to take into account as he considers his future steps. of yesterday that russia has pulled back from its south stream pipeline to southern europe is also significant. is indicative of the mounting cost that russia is behavior. its europe is looking at russia going we don't want further economic and energy dependence on putin's russia. result, a major project, which had been championed by putin in the russian government is now seemingly not likely to materialize. so these costs will mount. withhile we are maximizing the europeans other support for ukrainian government. we are providing security

range ofe, including a increasingly sophisticated support like countermortar radar. and at the same time we have tosidered and will continue consider other forms of support, economic, political, and to the government of ukraine. .> one quick question you've just, the president has just come back summit meeting in asia, made a great deal out of the was done, particularly on climate change. someoesn't that deal to extent get at what so many people worry about right now that there's an unequal the u.s.hip between and the rest of the world these days, that actually it seems to lotire the u.s. to make a of sacrifices, and it puts some china's,ant days on

limits on china's carbon people thinkich china will hi any way. there's a fear that this is the thein which, unfortunately, world is going, that the united states in these relationships is them.tting the better of >> well, first of all, china has earlier a month ago, agreed to any constraints binding fashion on its carbon -- >> are these serious constraints? >> they are quite serious. met, itn fact they are will be a major contribution ours to curbing global emissions, giving us real momentum also going into the year onnference next the larger global climate change initiative. it's uneven, i mean we are different countries of different size, different development, but china

has never before made the kind and significant commitments that it mate. think that was not a result of lack of american leadership but quite the opposite, the product of a vision that we put forward that tbraised that we were able to achieve together. but that was a very important but onlyf the summit, one of many. i think another that some of may be mostues interested in was on the economic side. we made real progress on the information technology agreement that will probably be the that enables us to get a global understanding. the united states and china also to extend visa validity for business and tourists visas from one year to 10 years. and for student visas from one five years. the economic impact of that is theected to be by, within about0 to 15 years, worth

$85 billion a year to the u.s. economy. our mutual economic interest. and 440,000 american jobs will be supported by that agreement. that's a big deal. and while it may have gotten overshadowed by the climate agreement, that is one more the economic relationship, and cooperation on that, and then we also had an important breakthrough on military transparency measures so that into our military has come proximity we can hopefully manage that with minimal risk. summit that chalked up successes on a variety of fronts. multifaceted nature of the u.s. relationship with china, but it also shouldn't overshadow the fact that we have real differences. and where we differ we will that ourto make sure interests and our values are

upheld. ofthe chinese have a history unequal treaties, maybe this time they're getting it the around.y questions? to a microphone. >> there are many geo political risks, which one worries you most? >> i think, well, clearly we need to be concerned about thegs that can shape foundationings of the global economy. i'm not an economist and i'm not deeply into this, but we have to worry about growth in key parts of the world including in europe, asia. of things can shake that. even things that one would not anticipated a few months ago. forpent a lot of time, instance, and i don't mean to suggest that this is the answer

to your question, but we spent a to combat theying ebola epidemic, which was unforeseen many months ago, and indeed which if i were to spread africa to other that of the world in a way was significant, would be one of that unforeseen factors could impede growth and undermine stability. clearly those are among the things that one has to worry thet, and that's one of reasons why we've, one of the many reasons why we have heavily in trying to stop that epidemic at its source builder the longer term the global health security infrastructure that can help us with things like pandemic disease which are the kind of one might not expect from one day to the next but has for. prepared >> another question.

in the back there. ambassador rice. i just wanted to go back a to the, your comments on iran, and there is a point that is emerging which affects the markets and thatally economic thinking as we get closer to march and june, we maylly to be faced with getting back to to theriod of time prior interim agreement where there about thes concerns scale stepping in favorite of of atially the exercise military option. unilaterally or by us getting involved. i'd be interested in your observations and comments that as we bet closer to march and

potentially june of next year if we don't have an agreement in hand, can you share with us your thinking of what next, what are the steps what are you thinking about, what is after?nario there >> thank you. let's remember a 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 and commit to decide and be held to its commitment at up negotiating table to give its nuclear capacity. where countries have done that and we've seen it is sustainable. the united states has been very clear and president obama has been very clear that we're not any oceans off the table. we're going to do what it takes to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. but our best interest, our first desire is to accomplish that at negotiating table. economic standingses, which we were -- sanctions, which we were

discussing previously, both the u.s. sanctions and our national sanctions have had an impact in our judgment. iran to come thus far to the negotiating table. in the contextt a full out failure of the talks, that is something that we others would look at again. want to be clear that the idea that senator menendez put forward is not wrong in and of in my judgment. i any the timing is ill considered. timely while we are still working through the negotiations to impose additional sanctions, factse that would in fracture the coalition, fracture the sanctions regime reflect, tolly, and

our discredit. remainink these tools potentially at hand. none of them in and of asmselves are as sustainable achieving this result through the negotiating table, and prepared toe're continue our efforts in that igard, particularly while, as said, we are in a better interimance with the agreement than we were would you it. if it were would be to expire. >> let me ask one final question. aboutral question american leadership. there is a lot of concern in the world among america's allies that the hallmark of the last six years has been a lack of of conviction of leadership, a lack of real leadership. the president does things like drews a red line, says there's a red line, which assad over and heb cross crosses the red line and nothing seems to happen. to isil as a j.v. team

engaged in a long-term struggle. he says he can't let president gains and holde onto these gains, and yet nothing seems to be changing very much. sense much a lack of clarity, a lack of conviction, needse west desperately that leadership. and given how much excitement was when president obama was elected, you detect now a disappointment with what they see -- must be traveling two different worlds. let me say this. when you look at the challenges that we're facing isil thatnally, an has gained ground in iraq and syria, an ebola epidemic that and spread without great goneng, a putin who had

into georgia and did so with no cost, no international sanctions, under previous administration has now faced multilateral biting sanctions. the response to the ebola and the billion a coalition to combat isil with 60 product all has been a of american leadership. none of this would have happened without the leadership of the and president obama. the ebola epidemic would be west africa and the response would be peace meal and feckless. not have had had the costs imposed on russia and the support provided to ukraine that has been provided. and there would not be anybody againsta coalition isil. it would be rampaging through the region unchecked. notion that the united states is not playing a role, believe me, is

not what i hear when i go to the apecsummit or when i go to or the g20 where our economic unparalleled, where our economy is growing, theng out of recession over last six years to a position of growth that exceeds that of combined around the world. the united states is in a strong position here. leading, we are building coalitions, we are addressing challengings. and we're seizing opportunities, whether it's an opportunity to to combat climate change, whether it's an opportunity to build a long-term glebl health infrastructure, that keeps the american people more safe. it's concluding what we a transpacificbe trade agreement and also a are alllantic, these products of an energetic

economically strong and leadership,merican without which i shudder the think where we would be. gentlemen, i think you can tell ambassador rice is very busy and she's been very kind in joining us, so please her.me in thanking [applause] atthe senate pan let look whether the black youth of certain sport broadcasts and the harmfult exemptions are to fans. we'll hear from officials from fcc and others, beginning at 10:15 eastern on c-span 3. secretary chuck hagel will talk about a report on sexual assaults in the military. briefing starts at 1:30 3.tern, also on c-span

here are some of the programs you'll find this weekend on the networks. saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern, live coverage of the memorial former washington d.c. mayor marion barry. and sunday evening at 8:00 on q and a, ann compton who reasonly retired after over 40 years as housews white correspondent. saturday night at 10:00 on book c-span 2, university of new hampshire assistant professor jason sokol on how the northeast u.s. wasn't always the haven of racial equality and supportive of african-american civil rights. and sunday at noon our live three-hour conversation with author and american enterprise president arthur brooks, with your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. history tv on c-span 3 saturday night at 8:00, university of michigan professor martha jones on female slaves and the law. sunday at 8:00 on the presidency, president george h.w. bush's former secretary of james baker, on the fall

of the berlin wall and the liberation of eastern europe. our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. e-mail us, or send us a tweet. a new york grand jury decided not to bring criminal charges in the death of eric gardner who died after being placed in a choke hold by a police officer. theident obama spoke about decision at a tribal nations conference. >> some of you may have her theres with a decision that came out today by a grand jury not to officers who had interacted with an individual gardner in new york

city. all of which was caught on videotape, and speaks to the larger issues that we've been now for the last week, the last month, the last for decades.ly thethat is the concern on part of too many minority enforcementat law is not working with them and them in a fairway. and there's going to be, i'm sure, additional statementings by law enforcement. remark onon is not to cases where there may still be an investigation. want everybody to understand that this week in the ferguson, we initiated a task force whose job it is to

come back to me with specific recommendationings about how we relationshipe between law enforcement and andunities of color minority communities that feel bias is taking place. that we are going to take to improve the training and the work with state when it comes to policing in communities of color. that we are going to be investigating cases where we are concerned the i partiality and accountability that's taking place. said, when i met with folks both from ferguson and law enforcement and clergy and civil this istivists, i said an issue that we've been dealing with for too long and it's time for us to make more progress

we've made. and i'm not interested in talk, action, and i in am slowlt committed as president making suretates to that we have a country in which the core believes in principle that we are equal under the law. [applause] i just got off the phone with willney general holder, he have more specific dments about the case in new york. but i want everybody to know as everybody who may be viewing my remarks here are not going to let up until we see a strengthening the trust and a strengthening of the accountability that exists between our communities and our plawvment. as somebody who

believes that law enforcement job, that difficult every man or woman in uniform are putting their lives at risk protect us. that they have the right to come our, just like we do from jobs. that there's real crime out there that they've got to tackle. day in, day out. but that they're only going to be able to do their job hasctively if everybody confidence in the system. and right now unfortunately we are seeing too many instances do not have just confidence that folks are being treated fairly. cases those may be but in someions, cases that's a reality. and it is incumbent on all of us as americans regardless of race, region, faith, that we recognize this as an american problem and just a black problem or a

brown problem or a native american problem. this is an american problem. when anybody in this country is not being treated equally under law, that's a problem. and it's my beyond as president to help solve it. [cheers and applause] >> the justice department will launch a federal investigation of eric the death garner. attorney general eric holder case.briefly about the >> good evening. i want to provide an update regarding the case of eric who died in july of this

year much since mr. garner's death the united states for the's office eastern district of new york, the self right division and the of investigation have been monitoring the local case closely while allowing the local investigation led by the district attorney's office in staten island to proceed first. earlier today the grand jury declined to return an indictment case.s now that the local investigation i'm here tod announce that the justice department will proceed with a investigationight into mr. garner's death. this afternoon i spoke with the to informric garner her and her family of our decision to investigate rightsal federal civil violationings. i've also been in touch with president obama as well as mayor deblasio regarding our decision. prosecutors will conduct an author are, fair and expeditious investigation. to performing our

own investigative work, the apartment will conduct complete review of the material gathered during the local investigation. we've all seen the video of mr. garner's arrest. course was a tragedy. all lives must be valued. all lives. mr. garner's death is one of several recent incident across great country that have tested the sense of trust that must exist between law and the communities they are charged to serve and to protect. a new york issue. nor a feg son issue alone. have protested peacefully across our great country following the imrj's have maden ferguson that very clear. as the brother of a retired officer, i know in a very personal way about the bravery in uniformand women who put their lives at risk every day to protect public safety our law majority of

enforcement officers perform their duties honorably and are theirted to respecting fell will citizens' civil rights as they carry out their very work.nging it is for their sake as well heal theust seek to break young in trust that we have seen. early this week i traveled to atlanta to given a series of interactions to begin this around, and officials the country and every level of the united states department of justice will continue this vital work.g as the justice department's intoendent investigations the deaths of michael brown and eric garner proceed, i will these conversations as we seek to restore trust to rebuild understanding and to foster cooperation between law enforcement and the communities serve. i know that substantial numbers of people in new york and across the country will be disappointed and will be frustrated by the state grand jury

proceedings today. i know many will plan to voice disappointment publicly through protests. this is the right of all americans. but as i have said before throughout our history, the most successful movements have been those that adhere to the principles of nonviolence. those in calling to demonstrate tonight and in the days ahead to remain peaceful in demonstrations and not to engage in activities that deflect our attention from the serious matters that our nation must confront. thank you. >> on our next "washington journal," we'll look at the staten island grand jury a policenot to indict officer in the eric garner case in new york. congressman and congressional black caucus member jeff reese, who represents brooklyn, will case ando discuss that law enforcement relations with minority communities. sean, wisconsin republican

duffy will talk about federal funding and immigration policy. journal" live each morning at 7:00 europe on c-span. you can also join the on facebook and twitter. >> as we began to receive the vinyl to be digitized, to be saved, we began turning over the b sides of the 45's that we received. now, first off, gospel music was not widely heard in the white community and what it was would only be the hits. ut the b or flip side would be heard less. what we discovered was how many of the b sides were related to the civil rights movement. we didn't know the sheer number of songs that had very oh vert

songs like there ain't no segregation in heaven type songs at a time when possessing one of those songs much less singing it was a very dangerous thing in the deep south. singing that sort of song out loud was a risk. >> the texas ranger hall of fame was set up in 1976 for the 175th anniversary of the rangers and honors at this point 30 rangers who made major contributions to the service or gave their lives under heroic circumstances. we have paintings or portraits of all those rangers. they really begin with steven f. austin. very successful with his rangers, not only managed to make the area reasonably safe for settlement from indian raids but when the texas war for independence broke out the rangers played a major role in texas gaining its independence

by saving off the mexican army long enough to allow the colonists to build their own army and develop a strategy. and as a result, texas became its own independent nation, the republic of texas for about ten years. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we watched him list ton a group of second graders go through their drill and andy card came and interrupted the president, and i was stunned. i wrote it down 9:07. nobody interrupts the president. the president stood and said that he had to go and he went

into a side room. and then we heard we discovered that it was two planes down -- two plane crashes in new york. arie fleischer came out to the pool and said stay right here the president will come talk to the pool. i said no there are live cameras in the cafeteria. he didn't want to scare the children but he did go in. he said it's an apparent terrorist attack and i must return to washington. the door slammed and then the pentagon was hit.

>> now incoming foreign relations chair bob corker talks about foreign policy priorities. 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 the topic then bob corker 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. thank you, senator corker. he was elected to the senate in 1996. reelected 2012 active on the banking committee for purposes of today ranking member of the foreign relations committee. our schedule says we are supposed to talk about ran. 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. you have said better to

postpone and come back with a bad agreement what would a good agreement look like? is it still possible, based on what you know the administration and its allies ave already agreed to? this is felt in a bipartisan way. city sir -- senator menendez has been vocal. e begin with the initial agreement that put us online not to do the kind of deal that most americans that would be an ppropriate deal with iran. we are starting 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. ran is hoping to alleviate sanctions until they can quickly moved to a nuclear weapon. this is an interesting dynamic. when he think about the length of term of the agreement, it becomes pretty frightening. we all began talking about a 20 year term with incredible insights. now the administration is talking about a double-digit length. which means 10 years. ran is talking about five.

you get the concern that likely they will split the baby in and up with a 7-8-year deal. quickly, you realize that over 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? the easiest thing to do, the simple as thing to do -- it is probably not going to

happen. we can do only -- 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. ensure that they have to come 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. something far more robust than where they are today. secondly, getting into the past 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. that gives us some energy into the operations that otherwise we would not get. i am very concerned about where we are. i think we are headed to a place where we will 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. we will see a more robust, 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 that laid out what a good deal would look like. these sanctions are not sanctions that would go in place today. if i 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. you are not 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. on the other hand, i will say, you can write letters and say a

ot of things 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. the things that we knew -- do need 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 o 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 iran is naturally a u.s., if not an ally, a partner. we don't have competing interests. both countries look at isis as a threat.

the administration has looked at these talks as opening the way to broader cooperation. ther people have a view that s naïve. if there 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. secretary of state kerry, one of 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 naïve 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. they are, contrary to us, in 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 things that maybe done in syria. >> explain that. what should we be doing because -- that we are not because of iran? >> i think that there is certainly sort of private side alk, there is -- the agreement s 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 present, the administration does not want to overly agitated regime. >> the 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 active entire sod -- anti-assad campaign. >> anti-assad does not mean -- if you listen closely to the onversations, 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. to create some side of -- sort 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. also bring the sunni population into the full degree a again, that is easier said than one.

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 by not having a policy in syria 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 congress for an aumf. they are not in a position to articulate a strategy in syria that passes 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. this 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 ttempting 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 xplicitly. secondarily, they are going to -- 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 creatwe a no-fly zone. it is in essence a no-fly one. there is also training of the moderate rebels. you begin to do with assad in 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. giving 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 ome seek an authorization.

we are not able to pass it. that is a loser for our country. a loser for middle east policy. that is why we need to be working together to begin talking about what that should look like. before it is especially laid -- 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. there has 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. even 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. i think most people believe they had an illicit program nderway. 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. f it falls apart, oh with day, with a presidential election coming up in another potential president coming in, would that be of concern to them? i think it would. that 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 been together in a unique way. it appears we are about to let the leverage dissipate over a deal that will change the ynamic of what we have to work

with. this is where the 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 weak -- whatever you do in the 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. i was talking to him about this bill. wouldn't it be good if the president had to come back to congress for approval? his response was, what senator would really vote to approve a eal with iran? said, the fact 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 the president to do is go ahead and temporarily suspend. they are not concerned about whether congress approves or not. when he temporarily suspends

the 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 much 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 ussia. the question 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 appen. 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 president on cnn.

hat was devastating to us. in essence, we, soared to be rhetorical, jumped in putin's 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. it has had some effect on his calculations in ukraine. when he had 40,000 troops on the border, 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 ukraine. 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 because it would make us appear to be operational. legal support to me is something -- legal support is something -- it raises the price.

it shows is a little but of a deeper commitment to read the language is nuanced in such a way that you are talking about ethal support. lethal support that they are apable of utilizing. we want them to demonstrate the capacity to be able to intelligently use what we would give them. i wrote a bill in advance with 23 other senators. six months ago. now, we have a bipartisan agreement passed anonymously out of committee. we hope to have a hotline on it in the next short time. there are various senators with ssues. it is my hope that we are going to be able to get it potential he -- and i know this is somewhat difficult. potential he