>> i would like to say to my colleagues and to our distinguished visitors this morning that i have been a member of this committee for many years. i have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place that you know, you're going to have to shut out or i will have you arrested. if we can't get a capitol hill police in here immediately -- get out of here, you low life scum. [applause]

mr. kissinger i would like to apologize for allowing such disgraceful behavior towards a man who served his country with the greatest distinction. i apologize profusely. we meet today to receive testimony on global challenges in u.s. national security strategy. this is the third hearing designed to examine the strategic context in which we find ourselves one characterized by a chelating threats to our national security and how that should inform the work of this committee and congress. well, we have had previous testimony from general keane and amaral william fallon and we have heard consistent themes.

our foreign policy is reactive and we need to repeal sequestration and we should not withdraw from with afghanistan on this timeline and we need a strategy again. we will explore these topics and many more with today's outstanding panel of witnesses and i am honored to welcome three former secretaries of state among our nation's most admired diplomats and public servants, doctor henry kissinger, doctor george shultz and doctor madeleine albright. our nation owes each of these statements a debt of gratitude for the years of service advancing national interest. secretary shultz has held nearly every senior position of our federal government on his illustrious career. doctor albright was an instrumental leader during key points in our nations history and influencing policies in the balkans in the middle east. finally i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge that personal debt of gratitude that i go to doctor kissinger.

when henry came to conclude the agreement that would end america's war in vietnam, the vietnamese told him that they would send me home with him and he refused the offer. saying that the commander will return the in the same order as the others, he told them. he knew my early release would be seen as favoritism to my father and a violation on the code of conduct by rejecting this last attempt with a dereliction of duty and he saved one of my important possessions, my honor. for that, i am eternally grateful. thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today and i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, let me thank you in welcoming secretary kissinger secretary shultz, and secretary albright. you have provided leadership in so many capacities and we are deeply appreciative of you for joining us this morning. it is an opportunity to hear

from individuals who have witnessed and shaped history over the course of many years , and we thank you again for joining us. i also want to commend the senator mccain for these hearings that have allowed us to work very carefully as the strategy of the united states and in view of many complex problems that face us today. you all have done so much again and let me reiterate our appreciation and our thanks. and each of you throughout your career has demonstrated an in-depth understanding of historical economic and ethnic political situations and each of you emphasizing the need to use all instruments of national power, not just military power but also diplomacy and economic power. to address the challenges.

the breadth and complexity that challenge the international order in the united states today is seen as complex as any previously. and we would be interested in your perspective on the challenges and the principles that should guide our security strategy. on a recent hearing as was mentioned, both of them urged to hold off on additional sanctions with sufficient time to reach a conclusion and indeed the senate banking committee is considering the issue in a few moments and i will have to participate in a markup. we would certainly be interested in this critical issue. regarding the middle east and the military aspects of the united states security strategy, we need to have a clear understanding what the political objectives are in the region and , he also made clear that any intent to impose a solution

would come at a very high cost. doctor, you talk about the importance of this and also warned against the united states and owning it and we have to be very careful going forward. all of these issues and many more from the russians behavior and crimea to to the impact of cyber on national security policy, i think that we would in a fit enough from this and your wisdom. we thank you so much and again thank you senator mccain. >> we will begin with doctor albright, thank you for being here today. >> i'm delighted to be here chairman, members of the committee. thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this important series of hearings and i'm very pleased to be here alongside with my distinguished colleagues and very dear friends, secretary kissinger and secretary shall. i want to commend this committee for initiating this timely

discussion because these hearings embody the best positions of bipartisanship and foreign policy and we have long believed that congress has a critical role to play in our national security. when i became the secretary of state, i valued my regular appearances before the senate foreign relations committee and then headed by jesse helms, he and i did disagree on many things, but we were respecting -- respected each other and built an effective partnership that we both believed because america had a unique role to play in the world. and that informs the perspective that i bring to our discussion today. it doesn't take a seasoned observer of international relations to point out that we are living through a time of monumental change across the

world. we are reckoning with new forces that are pushing humanity down the path of progress while also unleashing new contradictions in the world scene one of these forces of globalization which has made the world more interconnected than ever before. but also added new layers of complexity to the challenges. with globalization it is impossible for anything single nation to insulate itself from the world's problem or act as the global problem solver, another force is technology which has released unprecedented innovation and benefited people the world over and also amplifying their frustrations and empowering networks of criminals and terrorists. globalization and technology are reshaping and disrupting the international system and we are struggling to keep pace with change. nowhere is this more apparent than in the middle east where century-old state boundaries are

unraveling, horizon sectarianism is producing the largest refugee crisis in 70 years and a , dangerous competition is playing out between saudi arabia and neighboring countries for regional primacy. and for the first time since european borders have been altered by force. events of recent days have shown that what many have assumed would become a frozen conflict is still red hot. meanwhile in asia, the growth and rise of new powers are creating new opportunities in the united states in areas such as trade, but these developments are also testing security raters that have insured peace and stability since the end of world war ii. and the intensity of complexity seems daunting, particularly after we have been through 13

years of protracted war and threats such as climate change nuclear proliferation and also looming on the horizon. they can't be ignored. the american people may be tired, but we must afford -- avoid another danger lurking in this new era of temptation to turn inward. because for all the turmoil, this young century has brought, america remains the mightiest economic and military power with a resurgent economy and an energy revolution giving us new found confidence in our future. we're the only nation with not just the capacity and will to lead, but also the ideal and -- ideals to do so in a direction that most of the world would prefer to go towards liberty and justice and peace and economic opportunity for all. as the president said last week, the question is not whether america should lead but how it should lead and that in many ways is the focus of today's hearing.

so let me just suggest a few basic principles that might help guide this discussion. first, we are the world's indispensable nation but nothing about the word indispensable requires us to act alone. alliances and partnerships matter. enhancing our power and working -- the legitimacy of our actions. and where possible we should , work with coalitions of friends and allies. second, given the fluid nature of today's threats, we must make wide use of every foreign policy option. from quiet diplomacy to military force to protect america's national interest. third, the foundation of american leadership must remain what it has done for generations. our belief in the fundamental dignity and importance of every human being. we should not be shy about promoting these values and that is why i am proud to be chairman of the national democratic

institute and i know that you, mr. chairman, are proud of your leadership of the international republican institute and the things we do together. working with allies and partners, balancing our diplomatic economic, and military tools of national power, these will all be critical in navigating today's challenges and this means in the middle east we must continue working with european and regional allies to apply direct military pressure against the islamic state while making clear that these violent extremist are guilty not of islamic terrorism but of crimes that are profoundly un-islamic. and we must aid the millions of refugees in syria. another key challenge in the region remains iran, the president has rightly made it the policy of the united states to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and he has taken

no options off the table to achieve that goal, and the administration is exploring a diplomatic resolution. if these negotiations fail or if iran does not honor its commitments, the united states should and i believe will impose additional costs on tehran with strong support internationally. but i believe it would be a mistake to do so before the negotiations run their course. in europe, we must reinforce our nato allies and stand united and firm against vladimir putin's aggression even as we continue to engage russia as a global power on shared interests. until russia honors its commitment and withdraws its forces from the ukraine, there can be no sanctions relief and if russia continues this pattern of destabilizing action, it must face even more severe consequences. on economic reform the administration has made strong

pledges with ukraine to work with our allies and we do have to help them interns of military -- in terms of military assistance so they can defend themselves. we should not make this road harder by suggesting that we see ukraine's future subject to russia's veto. i have many other comments that i would like to reserve to put in the record and i thank you very much for your kindness in asking all of us to come to speak. >> thank you, madame secretary. secretary schultz? >> thank you. i appreciate the privileged. >> i think you have to push the button there. >> i appreciate the pillage of being here. you can see i'm out of practice. [laughter] i haven't been here for 25 years. and we had the idea when i was in office but if you want me

include me in the takeoff. so we did lots of consultations. and so i would like to set up basic ideas that we use and president reagan used in out his foreign policy defense policy and applying those to four areas that are important right now. and so first of all is the idea of execution. you have to arrange itself in the way we go about things, to execute the idea that you have in mind. make them effective. i remember when i returned to california after serving as secretary of labor and secretary of treasury.

i get up phone call inviting me to sacramento. he was governor them. i got a two and a half hour drilling on how the federal government work. i do get something to happen? how does the president set up this policy? how does he get people to follow his policy? what is the president do? what is the budget director do and so on. i came away feeling that this guy wants to be president, but he wants to do the job, making things work. i remember not long after he took office, the air controllers went on strike. the air traffic controllers. people keep running and saying this is very complicated. and he said it's not complicated, it's simple. they took an oath of office and they violated it. they are out. all over the world they said is he crazy firing the air traffic

controllers? but he had surrounded himself and he had a man in the transportation department who had been the chief executive of a large transportation company. he knew how to keep the planes flying. and so all of the world it's like, he plays for keeps so you , better pay attention. so it's execution. the second thing in his playbook was always be realistic and do not kid yourself. no rose-colored glasses. describe the situation as it is. that doesn't mean you are afraid to recognize an opening when you see it, but don't kid yourself, very important principle. and the next, be strong. military, of course. and i don't know, sequestration seems to me like legislative insanity. i can't run anything at a percentage basis, we have to be able to pick and choose.

you better get rid of that. at any rate we need a strong , military and a strong economy, something vibrant and to go on and we need to have that kind of self-confidence that madeleine talked about. so that we have the winning hand, the right ideas, all of that as your strength. and the next thing is to think through the agenda. when you get to negotiating, you are negotiating from your own agenda not the other guy's , agenda. don't spend time thinking about what he might accept. stick to your agenda. figure it out. that is what you are after. i remember when president reagan proposed the zero option and people said you're crazy. you're out of your mind. well, we went through a lot of

pain and agony, but we wound up with 0-0, and so our agenda one. we stuck to it. and i think it's very important to be very careful with your words. mean what you say, say what you mean. i remember, mr. chairman, at the start of world war ii, was in marine corps boot camp and the sergeant handed me my rifle and said take good care of this and remember one thing, never point this rifle at anybody unless you're willing to pull the trigger. senator sullivan, you went to the same experience, i'm sure in boot camp. and you can translate that when you say or do something, do it. if you have that pattern of behavior people trust you, they can do with you. if they can't do what you're going to do, they can't trust you. so i think this is a very important principle.

and then once you have this in place, negotiate, don't be afraid to negotiate with your adversaries but do it on your , agenda and with your strength. so that is the outline. now so let me turn to something that could be on your agenda and that is our neighborhood. president reagan felt that our policy start in our neighborhood and this is where we live. it's worth pointing out that since nafta was signed 20 years ago, trade between these countries has blossomed. canada's biggest trading partner. mexico's third. we are their biggest trading partner. and listen to this, the imports from canada are 25% u.s. content and the imports from mexico are

40% u.s. content. so there is an integrated process going on here. furthermore in terms of people , there are one million canadians living in california. fertility in mexico now is down to a little below replacement level. we had that crisis not long ago with all these kids showing up on her border, none of them were mexicans. and so the border that we need to be worried about is mexico's southern border. we need to be worried about how can we help and why is it that conditions are so bad in all -- and el salvador, what a mullah and honduras that parents and their children north to see if they can't do something better. we have to pay attention down there.

it isn't just ranting about our border. it's much more diverse than that. and then i want to turn to iran. what is the reality? let's start with reality. the first point to remember is iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. it started right away when they took people in the embassy hostage for close to a year. one of the first acts was also to try to grow -- blowup the grand mosque in mecca. they act indirectly through hezbollah. i think it is a fair statement to say that if it weren't hezbollah, a site would not be in syria right now. but it is an iranian entity and we shouldn't kid ourselves about that and that's point number one

about what they are like. point number two is they are developing ballistic missiles and they are pretty advanced and that as far as i can figure out. that is a menacing military item. number three internally there's , a lot to be desired in the way they run themselves, political executions in iran, and that continues. and fourth, they are trying to develop nuclear weapons. there is no sensible explanation for the extent, the money, the talent that they have devoted to their nuclear work other than they want a nuclear weapon. it can't be explained any other way. so we are negotiating with them. as far as i can see, they have not at the table set yet.

there's nothing going on about ballistic missiles, terrorism let alone internal affairs. , it's just about the nuclear business. and we had numerous situations -- resolutions in the security council calling on iran to dismantle its nuclear capabilities, and now we have seemed to grant that. we have granted the right to enrich. we just talking about how much. i think it's also the case -- if you said to yourself, what is their agenda? their agendas to get rid of the sanctions. and they are doing pretty well and the sanctions are eroding. the more you kick the can down the road, the more the sanctions erode. and it's not so easy to put back, i hear people talk about snapback. there's very little snap back. if you've ever tried to get sanctions imposed on someone

you know how hard it is, you try to persuade people who are making a pretty good living out of trade with somebody to stop doing it and it isn't easy. and so i'm very uneasy about the way the negotiations with iran are going on. i think it's not a bad thing if they are reminded that sanctions can be put on and will be tough. then let me just say a word, madeleine has covered it already, about russia. i think that in addition to the the obvious things about it russia is showing a lack of concern about the borders. it is an attack on the state system. it is the attack on agreements.

went ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, there was an agreement with us, the russians, and with the british that they would respect the borders of ukraine. and you never hear about that agreement anymore. it doesn't mean a thing. and all their neighbors are nervous. why? they are showing a disrespect for borders. i want to come back to this issue because, and let me just turned to the question of terrorism and isis. it is just related in an odd way to what russia is doing. i think the development of isis is not just simply about terrorism but a different view about how the world should work. they are against the state system. they say that we do not believe in countries. in that sense there is an odd relationship with what russia is

doing and what they are doing. so what we do about it. we'll first of all, i think that we do have to understand the scope of eight and that is the head military person that we spoke about the other day who was more worried about terrorism then the country and about isis establishing itself in pakistan. it wasn't just the middle east. it was this idea of no countries. that is their ideology and they are trying to pursue it. so what do we do? well, i think we obviously need to recognize that this has been around a long time and i would like to put that in the record mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> it is a speech i game -- gave

in 1984, just to make a point that terrorism has been around a while. in the speech we have talked about this as well. and the terrorists profit caused from the anarchy caused by their violence. they succeed when governments change their policies out of intimidation. the terrorists can be satisfied if the government response to terror by clamping down on individual rights and freedoms. governments that overreact even in self-defense may only undermine their own legitimacy. i am saying that we have to figure out how to react and not give away the story in the process. the magnitude of the threat posed by terrorism that we cannot afford to confront it with halfhearted and poorly organized measures. it is a contagious disease that will inevitably spread if it goes untreated.

and we cannot allow ourselves to worry in the sleep over how to respond. but we have to be ready to respond. and what should we do? welcome a pretty good set of proposals by your friend senator joseph lieberman. i don't know whether you saw the piece he had in the wall street journal recently. >> i did. >> we will include it. >> he sets out things we should do and i agreed to put this in the record and i think that would be helpful. >> without objection. >> in addition to military things that we should be doing i think we also have to ask ourselves how do we encourage members of the islamic faith to disavow these efforts and this is an important thing that we need to build upon.

and i would like to call your attention to something that has come out of san francisco and many think that we are a bunch of nutballs, but we have a good time. there is a man in san francisco who is a retired bishop of california and he talked about something called the united religions initiative and his idea is to get people together and you talk about subjects of interest to them, they basically forget about their religion and they tried to get somewhere with this subject. so by this time they have what he calls cooperation circles and

there are millions of people involved. and he has a big list of religions involved with the most important in numbers are christians and islam, and that is followed by hinduism and jewish. but there are a bunch others as of others as well. the kind of things that they talk about are economic development, education, health care and nuclear disarmament and other issues and so on, but i think things like this are to be encouraged because you get people from different religions and say there are things you can get together on and work on together and that tends to break things down and he has given me a little handout on that and i would like to put that in the record also. >> without objection. >> so thank you for the

opportunity to present this. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. secretary kissinger. >> mr. chairman. thank you for this invitation to appear together with my friend of 50 years to whom i owe so much and madeleine albright, with whom i have shared common concerns for many decades. and who put me in a place when she was the secretary of state and i introduced her at a dinner in new york and i said welcome to the fraternity. and she said the first thing you have to learn is that it's no longer a fraternity. and now it is also a sorority.

[laughter] mr. chairman, i agree with the policy recommendations that my colleagues have put forward and to try to put forward the conceptual statement of the overall situation and i will be happy to go into specific policy issues. united states finds itself in occur. circle situation. by any standard of capacity, we are in a favorable position to achieve our traditional objectives and to shape international relations. as we look around the world, we encounter up evil, conflict, and

chaos. >> the it non-, 1969-1973, henry kissinger -- in cambodia, laos which led to the death of millions of people. many thousands more died from the massive effects of agent orange. henry kissinger was one of the principal architects of the queue -- coup in chilean 1973. a coup that overthrew the democratically elected government. >> thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible] [applause]

[applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. united states has not faced a more diverse series of complexities. since the end of the second world war. one reason is that the nature of strategy has shifted from an emphasis on objective power to include psychological contests. the existing international order is in the process of being redefined. first, the concept of order with in every region is being challenged.

second, the relationship between different regions of the world is being redefined. third, for the first time in history every region acts in real time and affects each other simultaneously. the problem of peace was historically posed by the relation of power. the emergence of a potentially dominant country threatening the security of its neighbors. an hour. in our time, these faces the disintegration of power because that put authority into non-governed spaces and this includes the challenge from a threat organized from beyond borders with his domestic situation in origin in many parts of the world.

this includes the territory and the encouragement of human rights. the current international order based on the respective international sovereignty, the respective countries, open trade , and encouragement of human rights is primarily a creation of the west. it originated as a mechanism to end europe's religious wars over three centuries ago. it spread to european states it's advanced technologically and territory and it evolved since world war ii at the united states became its guarantee or -- guarantor and it's indispensable protector.

in key regions of the world, a order is in the process of change. in europe, the leading states set out to prove their sovereignty and crisis had taken place in this way and along with it the definition of the transatlantic partnership which in all the post-world war ii time, has been the keystone of american foreign policy. europe is suspended between a path that is determined overcome and a future in the process of redefinition. it is a willingness to

contribute to so-called soft power and a reluctance to play a role in the other aspects of security. the atlantic partnership faces the challenge of adapting from to an alliance based on global views. meanwhile, it is challenging the strategic orientation of states once constrained in its satellite orbit. the west has an interest in vindicating the independence and vitality of these states that ended their satellite status and pressure is now mounting an

offensive on the border on which paradoxically is not a threat. american and prussian interest should prove compatible with respect to isis. we face a dual challenge. to overcome the immediate threat that are post along the borders especially of ukraine. to do so in a manner that leaves open a context for russia's long-term role in international relations. what is needed to play an essential role. in asia, many economies and

societies are flourishing. at the same time, there exists open context. -- open conflicts with no formal arrangement to constrain the rivalry. this introduces a measure of volatility to seemingly local disputes. the relationship between the united states and china. it is often described between one of between an a power and an established power. and that is analogous to the relationship between germany and

britain before the war. two successive american and chinese presidents have announced their joint entity with this matter on the basis of cooperation. and yet it is also true that significant spokesman with the -- have stressed the adversarial aspect in both countries and now india is entering this with its vast economic potential of -- a fibrin democracy and cultural links to asia, the middle east, and the west. india plays a growing role that the united states will naturally welcome. the emphasis should be on social and political alignment. in the middle east, multiple

upheavals are unfolding simultaneously. there is a struggle for power within states. a conflict between states, i conflict between ethnic and religious groups, and an assault on the international system as it was constituted. these fares conflicts often merge, and they have produced the phenomena in of isis, which challenges all established institutions, and which in the name of a caliphate is establishing a to territorial base explicitly designed to undermine all of the existing

patterns of legitimacy. the continuous of a territory under terrorist control with the aim of the overthrow of all existing institutions is a threat to security, and the consequent isis must be viewed within that context and not within the context of individual episodes and the ability to overcome that threat. iran has exploited this turmoil pursue positions of power within other countries, beyond the

control of national authorities and sometimes constituting a state within a state, for example, and lebanon and iraq and elsewhere. all this while developing a nuclear program of potentially global consequences. nuclear talks with iran, which i welcome, began as an international effort. three european countries with six u.n. resolutions, and the united states joined it only in 2006. the avowed purpose has been of

all these countries to gather with the six resolutions of the security council to deny iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. these negotiations have now become an essential bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability, not its existence. through an agreement that sets a hypothetical limit of one year for breakout. the impact will be to transform the negotiations from preventing proliferation to managing it.

and from the avoidance of proliferation to its limitations , and these changes need to be considered in assessing what ever agreement emerges. in all of these regions, the old order is in flux, while its replacement is uncertain. the role of the united states is indispensable in a time of global upheaval, the consequences of american disengagement is magnified turmoil. it requires intervention. the united states working

together with mexico and canada in an economic partnership and with its other allies can help shape the emerging world in both the atlantic and pacific regions. all this calls for a long-term bipartisan definition and we should ask yourself the following questions. what is it we seek to prevent? matter how it happens, and if necessary, allow it. what do we seek to achieve if not supported by multilateral efforts? what do we seek to achieve or prevent only if it is supported by an alliance? what should we not engage in? even if it is urged by other

groups. what is the nature of the thighs we seek to advance? the answers require a process of public debate and education. but we must understand that the answers will be determined by the quality of the questions we ask. american military power has and will continue to play an essential role in upholding a favorable international balance restraining destabilizing rivalries, and providing a field for economic growth and international trade to follow. the sense of basic security that a strong and consistent american

political presence provides is made possible -- has made possible many of the great strides of the post-world war ii era. it is even more important today. the united states should have a strategy driven budget, not a budget driven strategy. in that context, attention must be given to the modernization of our strategic forces. america has played in its history payroll a stabilizer and has a vision for the future. all great ideas and achievements

of the vision before they become a reality. i would like to thank you, mr. chairman, for conducting hearings that hopefully lead us in this direction. i am happy to answer your questions. thank you. >> thank you for your compelling statement. i think all the witnesses, and i will be brief so that my colleagues can have a chance to answer questions. we will probably have to break within a half hour or so since we have votes on the floor the senate. secretary albright, should we be providing defensive weapons to the ukraine government? >> i believe that we should. i think that they are moving forward with a reform process

which i think can be healthy but their security needs to also be insured, and i do believe that countries have a right to defend themselves. we should be careful about a confrontation ourselves, but i do think that we should be providing defensive weapons to the ukrainians. >> dr. kissinger, you described it rather well. i am not sure that the average american understands that the iranian ambitions, and maybe both of you could explain perhaps to the committee and to the american people what are the iranian ambitions and why should we care, maybe beginning with you secretary scholz. -- scholzshultz.

>> their ambitions are to have a dominant role in the middle east, to continue the pattern of terrorism directly and through hezbollah, and to enhance their position by the acquisition of nuclear weapons. they give every indication, mr. chairman, if they don't want to nuclear have -- weapon for deterrence, they want a nuclear weapon to use it on israel. it is a very threatening situation, i think. actually, i nuclear weapon used anywhere would dramatically change the world. everybody would say, we have to do something about these awful things, but it can wipe out a state like israel. >> dr. kissinger?>> every country is -- history.

their three strands and iranian history. as a national state in the region, in this capacity, its interest and those of the united states are quiet parallel the united states and previous iranian governments found a reliable partner. that is a goal towards which one can strive. secondly iran reflects a history of empire that spreads across the entire middle east and that was one of the major themes of its history. extending into the 19th century. third, he ran -- iran was the first they advocate of the

islamic jihad uprising that sweeps away national borders and vases foreign policy on the domination of the particular interpretation iranian foreign policy since the advent of the ayatollah regime has been a combination elements -- old imperial elements. and as a surgeon dominant position that has asserted a dominant position towards maneuverings to -- towards

neighboring states and the eradication of israel. insofar as student to student negotiations -- state to state negotiations the existing regime has never disavowed its policies that include her imperial and religious th domination and are supporting groups like hezbollah which are states within the state in other countries. and in support of a hezbollah attack syrian territory -- from

syrian territory to him israeli border control. but when one speaks of political cooperation, the question is whether the political order to husband altered. it is cannot be drugs -- has been altered. it cannot be drugs on the nuclear agreement. so that is the challenge we face. we can only assess when we know the terms of the outcome of the negotiations. thank you mr. chairman, thank you for your service to the -- >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you for your service to the country. i want to begin with a report that was to be done by the

department of defense that the rent corporation did looking at the last 13 years of war and what lessons we have learned from those 13 years and the report draws a number of conclusions, i will not go through. -- through all of them. first, it suggests that the u.s. government has displayed a weakness in formulating national security strategy. and that the weakness is due to a lack of effective civilian military process for national security policymaking. and you will talk about the need to have a clear strategy for what we are doing. i wonder if you can comment on whether you think those conclusions are going in the right direction on how we address future foreign policy or

if you think that is totally off-base. secretary all right, do you want to begin -- secretary albright do you want to begin? >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here. let me just say, i have not read the rand report. but i do think one of the basises of our government, our civilian military, relations the control of civilians controlling the military. i think that the decision-making process is one in which the military has to be heard. in which there may be different opinions, but the whole basis of the national security system in the united states is that different voices are heard. isaac their news to we're process, and -- i think there needs to be a process and i agree in this in terms of what george schultz said -- there have to be ideas in execution. file there may be voices that disagree, ultimately, it is important to get a common

policy. i do think the last 13 years have been difficult in terms of determining why we were in two wars and try to figure out what the decision-making process was in getting into those wars, not in terms of rehashing them, but in terms of trying to figure out what the appropriate decision-making process is, what the channels are. are there those that operate outside the channels. and i do think i am in favor of a process where civilian and military opinions are both regarded, and ultimately civilian control over the military. >> thank you. dr. schultz? >> i recall a time when president george h.w. bush deployed forces along with coalition forces to expel saddam hussein from kuwait. that was a clear mission endorsed by votes in the

congress as well as in the u.n. when that had happened, it stopped. one of the most dramatic examples of not allowing mission creep to control what you are doing. there was a mission, it was accomplished, and he stopped. he took a lot of heat for that. people said you should have gone to baghdad, you should have done this, should have done that. but i thought it was an important moment. if you take afghanistan, i think after 9/11, it was practically a no-brainer that we should go and try to do something there. and we did. and we succeeded brilliantly. and a mission train. -- and then the mission train. -- and then our mission changed. and we are there forever because of mission creep.

i think to a certain extent, we failed to take advice on iraq from some of the generals who said you have to have a greater amount of manpower so that you have some control. if there is looting, it shows you are not in control. and there was a lot of looting. so i think that was a case of we would have been better off taking more military advice. but in terms of the decision to go ahead in both cases it seemed , to be well taken. because the evidence, at least has turned out not to be so, but the evidence seemed to be clear that iraq was moving on weapons of mass destruction. and we had, of course, 9/11 and afghanistan. i think we need to be careful in these things. i sat in the situation room many times. and there is a mission and the military saying, you have to

tell me more precisely what the mission is. then i can tell you what it takes to do it. and that gets decided. then you go and you are successful. you have to be careful the mission does not change to something you did not provide for to begin with. >> thank you very much. my time is ending. i do not know, dr. kissinger if you had anything you wanted to add. >> the question as to what aspect is the organization adequate to give every significant group an opportunity to express itself. but the second challenge we have faced in defining a national strategy is that in our national experience, we have had a different experience than most other nations. we have been secure behind two great oceans. so for americans, security

presented itself as a series of individual issues for which there could be a pragmatic solution. after which, there was no need for further engagement until the next crisis came along. but for most nations, and for us now more than ever, the need is for a continuing concept of national strategy. we think of foreign policy as a series of pragmatic issues. other countries, for example the chinese, do not think in terms of solutions. because the effect -- very very -- very thing -- they think every solution is an admission

ticket to another problem. it is a question of national education in answering the question, what are our objectives? what are the best means to achieve these objectives? how can we sustain them over a period of time? i have lived so long that i have experienced six wars. in the five wars after world war ii, we had great enthusiasm. -- we began them with great enthusiasm. and had great national difficulty in ending the. and in a number of them, including the last two especially, withdrawal became the only definition of strategy. o'er the principal definition of strategy. we have to avoid that in the future. and we must know the objective

when we start. and the political strategy with which to culminate it. that, i think is our biggest challenge. >> thank you. >> senator inhofe. >> thank you. i would just have to say i am overwhelmed to be before the three of you. there is nothing i can say that would thank you enough for all that you have done. thank you so much. one of the things i wanted to accomplish, the only major thing i wanted to accomplish at this hearing was to try to describe to the american people, because they do not know, you probably assume they do know -- the current condition of our military. no, i am going to read something you will remember. this will be to dr. schultz and dr. kissinger. this is 1983. ronald reagan. he is talking about how we should budget for national security.

i'm going to quote him. we start by considering what must be done to maintain peace and review possible threats against security. then a strategy for strengthening peace, defending against those threats, must be agreed upon. and finally, our defense must -- defense establishment must evaluate to see what is necessary to protect against any and all potential threats. the cost of achieving these ends is totaled up, and the result is the budget for national defense. does that sound good to you? >> right on the mark. >> dr. kissinger? do you agree with his statement in 1983, president reagan? >> yes. >> thank you. the problem we are having is we watch what happens to our core -- our force structure. and people don't realize -- and

i do want to ask you about the ukraine, but when you think about the places where we should be, could be, all of that, we have to consider that we do not have the capability we have had in the past. we have always had the capability. our policy has been to be able to defend america on regional fronts. roughly the trauma -- roughly that, they change the words around a little bit. at the same time, regional conflicts at the same time. we are not where we can do it right now. i would like to ask you how you evaluate our current condition of the military capability starting with you, dr. kissinger. >> with respect to the ukraine? >> know, -- no, our overall military capability of the military. >> in strength? i think our capability is not adequate to deal with all the challenges that i see.

and which some of the commitments into which we may be moving and needs to be reassessed carefully. in the light of these frigid -- the fleet did but has taken place in budgetary terms -- shrinkage that has taken place in budgetary terms in the recent decade. >> dr. schultz? do you agree? >> i think you have to recognize that a prime responsibility of the federal government is to provide for security. that is number one. one of the things, as you read from ronald reagan, one of the things he did was go build up our military. got a lot of objections from his budget director. but he said this is a number one

thing. as the economy improved, things got better budgetarily. when he took office, he had the vietnam syndrome. and our people were not wearing our uniforms into the pentagon. he said, stand up straight, be proud of yourself. wear a uniform. we had a military buildup of considerable size. the statement was peace through strength. we actually did not use our forces very much because it was obvious to everybody that if we did, we would win. so you better be careful. don't mess with us. >> excellent statement. dr. albright, i agree with your position in ukraine for probably a different reason. i happens to be there at the election in november. a lot of people do not realize what happened. portion go -- porshenko and

the rest, celebrating, for the first time in 96 years, that they rejected any communist seat in the parliament. never happened before. in light of that, the free world is looking at what is happening in ukraine. what do you think effect that has on many of our allies? the action that we have not taken their? >> i think we need to help them defend themselves. the senator and i were there also for elections. they took many brave steps. the people of ukraine have been disappointed by what happened after the orange revolution in terms of their capability of being able to bring reforms into place. i think that generally, in the larger question, people look at how we react when one country invades another and takes a piece of territory. that is, as both my colleagues have said, it is breaking the international system. therefore i think it is

important to take a strong stand there by providing capability for ukrainians to defend themselves but also that nato care and is taking steps in other parts of central and eastern europe of providing forces that move around. and nato has been an important part. i do think, if i might say, in response to the question you asked the others, i think i am very concerns about sequestration and cuts that have been taken. and i hope remote -- hope very much that this committee really moves on that because i think it jeopardizes america's military reach. as someone who worked at the beginning of the budget process, i know about function 150. and 050. having defended 150 for a long time, i also admire with secretary gates said about the importance of reviving money for the foreign policy aspect of our budget.

because, in answer to many questions here, i think we are in the middle east for a long time. and the military part of this is important. but we also have to recognize, what you said, george, in terms of the longer-term aspects where we need to figure out what the environment is that has created this particular mess and be able to use other tools of our policy to deal with that. >> thank you. my time has expired. if i could just ask one question for the record from dr. schultz. you outlined a very good course of behavior for us in the united states. i would like, for the record, for you to submit how we are doing, relative to that course of behavior? thank you very much. you will be military. -- >> you are worried about the

military. in considering ukraine, in my view, we should begin with a definition of the objective we're trying to reach. then see which measures are the most suitable. i am easy about beginning a process of military engagement without knowing where it will lead us and what we are willing to do to sustain it. in order to avoid the experience that i mentioned before. ukraine should be an independent state. free to develop its own relationships with perhaps a special aspect with respect to nato membership. it should be maintained within its existing borders. and russian troops should be withdrawn as part of a settlement. but i believe we should avoid

taking incremental steps before we know how far we are willing to go. this is a territory 300 miles from moscow. and therefore, it has a special security implication. that does not change my view of the outcome, which must be a free ukraine. and it may include military measures as part of it. but i am uneasy when one speaks of military measures alone without having be the strategy fully put forward. >> dr. schultz, do you want to add to that? >> i agree totally with henry's statement of where we want to

end up as an independent ukraine. but i think we have to be active in trying to help that come about. and i would point to two particular things that we should be doing. number one, we should be organizing an energy effort to see to it that the country -- countries around russia are not dependent on russia for oil and gas, which has been used as a weapon. i am interested to know there is an lng receiving ship in a report and -- a port in lithuania. i think they are getting it from norway. we have a lot of gas in this country. we should be ready to help lng there is plenty of oil around that should get there. we want to relieve those countries of this dependence on russian oil and gas. maybe it would teach them a little bit of a lesson. because in addition to lower oil prices, they will lose market share, probably permanently.

but then i would not hesitate -- i think i am here in madeleine's camp, let's do everything we can to train and equip decently the ukrainian armed forces. they have boots on the ground. they are their roots -- their boots. let's help them be effective. there are russian boots on the ground. don't anybody kid themselves about what is going on. >> dr. albright, i would suggest you become a member of the budget committee again. we can use your expertise and experience. >> thank you, mr. chairman for this outstanding hearing. thank you for attending. the three of you. it is such an honor to have you here with your expertise and knowledge of who we are as a country. hopefully help us get to the place we need to be. with that, dr. kissinger, you said in your testimony the united states has not faced a more diverse array of crises since world war ii.

i look around, my generation's vietnam. the generation of today is 9/11, afghanistan, iraq. it has done is going into -- just has kind of gone into another direction of concern that we all have. i would like to hear from the three of you. i think you all touched on it, about how we would approach it. when you start looking, where does the united states of america, where is it truly willing to spend its treasure and contribute its blood, which is a horrible thing to ask americans to do. but if we are going to be doing treasure in a -- and blood to be addressing the greatest threats we have and we are limited in such an array of complex problems, which ones would you identify first? and i would ask simply this. we have gone to afghanistan because of 9/11. we turned left and went to iraq. we can talk about that all day. we have iraq, that did not do what we thought it would do. and we have isis and syria.

we have all of that going on right now. we have the ukraine and russia. do we try to do a little bit of everything. or should we really be pinpointing something we should be focused on right now? and whoever would like to start. dr. kissinger, if you would like to start on just pinpointing where you think our greatest concerns maybe. >> my thinking on international relations was formed during the cold war. in terms of danger, the conflict between a nuclear armed russia and a nuclear armed america was greater than any single danger we face today. and the most anguishing problem one could face was what happens

if the strategic plans of both sides had to be implemented, by or implemented -- or were implemented, by accident or whatever. it was a relatively less complex issue then we face today. where we have a middle east whose entire structure is in flux. as late as the 73 middle east war, american politics could be based on existing states in the end achieved considerable successes -- and the region and achieved considerable successes

in maneuvering between them. today, middle east policy requires an understanding of the states. of the alternative to the states , of the various forces within the states. a situations like syria, with two main contenders violently opposed to america. violently opposed to each other. and in victory for either of -- and a victory for either of them is not in our interests. in the rights of china even from motivations of -- of part even from motivations of leaders, they face a whole new set of problems. an economic competitor. of great capacity. a state that is used in its tradition of being the central kingdom of the world as they knew it.

that by its very existence is bound, they are bound to step on other's toes. in the management of this. but it is a different problem from the middle east problem. and i have described the european -- >> the middle east is the one you think is most dangerous right now? a nuclear iran? >> and then we have nuclear iran. i would say the most immediate problem is to get rid of a terror-based state that controls territory. >>.gif -- gotcha. courts that is isis. -- >> that is isis. we must not let that degenerate into another war that we do not know how to end. but there are more long-term

problems that also exist. and the challenge to our country is not to switch from region to region, but to understand the things we must do. and separate them from the things that we probably cannot do. so that is a novel challenge. in that magnitude for the current generation. >> mr. chairman, would it be possible that dr. schultz -- would you give us your idea of what you think our greatest -- most gravisest concerns are right now? >> i agree with what henry has said. but let me put some additional points on it.

i think we tend to underestimate the impact of information and -- communication age. it changes the problem of government. because people know what is going on everywhere. they can communicate with each other and organize. and they do. so you have diversity everywhere. it has been ignored or suppressed. but it is asserting itself. remember, the problem in iraq was, with malaki was, he did not understand how to govern over diversity. you have that problem, which tends to fragment populations and make governments a little weaker. just as that happens, problems that demand international attention are escalating. as henry said and as i said in my initial testimony, there is an attack on the state system going on. the attack on ukraine is part of

it. the isis is a major part of it. they are a major challenge to the state system. they want a different system. i have a sense henry, that china is drifting into a kind of spirit influence way of thinking -- sphere of influence way of thinking that is different from the state system. that is a challenge. i see nuclear weapon proliferation coming about. that is devastating. a nuclear weapon goes off somewhere. even my physicist friends say that the hiroshima weapon was just a little plaything. well, look at the damage it did. a thermonuclear weapon would incinerate washington. the spread of nuclear weapons is a big threat. and we were making progress, but that has been derailed.

we are going the wrong way right now. i think, and i gather in washington it is controversial but i have a friend at hoover's chief of naval operations. we started a project on the arctic. senator sullivan knows about it. there is a new ocean being created there. that has not happened since the ice age. there are big melts all over the world taking place. the climate is changing. and there are-- consequences. so that is happening. we will never get anywhere with it unless we are able to somehow have actions to take hold on a global basis.

i have the privilege of chairing the m.i.t. advisory board on energy initiatives. same thing at stanford. i see what they're doing in r&d. it is breathtaking. and i think he has cracked the code on a large-scale storage. it takes the intermittency problem out. must now on religious at any rate i think these things are beginning to get somewhere. we are much safer in the any rate i think they're beginning to get somewhere. but that's a big threat so these three things are huge concerns of ours and we need to have a strong military. we need to have a strong economy and we need a strength of purpose in our country. we have probably done the best job with all of our problems of dealing with diversity because we started out that way. we are the most diverse country in the world.

and our constitution provided that. you remember if you read lynne cheney's book on madison, to fish it is a -- it is a wonderful book. it's clear that george washington having suffered because of the continental congress not giving him money to pay the troops, wanted a strong government but he and his colleagues never got the constitution ratified unless they provided a lot of oil for -- -- of role for states and committees. our federal structure emerged and it's a structure that allows for diversity. it's very ingenious. you can do something in alaska. we don't have to do it in san francisco. they certainly don't want to do the same thing in new mexico. there's a difference. let the differences prevail. so we have these big problems and in a sense you look at them and say tactically how do we handle iran? how do we handle ukraine? how do we handle isis?

it falls within this broader framework. >> can i just say a word? i do think the biggest threat of climate change. in it's national security aspect as has been described and that leads me to say the following thing. our problem is that not everything can be handled militarily and that we also have a shorter attention span. these are very long-term problems and also americans don't like the word multilateralism. it has too many syllables in it and it ends and an-ism but basically it's a matter of cooperating and if you look at these issues it will require american leadership within a system that other countries play a part in. and otherwise i agree with everything that both henry and george have said. but i do think short attention span and multilateral ways of dealing with it. >> i'm sorry mr. chairman. >> not at all. senator sessions.

>> thank you all. it's time for us to think about our role in what our strategy will be and what we can realistically accomplish in the future and the longer i've been around these issues the more or less dreamy i have become. dr. kissinger i think i'm reading world order and i thank you for your contribution to the world with that book. i think you quote bismarck and maybe you can get it correctly. unhappy is the statesman who is not as happy after the war as he was before the war or something to that effect. so we have just got to be careful about power and how we use it and sometimes long-term thinking can avoid short-term problems. i thank all of you for contributing to that. our subcommittee deals with

nuclear weapons. i'm very concerned about proliferation and dr. shultz as you indicated worry that our allies are losing confidence and our umbrella and they may expand and of course iran will clearly likely kick off proliferation of -- if they achieve a weapon. and as many of you noted, i think, dr. kissinger you indicated we moved from iran not having a nuclear weapon to iran could get close to having a nuclear weapon but not having one. you expressed some concern about that? would you expand on that a little bit? >> yes. >> yes dr. kissinger. >> i am concerned as i pointed out a shift in the focus of negotiations from preventing iran from having the capability

of building a nuclear weapon to a negotiation in which seeks to limit the use of that capability in the space of one year, that will create a huge inspection problems. but i will reserve my comment on that until i see the agreement. but i would also emphasize the issue of proliferation. assuming one accepts the risk -- inspection as valid and takes account of the stockpile of nuclear material that already exists. the question then is what do the

other countries in the region do and if the other countries in the region conclude that america has approved the development of an enrichment capability, within one year of a nuclear weapon and if they then insist on building the same capability we will live in a proliferated world in which everybody, even if the agreement is maintained, will be very close to the trigger point. and i hope and i would wish that this proliferating issue be carefully examined because it's a different problem from not having the capability at all to having a capability that is then -- within one year of building a

weapon. especially if it then spreads to all the other countries in the region and they have to live with that fear of each other that will produce a substantially different world from the one that we knew and from the one in which the negotiations were begun. >> it should be pointed out that a bomb made from enriched uranium is much easier to make. the hiroshima bomb was an uranium enrichment bomb that wasn't even tested. the knot's sake bomb was a -- nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb that was tested but you can

make a unsophisticated bomb from enriched uranium fairly easily. so the enrichment process is key. >> in the short term then, dr. kissinger i think i hear you saying short-term meaning the next several years this could be one of the most dangerous points in our foreign-policy this iranian nuclear weapon because it goes beyond their capability to creating proliferation within the area, the threat to israel and a danger that we don't need to be facing if we can possibly avoid it. >> i respect the administration's effort to overcome that problem but i am troubled by some of the implications of what is now publicly available of the implications of the objective on

the future evolution of nuclear weapons in the region and the impact of all of this on an international system where everybody is within a short period of getting a nuclear weapon. nobody can fully trust the inspection system or some may not. that is something i would hope gets carefully examined before a final solution is achieved. >> senator mccain. >> we have historically tried to draw strong line between access to the technology to produce a nuclear power plant and access to enrichment technology. we have tried to put that line in there very strongly and we forecast that one side -- cast

that line aside already in the iran negotiations. >> senator cain. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you to the witnesses for the very instructive testimony. really just one question. a week from sunday we began the seventh month of a war, the war on isil as described by the president and by others in the administration. american service personnel have lost their lives in operation inherent resolve and coalition partners have as well. there has been no congressional debate or vote upon this war. i think all agree that it will likely last for some period of time. it was justified by the administration based on two authorizations for use of military force that were passed at different times under different circumstances under slightly different geographies under a different administration and under a vastly different congress. as former secretaries of state would you agree with me that it is more likely that the nation

will sustainably support a war if there is a full debate on it before congress and of congress in fact weighs in as constitutionally contemplated with respect to any war being waged by this country? >> my experience is as an administration official, who you get a much better policy and you get a much better ability to execute out policy if it is discussed and there is consultation between the administration and the congress. as i said in my testimony our watchword was if you want me with you a landing including the -- on a landing include me in the takeoff. so i think the consultation will

provide a better policy and a better execution. but i would say this war we are now talking about it started a long time ago. i read testimony from 1984. that was 30 years ago and i think this is a deep problem that goes beyond terrorism. terrorism is a tactic. the object is to change the state system and we need to understand what these people are up to. and that will help us design the kind of policies that are needed. >> the president has asked in his state of the union message that there be a authorization of the use of military force and i do agree that there needs to be discussion of it and consultation. i think it is very important for there to be more education of the american public as to what the stakes are. >> i agree with what my colleagues said. congressional authorization

should be sought but i will reemphasize the point i made earlier. we should not let this conflict with isis slide into the pattern of the previous wars which start with support and after a while degenerate into a debate about withdrawal especially since the existence of a territorial base for terrorism which have not existed before. a country that asserts that its global objective is the eradication of the state system. once america has engaged itself victory is really an important objective. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses. >> thank you mr.chairman and i want to thank each of you for

all that you have done for the country and your leadership. secretary albright it was a privilege to be in ukraine with you during the presidential election so thank you. i wanted to follow up to ask you about nato presence in the baltics and we had dr. brzezinski before the committee the other day. he had talked about putting a small number of u.s. ground combat forces in conjunction with nato obviously is part of the nato contingents in the baltics to ensure there would be a require. -- a trip[wire. but the force would obviously be of a size that wouldn't be one where we are trying to send a conflict message. i wanted to ask you what you thought about that in terms of nato's presence in the baltics and what you think we should be doing in addition to providing defensive arms to ukraine to help buttress nato? >> i do think that when we were

in kiev and ukraine generally together i think we understood because we together met with the leadership the importance of american support for what they are doing their. on nato and the baltics i agree with dr. brzezinski. i do think it's important for the baltic countries are members of nato and i think it is very important to show that kind of support. the question is whether they are kind of rotating troops or they are permanently but i do think the united states needs to be a part of a grouping which also requires other countries from nato to be there. i know dr. brzezinski spoke about the importance of the germans, the brits etc. also being there but i do think it is an important aspect of our common approach to this through nato. i also do think that nato is at a stage where it has to -- we

were talking about organizations that have been started many years ago -- that our support for nato in getting the other nato countries to pay up what they're obligated to do under the 2% of the gdp for activities. but i think as i have understood the new secretary-general he is talking a lot about the necessity of this rapid reaction force of really making nato more capable to deal with the kinds of problems that are evident in the region. >> thank you. dr. shultz, secretary shultz and want to follow up on what you said about iran's program particularly their icbm program. i wrote a letter with others on this committee to ask the president to include in the negotiations the missile program because their estimates are they will have icbm capabilities and what we heard from her defense intelligence leaders perhaps by this year. so i wanted to get your thoughts as we look at these iran negotiations do you believe

that their missile program their icbm capability should be included as part of a result that is important in terms of our national security interest? >> certainly. i think their support for terrorism should also be on the table. that's part of, if you get a weapon you are going to use it. >> that's how i look at those negotiations. those two pieces are missing and are very very important. i am also interested to hear what both you and secretary kissinger have said in terms of concessions have been made on enrichment that make it difficult outcome for a good result that doesn't lead to some kind of race within the middle east a sunni\shia race in terms of a nuclear arms race if we are going to allow a certain amount of enrichment. >> you have to remember the

iranians are not known as rug merchants for nothing nothing. they are good bargainers. they have art across lines and outmaneuvered us in my opinion so we have to watch out. >> secretary kissinger wanted to follow-up on something something that you had testified before the senate foreign relations committee on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and you had called attention to the disparity between russian and american tactical nuclear weapons at the time. i want to get your thoughts on what we have learned according to the state department, russia is developing a new mobile nuclear ground launch cruise missile in direct violation of the 1987 inf treaty that secretary shultz has referenced as well and this missile was likely in development even during these new s.t.a.r.t. negotiations if you look back in the time window. i wanted to get your thoughts on what our response should be to the development of this ground launch cruise missile and as i look at this in our response it's not just a matter for

those of a response of a treaty violation but what are the russians interest in developing this type of cruise missile? >> the the direction, motivation. is that his view, as i said in my statement i said that the western border is the least threatened order of russia. but it has a long border with china with a huge inequality of population and a long border with the jihadist regions of the world. it motivation undoubtedly is to use nuclear weapon to balance the numerical inferiority of

russian forces along many of its borders. but to the extent that it is incompatible with signed agreements, the united states even if it theoretically understands the motivation cannot accept that nuclear armed control treaties that are violated because a new strategic opportunity develops. and so i believe that we have to be very firm in insisting on carrying out these agreements. >> thank you all. >> i want to say to the witnesses, i have asked you to stay longer than i originally bargained for. and i apologize for that. this has been an very important hearing, not only for this committee, but also for the members of congress and the

american people. as for the benefit of your many years of experience and wisdom you have provided us with important information and guidance as to how we should conduct not only this hearing but our national security policy. we are honored by your presence. and we thank you. and this hearing is now adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> on the cnn state of the union, john mccain was asked about the questions -- protest directed against secretary kissinger and why he responded. >> yelling, that is a version of

free speech. these people rushed up to every kissinger, weaving handcuffs. -- henry kissinger, what evening and house. -- waving handcuffs. he is a 91-year-old man with a broken shoulder. it is one thing to protest and another to threaten an individual particularly one who has served so much for his country. i happen to believe he is one of the great statesman of my lifetime or the whole 20th century. quite you called them strong -- >> you called them scum. >> i think they are terrible people that would do that to a 91-year-old man with a broken shoulder, to physically threaten him. that is beyond any norm of

behavior. >> it was not what they said, it was the way they handled it? >> the way they literally surrounded him and more and physically such proximity of him -- were physically in such proximity of him that he was in danger of being harmed, that is what i object to. look at the video, a person is waving handcuffs over his head. if it had not been for a couple of people including my colleagues who came down from the dais to stand with henry kissinger and between him and those people who, in my view, and the video will cooperate it, was physically threatening -- collaborated, was physically threatening him. >> of the committee best ever became shares will be holding a confirmation hearing for defense secretary nominee ashton carter,

chosen to replace outgoing secretary chuck hagel. he has worked for the obama administration before, as deputy defense secretary. we will have live coverage wednesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span three. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114 congress. not only are there new republicans and democrats in the house and senate, there are 018108 women in congress. keep track of the members using congressional article on c-span.org. it has useful information like voting results and about each session -- and statistics about each session of congress.

>> here on c-span, "newsmakers" is next with bernie sanders. then argument for the court of appeals challenging the contraceptive mandate. >> our guest is bernie sanders. he is now the ranking member on the budget committee. we will talk with him today about how he plans to use that post. he is also pondering a presidential end. -- bit. thank you for being with us. let me introduce our reporters who will be asking questions. richard rubin covers the budget for bloomberg news. thanks, gentlemen. >> senator sanders, >> i wanted

to ask you, the news next week is all going to be about sequestration. the president is going to propose ending it. this is something that sounds like in theory something both parties can get behind. how do you think this is going to play out? it is doable to do in the next year's spending bill? >> i hope it is. there is widespread agreement that sequestration makes sense. it doesn't prioritize. it doesn't say we should cut here and spend more there. it is an across-the-board situation, which should be done away with. i think the president is right. obviously the debate will take place over the devil in the details. that is where the debate will take place. >> and the budget chairman, what do you make of his ability to work with you to get that in place in a budget? >> i have known my for many years. i like mike and i look for to working with him. >> the president announced th