this is one of my favorite people. >> stuck with speaker in the house. >> he and i knew each other, and i was trying to think. steve and i were commissioners back in the 1990's. it was really beautiful. >> steve is a great guy. >> really good man. >> two tours of the speakership. three. two separate, back to back. >> two tours. [indiscernible]

>> how are you sir? >> professor at unh. >> we have talked about the new hampshire advantage. why do you think that is key? >> the electricity level has gone down. [indiscernible] we made a decision to have

access and i know that is the big issue about how you deliver it. everybody is talking about private property rights. we have been able to find ways. there was talk about taxes as oil and gas -- texas as oil and gas. we made a decision in early 2000 we wanted to expand. we wanted a broad energy portfolio. >> that is the right way to do it. >> we put some programs into place. we had to move to where the people are. we had this challenge.

we were able to do it. and keep most of it in the public right away -- right of way. i think we can always do better. we have innovators working on storage. we have innovators working on storage. 10 years ago, on the fracturing side. [indiscernible] nitrous and oxide levels were down. total carbon footprint.

i'm going to keep telling them that. it is important for us to talk about if you can have economic surplus and address things like the environment.

[indiscernible] >> what is your name? >> jackie. >> lovely to meet you.

>> we had met several times. [indiscernible] >> today was a pretty day. i could not complain about today. [indiscernible] >> we get snow. nothing like this.

with that said in 1985, i was a young legislator in austin. it snowed 8-9 inches in san antonio, so much so. we don't build our buildings to have that much weight. it shut down the city. nobody knows how to drive. if you get to inches of snow in austin, it is a hill town. they all slide down. very rarely does that happen. we call it west texas. the eastern panhandle. north central texas. we all call a west texas.

it is cold in the winter time. we have a lot of wind. >> my wife's son is stationed at fort hood. i used to go to houston. [indiscernible] >> i hope you do run. [indiscernible]

>> i'm not going to go there. i will stay away from that. [indiscernible]

[inaudible] >> i have a question for you. i know where you stand on immigration.

can we weed out the bureaucracy of the agencies. [indiscernible] >> it is a fascinating read about corruption and is in our justice system. you look at the irs, the v.a. it is a two-term presidency to get it headed in the right direction. the first is by hiring good people that have experience, and that you can trust and do that making these agencies.

we spent the last 14 years making it effective. that's not to say it is perfect. [inaudible]

>> now we are working. thank you very much. we got that out of the way. it is good to be back here. it is a little chilly. this is spring? anyway. it is a beautiful day today. let's leave it at that. i got up this morning and turned on my app to see what the weather was. one degree in concord. i took a screenshot gave and send it to my wife so we can have a chuckle about the difference in temperature between austin and here. anyway, to all of you that are here today, thank you for coming out. the seacoast republican women, thank you for coming out on a

chilly february evening. i was sitting and sharing with this table, the election in november was pretty awesome. the election results were stunning across the country. i belong to the texas house of representatives back when i was a boy. in the 1980's. seeing new hampshire have both their house and senate in republican hands is pretty awesome. it sends a powerful message across the state that conservative thoughtful leadership is what will drive the state to where that point in time -- you talk about the economic model. i want to talk about a couple of things, want to share the vision

for not just new hampshire, but for this country from economic standpoint. i want to leave you with some views and visions about foreign policy. why that economic side is very them or into that foreign policies. why that our country and the world is in jeopardy from a lack of foreign policy standard. our allies are not sure where we will be on any given day unfortunately. those who are not supportive of american policies and western values, they don't fear the united states. they don't respect the united states. why all of that is tied together

, and reviving the dream for the american middle last -- middle-class, why it is important for the policies to go into place, can be so powerful as we go forward. we look and see these numbers in america, the participation rate has been as low as it has been since 1978. how many of you remember 1978? i had just gotten out of the air force and move back home in that rule community -- rural community in. everybody had their own tomcat. i know i am a rule community when someone chuckles at that. we lived a long way from our neighbors, i assure you. being able to live that american

dream, my father came home from world war ii as a 20-year-old young man who had spent a year in east anglia on a b-17 crew. he came back to that rulerural area to live in peace. he knew his country had sacrificed greatly to bring peace and liberty and freedom to places all around the world. that is exactly what he did. today, i'm not sure people have the faith that american dream is attainable. it can be. i happen to think the best years are in front of this country. i know for a fact that we can put policies into effect that will get america on track again.

the idea, the opportunity and security has been replaced with anxiety and with worry in this country. it does not have to be that way. we know that there are places in this country where freedom still reigns. where economic opportunity is -- and people are optimistic. i come from one of those places. for the last 14 years we have in the job creation in my home state. one point 4 million new jobs were created from the end of 2007 32014. unfortunately if you back those job creation numbers out of the total u.s. job creation, american would be a quarter of a million jobs below the line. the president talks about

economic recovery. i kept listening for him to say i want to say governor perry thank you for creating these jobs and making this possible. i may have missed that. there are places where those policies have made a real difference. it is not rocket science. the leadership in the house and senate here can implement tax policy, regulatory policy, legal policy, that basically make accountable public schools which means you have a skilled workforce. as each ride to laura businesses to come to new hampshire organically grow in the state. that is going to send a message. that you want those type of technology companies to come here. facebook and ebay google,

every macbook made in austin texas today. -- austin, texas. they're not coming because we have great weather in august. they know they are coming to a place where opportunity reigns. it is tax policy, legal policy, education policy. those are the town foundations of an economy. it is pretty simple. the hard part is finding men and women who have the courage to implement those policies. over the course of that decade that i had the privilege to be the governor of texas, we put tax policies, regulatory policies. let me share with the results of those policies are. let me put it into terms where

people can understand. this is what the result of good policy. we talk about that tort reform. we codified in our constitution so that those future generations would know that the stability and predictability was going to be there on the tort side and regulatory side. today there are more than 35,000 licensed physicians, more than in 2003. 35,000 more licensed physicians in the state of texas. that is due to tort reform. they knew they would not sued frivolously. the result is that access to health care has exploded across the state. if you are pregnant fema on the rio grande, you had to

leave your county to find prenatal care. but no longer. if you lived in the rio grande valley and your child fell off a bicycle, you probably had to take that child hundreds of miles to find the narrow surgeon. no longer. those specialists have come back to those places where health care was rationed. no longer. he gaza policies they put in place in austin, -- because of policies they put in place in austin, texas. the population is exploded in my home state. from 2001-2014. 5.6 million people were added to the population in that state.

i share the jobs that were created. during the same time that we added that many people in jobs there are those out there that said you cannot have job creation population growth and address environmental issues at the same time. that is funny. during that same time, we saw emissions in the state of texas drop. nitrogen oxide limits went down. sulfur dioxide levels went down 50%. ozone levels went down 23%. the total carbon footprint regardless of where you are on the debate of global warming, in the state of >> the carbon footprint was reduced white 9%. isn't that what we were shooting

for? to have economic growth? to have a place where the air is cleaner? isn't that what were looking for in this country? it happened in ninth place that has the 13th largest economy in the world. it can happen anywhere. we can even have it in california. we can. we wanted to. we need it to. it is an important part of this country. to give examples, that is the reason that i happen to think that the leadership in this country need to respect our constitution. they need to understand what our founding fathers were talking about, and their intention when they got around to writing the 10th amendment and the concept that the federal government has to do a few things.

things like secure our border that is a constitutional requirement that our federal government for years has failed to do. i am critical of this president for his lack of engagement. i came to dallas, i asked him to helicopter down and take a look at the rio grande valley to see what was going on with those unaccompanied minors and other individuals who were coming into the border. he needed to see that city could understand it. he turned me down. he was on a very important mission in dallas to raise money for needy democrats. [laughter] interesting, he turned me down because he said that he doesn't do photo ops. [laughter] i know that gaggle of photographers within found that interesting. he chose not to count. at that time, i knew that i was

not going to get any assistance from the federal government. that was when i made the decision working with my legislature that we were going to deploy the texas national guard. that national guard, working with our law enforcement, parks and wildlife wardens, not just at the border, but in the river they started making a real difference. that visual presence, this is like in a community. if you have an issue, a crime or an issue of an individual breaking the law, you put a law enforcement presence there, it has a powerful impact. you know it will work. i knew it would work. in may and june, we were having 10,000 plus apprehensions of week and that 150 plus region of the southern part of the border.

10,000 plus a week? in november, after we put those individuals on the border, we saw apprehensions drop i-74 percent. you knew it would work. i knew it would work. my instinct is the president knew it would work. they have aggregated there responsibility to do what the constitution actually tells us to do. the 10th amendment says that after those clearly defined duties, everything else is reserved for the states. or to the individual. it makes so much sense. we are a diverse country. we are a diverse state. what will work in new hampshire, maine at work in oklahoma. what is in the best interest of people in california, may not be

in the best interest of people in taxes, or what they want to do. i respect that. washington doesn't. washington has this one-size-fits-all mentality. a want to tell you how to educate your children. here is the curriculum that you are going to use to teach her children. i don't believe that. i think that the governor of new hampshire and the legislature in new hampshire, working with the school administrators and teachers and the parents, will come up with the right curriculum to make the students in new hampshire as competitive as they need to be, not a one-size-fits-all curriculum that comes out of washington d.c. common core is bad public policy. [applause] i think the same thing can be said about health care, transfer station -- transportation infrastructure. if the epa were that be all end all, we would see an externally impact. well we are seeing externally

impact, jobs are getting killed. they want to see how to make a difference? come to texas. it is the incentive programs and we have put into place to move these diesel engines out of our fleet. shutting down old, inefficient power plants, replacing them with natural gas. someone said one time on a debate stage, it is easy to be the governor of texas. that's like drawing four aces and thinking you are good at playing poker. it was a good line, but it was not true. they were making reference to oil and gas. the fact is we are a very diverse state. the texas of 1985 is not the taxes of 2015. the jobs that have been created over the course -- over the last 15 years -- has been

extraordinary. when you look at that diversification, whether it's manufacturing every toyota pickup truck in the united states -- we recruited those companies. we created tax and regulatory policies that were incentivizing to a company like that. technology companies have grown in come to the state of texas to the point that today the number one high-tech exporting state in the nation is in texas, passing up california last year. what are the results of these policies question mark we talked about the environment results. we talk about what happens on the exporting side, the creation of wealth, the manufacturing side. we share with you one more thing that i happen to think is a really powerful result of policy that let people like you keep

more of what you work for. that is the explosion in the cultural arts. in the last 14 years, we have seen texas become -- well, let me go city by city. ft. worth as the home of a new museum of modern art, one of the finest symphony halls in the world, one of the great museums in the campbell. fort worth and dallas both have world-class zoo's. dallas is home to two performing arts facilities. the perot's finished one of the finest natural science resumes in this country. there is a cultural arts district and dallas, texas that is the largest in america geographically speaking. 60 a acres. austin, a little government and university town that i call home

, has a new museum, new performing arts facility, the sxsw music festival, the largest in the world. the only formula one race in the united states, the united states grand prix is an austin, texas in november. you go to san antonio they have a new performing arts facility that they completed in the last 12 months. tonight, in houston texas, there are more your seats available in that city than any other city in america outside of new york city. i make the argument that there reason is because the government did it. policies that were made in austin texas, tax policy regulatory policy that is predictable and smart, legal policies that don't allow for over suing, public school

policies that make those schools accountable so there is a skilled workforce. when those were put into place men and women new they could risked their capital, and they did that. they can happen all across this country. we need to allow these states the freedom to be able to compete against each other. not an exact concern is stored louis brandeis was on the united states supreme court, he said the states of the laboratories of democracy. allow the states to compete against each other. from time to time, they will make a mistake. he said they may pay a price for that. that is the beauty of that concept of allowing this country -- the federal government needs to do those few things and do them well, like a strong military, foreign policy that is cogent, that is stable, that sends a clear message to our

allies. when i look at the foreign policy that is going on for the last years, i am greatly concerned for the future. as an individual who had multiple deployments of our national guard to iraq and afghanistan traveling to those places from time to time with those your men and women, seeing the extraordinary costs, talking to the mothers and the father's, the spouses, the children of texans who had lost their lives in the war on terror, having foreign policy that matters seeing isis come back into the cities that are young men and women died to defend and to free through extraordinary and powerful impact. we look at libya egypt and how we treated israel, iran, syria

we see what's going on in ukraine in crimea, and the lack of clear policies to send a powerful message that america is going to be there for our allies, were not. just watching this kerfuffle between prime minister netanyahu , who does need to come and have this conversation about what's going on between the united states and iran with israel in between. it is appropriate for him to come. we need to have this conversation. we need to hear him out. this is our longest serving ally in that region, the longest democracy in a part of the world . there should not be any space between united states and israel. if this administration is feckless with her foreign policy , it puts us relationships in jeopardy. i think the world's safety is in

jeopardy as well. we need foreign policy that clearly states america's intentions and role. our allies should that question where we are going to be. isis is on everyone's mind right now. there will be another crisis, but isis today is rightfully on everyone's mind. when we see an allyies young pilot incinerated. when we find young american aid workers lost their lives. when we see the tragic events of people being beheaded in front of cameras, we know he -- we are

looking into the face of evil, and it must be stopped, must be eradicated, and we cannot do it halfway. we have to the time and effort with our allies, with the jordanians come with the saudi's, whether other allies in that region to stamp out this absolute plague on western values. this is what this is about. as i started this conversation with you tonight, i want to in with that, that is the best days of america are ahead of us. our great and amazing faith in the resiliency of this country when you think about what we have the potential to do, i'm proud to be an american. i am proud of american industry and what it has brought to the world.

i'm proud to avoid the universe -- uniform of the united states air force. i'm proud of what america can do when we are pulling together. i know for a fact that with the right leadership in this country, we can make washington functional again, i know that. the idea that we can't work together on issues that are important to both of us, democrat or republican, when i look at all the big issues that we have dealt with over the 14 years that i was the governor of texas, whether it was a reform, education policy economic whether it was issues like ebola . when ebola came on the shores of america, it came to texas. we show the rest of the country how the state would deal with that. when the space shuttle fell out of the sky in the early 2000's in east texas, when katrina moved hundreds of thousands of people out of neighboring

louisiana into my home state when tens of thousands of unaccompanied minor showed up on our border, americans got to see that leadership does matter, and that there are very functional places in this country. it wasn't just republicans that did those things. we worked with our friends on the other side of the aisle. not one of those big issues that we dealt with in the legislative did we do alone. we reached across the aisle. i happen to think that is what we need to be doing in washington d.c., find those areas of commonality where we can work together, spending time in the effort. i had to spend time asking my democratic colleagues to come help us on these issues. that is what we are about as a

country. the best days are ahead for a spirit when i think about the opportunity for us and the renaissance that can occur here economically, when we think about opening up, think about what can happen on the energy front. i'm a big believer that all the above as an energy policy is what we need to be working on in this country. just as we get back in my home state, we happen to be the number one wind energy producing state in the nation. again, people think texas is just oil and gas, but were not. we have a vast portfolio of energy. we produce more when than all five other countries. we have a gas industry that is strong the policies and place to give incentive for people to use those natural resources and to thoughtfully and safely partisan so that we can continue to drive down the costs of energy.

from 2001-2013, electricity prices went down 14% in my home state. that did not happen here, bruce. but it can, a can with the right policies, to be able to bring this abundant north american energy resources we have. that's the reason why opening the xl pipeline is important for america's future. that's the reason our friends in mexico and the changes they have made. i would rather be buying my energy from canada and the united states than from venezuela or middle eastern countries that don't have our best interest in mind. when we are able to do that, you drive down the cost of energy, you continue to put policies and place, whether its corporate tax policy that actually gives incentives for companies to come back into america and invest in this country and create the jobs

, that's the revival that can happen in america. i am bullish about the future of this country. we are only a couple of decisions away from being able to see this extraordinary thing happened. ivc, a change in leadership in washington dc, but i think ready for that. i think this country is ready for that. i think we saw that in the november elections. i don't think it's going to be a little change. i think we took a chance with the young articulate united states senator who did not have any record. i happen to think we are paying a price for it. i think america is going to make a substantial shift. they are going to be looking for a test it, results-oriented leader who has a record. america is only a few decisions away from having the greatest, most exciting economically

harmful years that we have ever had in this country's history. starting today, let's make that happen. god bless you. thank you for being here today. linda, thank you. thank you for letting us come be a part of this today. thank you, thank you, thank you. [applause] >> thank you. very small token of thanks. >> these are more important. >> they were all out. they sold out. thank you so much. welcome to the hampshire. >> thank you, thank you. [applause] >> oregon democratic governor

announced his resignation an allegation that his fiance used his relationship with him to enrich himself. kitzhaber apologized to the people who helped get him re-elected and supported him the last three decades. john kitzhaber maintains he and sylvia hayes worked hard to avoid conflict. here's a portion of the audio statement that was released. >> i'm announcing today i will resign as governor of the state of oregon. it is not in my nature to walk away from a job i've undertaken. it's to stand and fight for the cause. so i apologize to all those people who gave of their faith time, energy and resources to elect me to a fourth term last year and who have supported me the past three decades. i promise you i will continue

to pursue our shared goals and common cause in another venue. i must also say it is deeply troubling to me to realize we've come to a place in this history of our great state of ours a person can be charged, tried and sentenced by the media with no due process or independent verification of the allegations involved. but even more troubling and on a very personal level, as someone who has given 35 years of public service to oregon is so many of my former allies and common cause have been able to accept this judgment at its face value. it is something that's hard for me to comprehend and something we might expect in washington, d.c. but surely not in oregon. i do not know what it means for our shared future but know it's undermining civil engagement and the policy of public discourse that once made oregon stand out from the pack. nonetheless, i understand i've become a liability to the very institutions and policies to which i've dedicated my career and indeed my entire adult

life. as a former presiding officer, i fully understand the reasons for which i've been asked to very sign. ity wish those on both sides of the aisle success and beyond. i hope they're committed to carrying on the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that's marked the last four years in oregon. in 1968 i was inspired to commit my life to public service by the last campaign of robert kennedy. 41 years ago i started work as an emergency room doctor in roseburg with a goal to make life better for those in my care. ever since then i've sought to keep that focus by trying to make things better for the people and communities of this state that i love. i've had the extraordinary privilege of pursuing that work as a state representative, state senator, senate president and your governor. over those years i've had a part to be of some remarkable achievements. we've responded by rebuilding

an oregon economy that added jobs and vitality in many regions of our state. unlike many other parts of our nation we did it together with cooperation and respect for oregon and for each other. we successfully defended oregon's natural heritage of clean water and air and farmland and special places and created the oregon plan for salmon and watershed and 90 watershed councils. we've found ways to support our communities and create jobs in our natural resource industries while enhancing the environment. when forces have been tolerant and sought to divide us we stood up for the principle every oregonian deserves respect and basic rights including the right to choose and marry the person we love. i'm proud oregon has not invoked the death penalty during my four years on the watch. we stood by our working men and women and steadfastly supported collective bargaining in a right to form a union and transformed our health care and coordinated costs through our care organizations.

tonight, over 95% of oregonians will go to bed knowing they have health insurance coverage. we did that together. in a three-day special session we reformed our public pension system and provided tax relief to small businesses and raised new revenue for public health and education, the foundation of our future. we've passionately pursued the goal of equity and opportunity, especially for those oregonians who have been left behind. communities of color, english language lerners and those in poverty, those in rural parts of our state, the very young and the very old. we have laid the groundwork for eliminating the achievement gap and insuring over 90% of our children can be reading at level in third grade in five years and are poised to reach agreements that will resolve the century old water problem in the klamath basin and improve agriculture. as important as what we accomplished, how we accomplished it is perhaps even more important. we've had a great tradition of overcoming partisan differences in this state and doing what's

right for oregon. that tradition faltered but in the past four years we rebuilt a functional center, reach ago cross party lines to do difficult things by reducing polarization and building community to help right the ship and chart a better course for the future. i ran as a fourth term as governor to continue that progress. but the questions that have been raised about my administrations, specifically about allegations about me regarding the work done by sylvia hayes and the contracts she obtained in my last term and the media frenzy that stemmed from this reached the point of no return. i'm confident that i have not broken any laws nor taken any actions that were dishonest or dishonorable in their intent or outcome and why i ask the ethics commission and attorney general to take a full and comprehensive look at my actions and i will continue to fully cooperate with those ongoing efforts. i'm equally confident once they've been concluded oregonians will see i've never

put anything before my love for and commitment to oregon and faithfully fulfilling the responsibilities of the public offices i've had an honor to hold. but it is also clear that this process will take months. i have always had the deepest respect for the remarkable institution that is the oregon legislature and for the office of the governor. and i cannot in good conscious continue to be the element that underlines it. i've always tried to do the right thing and now the right thing to do is step aside. one thing i hope people know about me is that i love this state and its people its rivers its mountains and its landscape with every fiber of my being. it is because of that love i tender my resignation of governor effective at 10:00 a.m. on february 18, 2015. secretary kate brown will take the oath of office as oregon's governor at that time. oregon will be in good hands and i wish her well. thank you for allowing me to

serve you and our state. it's been an honor of my life and i believe i can say looking back over those years, we have left it better than we found it. >> unlike most states, oregon does not have a lieutenant governor. the oregon state constitution puts the secretary of state next in line. secretary of state kate brown, a democrat, like john kitzhaber is expected to assume the office and become the first openly bisexual governor in the country. his resignation will take effect next wednesday at 10:00 a.m. pacific time. on the next "washington journal" katherine lotriante from the georgetown institute of law talks about executive action on cybersecurity and brian brown, president of the national organization for marriage and suzanne summer from lambda legal will discuss

same sex marriage in the state and the courts. we'll take your calls and join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this sunday on "q&a" filmmaker phillip thomas harris explores how african-americans have been portrayed in photographic images from slavery to today. >> selma is based on many ways on the work of deborah willis, reflections in black, her groundbreaking book about black photographers but i'm also very much aware there is this other narrative going on as well in which black people were constructed post slavery and even before the end of slavery as something other than human. and it was part of the marketing of photographs and memorabilia and stereotypes that now would be considered de

classe. but still are haunting us in terms of the way we might see ourselves, in terms of the way in which we might see others. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." next, a foreign policy discussion with former u.n. ambassador john bolton. after that, a senate intelligence hearing on global threats. then former texas governor rick perry speaks to republican women in new hampshire. now former ambassador to the united nations john bolton discusses national security threats and he criticizes president obama's foreign policy strategies and says national security will be the center of debate during the next election cycle. he's been mentioned as a potential 2016 presidential candidate. the defense foreign foundation hosted this event. it's just under an hour. an hour.

>> good afternoon. bill mittendorf, chairman of the defense foundation, susan, and chad had the great honor of organizing this wonderful group and we're so grateful that you came organizing this wonderful group many years ago and back in the 1980's. we were established with the specific purpose of giving congressional staff the opportunity to hear from our expert speakers on critical national security issues, primarily to do with our national security and defense of our country. defense of our country. over the years, a leadershi >> over the years under the leadership of presidents susan schulte here, she is our beloved leader, we techous on

programs for freedom, democracy and human rights. has been one of the greatest ways of measuring her greatness is is she now on a list of those to be exterminated by the north koreans. [laughter] she's done so much work for human rights there. she said threats on her life. we are very proud of our tradition of nonpartisanship because the very issues we draft are of concern to all americans. today we focus on urgent national security issues that the new congress will be addressing. before introduce are dissing her speaker, i would like to acknowledged one of our great living american leaders serving on the armed services committee and during the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, an extremely

knowledgeable person on the chinese threat with their missiles and satellite capabilities, several were capabilities, the mp threat and in every sense a growing threat to the free world. unrecognized because the chinese, the russians are waiting threads around about taking europe in today's and what have you, but the chinese are the ones that we have to be concerned about, in my opinion for the long run. we had a section on this last session. at the defense forum foundation cover that issue with bill gertz and i thought it was very successful. so i would like to introduce to you a great american congressmen would you stand up, please? , [applause]

>> he sends his apologies yes -- because he has to go to important meetings. stacy from the office of congressman rob wittman's office who helped make arrangements for the use of this room. stacy, thank you so much. i appreciate it. a great south korean leader whose successful efforts getting congress to pass the resolution on comfort women, professor. if you could stand up. thank you. [applause] wonderful work. also on the list of the north koreans. and counselor mohammad from embassy of algeria. [applause] and also the ambassador of the western sahara. glad to have you here. [applause]

i had the privilege of years ago of riding around a camel in that place. what you need is a few more water wells i think. i've never seen such desert. they must go on for 800, 500 miles. but any rate, we are so honored to have you here. our speaker, also one of our board members, chad, one of the founders of the organization. chad is one of our truly rate -- great patriots. chat, so honored to have you. also a board member, i'm sure is known to all of you. we are so honored to have you. [applause] our friend, john bolton, serves as ambassador to the united states is an under

secretary of state for arms control and international security. during his you and tenure, he was a tenacious and outspoken advocate of u.s. efforts to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. that is current today, of course, and let's hope his legacy continues, but i have great doubts from what i see from this administration. it is not the strongest. to push syria out of lebanon and to bring african peacemakers into somalia. he worked vigorously against north korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs, moving very strong sanctions -- resolutions through the u.n., u.s., u.n. security council. working with the french ambassador he led the security , council's efforts to approve a unanimous resolution to end the

summer 2006 hezbollah war on israel. to authorize u.n. peacekeepers and to create an arms embargo against hezbollah. he also assembled an international coalition that bid -- block to the bid of hugo chavez to join the security council. he also advocated for human rights while serving at the u.n., arranging for the security council's first deliberations on burmese human rights abuses. and getting security council approval to send peacekeepers to darfur. we're honored to have him with us today. and before i have him come forward i would like to point , out in today's issue, he is prominently mentioned as potential presidential candidate. for very good reason i can say from many years experience with john. john, a great honor to have you with us. [applause]

>> bill, thank you very much for those kind words and thanks to you and suzanne and defense forum foundation for invitings me. it is always a pleasure to be here. i've worked with bill over the years in many capacities and with suzanne, beginning when we started on the western sahara problem, an issue i have worked on for close to 25 years now still without a satisfactory solution. one of those things that really i think it's an obligation of the united states to help resolve, to give the people of the territory of the western sahara the opportunity to vote in a referendum on their own future. how is that for a startling proposition? [applause] >> something the united nations failed to do in the last 23 years unfortunately. but thank you all for coming today. and i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i want to talk about some of the issues that congress new incoming congress will face on the national security front but

i think it is important to start before we survey the situation internationally to talk a little bit about the new congress and how they got here and what it means for the future. i think there is a very important domestic american political issue here that is important in the 2014 cycle and will be more important in the 2016 cycle and that is that a lot of the freshmen house and senate members in my view owe their election in substantial part to their strong advocacy of american national security. i think a number of factors in the external world helped propel national security back into the public attention. isis beheading americans, caught a lot of people's attention. but i think also the people in the country are ahead of their would-be leaders here in washington. i think they have a deep sense of the importance of protecting

the country, of the rusks that we face -- of the risks this we face around the world of the dangers of the weak and ineffective american leadership. and i think it is continuing reputation of the political conventional wisdom in washington. juyou know if you listen to the political operatives and the media they say nobody cares about national security it doesn't affect their daily lives and they don't vote on the basis of foreign policy they vote on the basis of any of a dozen other issues. turns out i think that conventionial wisdom is wrong. it would be disasterous for the country if it were true to believe that the american people don't understand that the protection of our way of life depends on a strong american presence in the world. in any event as i say the people who have more common sense than many of their leaders and i think it is going to be evident

in the 2016 cycle that national security will be at the center of of the debate for. so reasons i will explain. the international environment is going to get more perilous the next two years and i think if candidates for the republican nomination or nominee of of the democratic party i think we know who that is going to be at the moment but if we are not prepared to have a debate on america's grand strategy is going to place the nation in even graver danger and i think the fact is right now our situation has deteriorated around the world and confronts congress with some very, very difficult policy decisions because we have an administration and a president who don't give national security the kind of priority it deserves. it may sound counter intuitive but i think president obama plays less attention to foreign

policy issues than any american president since pearl harbor. i don't think he wakes up and has as his first thought what threats does the united states face around the world? i think that is eastbound dent in a whole series -- evident in a whole series of his policies and in the implementation of those policies and the consequence has been diminished american influence and a diminished american ability to protect our interests, our citizens and friends and allies around the world. the president has revealed this lack of interest in a lot of different ways. some of the things that he said about america's role in the world i think reflect i'm being polite here a deep ambivalence about american power. he said in the state of the union last year that long-term deployments of american forces around the world risk in citing extremism which is the word he

uses because he doesn't use the word "terrorism" if he can avoid it. to think that the deploy-of american fosses is the problem. tell that to germany and japan and south korea where the long-term deployment has not only been critical to our national security but helped create a democratic climate in those countries. and a climate that is respectle and civilian control over the military, something that is extraordinarily important. we haven't foster the extremism in germany japan and south korea and yet the president said that and nobody in the media commented on it. he said very early in his term of office when asked if he believed in american exceptionalism, can you imagine, the first person who has to be asked this question. but he said yes, i believe in american exceptionalism just as the britts believe in theirs and the greeks believe in greek exceptionalism.

if you parse that sec what he says in the first third he takes away in the second two thirds. there are 193 countries in the u.n. he could have gone on. just as they believe inionceptionallism and the ecuadorians. you get the point. if everybody is exceptional nobody is. and yet our president doesn't have confidence in the american role in the world and to see that you can't have a strong and sustain the american economy without a sustained and strong american presence. you can't have the strong international presence if you don't have a strong domestic economy and just as predicted today we have a weak economy and a weak presence in the world and every risk in the next two years our adversaries who can read calendars just as well as we can will try and take advantage of that. they don't know who will be

elected in 2016, none of us do but they know that obama has two mores. so just looking at the array of issues that we face in a short survey, i think you can see unfortunately the grave consequences that the united states and its friends and allies face because of the president's policy of weakness, inattention, lack of involvement, lack of resolve lack of resources for the military. let's just start in eastern and central europe with when is happening in ukraine and the threats that other nations in the region face. you know, in 1945, we thought we had resolved the question after two deadly world wars that military force was no longer going to be used on the continent to change international boundaries. and in fact, we went on to a third world war and the world warcold warto prevent that from happening

as well. at the end of the third world war of the 20th century when the soviet union collapsed many people said peace is at hand, the end of history, we don't have anything else to worry about. what we are seeing in ukraine is that history never end o are if it did it has certainry runed with a vengeance. the crimea are in the process of of increasing military control over provinces of ukraine. i don't know where this will end. i don't believe that the agreement that was signed a few days ago will o hold for a long period of time. it is not that much different from the agreement announced in september which brokedown. in three or four months we will see if this one doesn't break down as the territory that moscow effectively controls in ukraine continues to exist. and it is not just what is happening in ukraine that is a problem. i know there is some people who

say you know, it as struggle and a country far away among people of whom we know little. some of you in the room will know that phrase. that is what chamberlain said about the land in september of 1938. goes well beyond ukraine. when has happened here is that putin has driven a wedge into the nato alliance. i think he sees the prospect for an scout come outcome for russia far beyond territorial at the expense of ukraine. he sees the possibility unthinkable a few years ago of shattering the nato alliance because it may well be that his next targets could be the baltic republics. we know the russians have in years gone by already engaged in cyber warfare against those countries. they have large ethnic russian populations and i think if putin

believes that at relatively low cost he can talk aggressive action against one or more of those countries and nato fails to respond for the first time ever when a nato country was in peril that the alliance itself could collapse. because there is no american leadership. this deal just signed is notable by the absence of the president of the united states. we are the leaders of the any tow alliance. the -- mayo nato alliance. he is not going to tell us that that would be impolitic. and if there is one thing that is consistent in the president's foreign policy it is his concern for the domestic political implications of what he does. make no mistake about it i think the europeans and i mean specifically chancellor merkel of germany have looked at the situation and said we are not going to see american leadership for the next two years.

in germany they have their own problems, economic dependence on russian oil and gas and crisis in the euro zone, a general disinclination to use german power for good and sufficient historical reasons and they rely on american shed leadership and i think chancellor mostly cloudile decided she will look out for german interests and cut a deal that even she may consider unsatisfactory in order to try and stablize the situation in ukraine until such time as america gets a president who is prepared to try and prevent the use of military force in europe to change boundaries. there is nobody watching what happens in ukraine i think more carefully than the leadership in beijing. because they are seeing the world's preeminent political military alliance responding ineffectively in ukraine. and there is who no comparable

aligned structure in east and see the asia. in china today although the conventional wisdom in the united states is that china is undergoing a peaceful rise and it will be a responsible stakeholder in world affairs that is only one potential a scenario. it may be the post desirable but it is certainly not the most likely. as well as its economic strength china is engaged in a massive buildup of its ballistic and nuclear forces. it is building a blue water navy for the first time literally in 600 years as bill mittendorf said has advanced cyber warfare capabilities and antiaccess weapon systems, it is modernizing the people's liberation army ground components and it is essentially now making assertive almost belligerent territorial claims in the east china sea and the

south china sea. once again, many people in the united states may say that is to far away all of the islands islands that are three inches above water on a good day, what possible interest can they be to us? the interest to us i think is palpable because not only are there potentially important mineral reserves in and around the east and south china sea but what the chinese are doing and they have said it publicly, is they intend to make at least the south china sea into a chinese lake. they claimed the borders that go back. the claim goes back some time and now established a provincial companyprovincialcapital on one the islands that is three inches bob the water and confronting the philippines and vietnamese and our response is to call on all sides to negotiate the competing territorial claims peacefully. that is a little bit like

praying that the claim is are resolved peacefully. it is not the going to guarantee an outcome that we or the others see as satisfactory. what difference does it make if china asserts and can maintain sovereignty over the south china sea? every barrel of oil that goes to japan, south korea and taiwan from the middle east passes through the south china sea. a huge amount of international commerce generally goes through that and the straits. if the chinese can turn the south china sea into territorial waters they will have their hands around the throats of key economies in east asia, key trading partners and friends of the united states, result in a huge strategic shift in the region. and yet we have a president who despite a much trumpeted pivot toward asia has done essentially

nothing in response to these potential chinese threats. nobody is looking for a hostile relationship with china, quite contrary. but the way to avoid a difficult trout relationship or even more perilous one is to have the united states in a position of strength. and instead, we are in a position of weakness. it was an issue during the 2012 campaign where governor romney for example pointed out that at that time about 287 ships at sea the united states navy was at its lowest level since 1916. one nine one six. goes along with president obama's budget for the army where for this fiscal year we are projected to have a groundforce level equal to the force level of our army in 1938. another good year. this is a reduction in american capability that will not be made up overnight even with the right

kind of president-elected in 2016 and there is every prospect that the downward trend of our capabilities will increase unless congress steps up and does what some consider a politically unpopular thing of defending and expanding the military budget in a time of tight fiscal constraints. i think it is critical that we do that. and i think we should do it unashamedly and fully defending the reason why we need to get the military budget up just as ronald reagan did when he took office after the carter administration in a time of economic difficulty, he said to weinberger the expenditures for defense are are not the just a budget line item and this is exactly the attitude we have to follow. i mentioned that president obama had bragged about his pivot from the middle east toward asia and i suppose that is because he

thought things were going so well for us in the middle east that we could afford to turn our attention away. in fact, they weren't at the time and things are in even worse shape now. in country after country, across the middle east and north africa, what has been a crisis here and a crisis there and a crisis in next country has merged together. and we have the entire region slipping into chaos. you can see it in the disintegration of national governments around the region, began certainly before the obama administration but i think it has accelerated dramatically since the arab spring which the president badly misread to the detriment of many american american allies in the region. allies who were concededly not jefferson crap democrats but who ian

democrats. but hosni mubarak with the peace treaty between egypt and israel and others and instead we have a region where terrorists and where lords are increasingly taking root, threatening neighbors, tee destroying existing governments and ripping up boundary lines that have been in place since the end of world war i. really began in somalia back in the early 1990's. but we see this problem continuing in the sudan and across north africa, libya being the prime example of a country that has just disintegrated since the overthrow of ghadaffi. and bokod.haran attacking across region. we have seen terrorists nearly topple the got of mali.

we have seen terrorists attacks against oil and gas facilities in algeria. got little attention in this country, but one the worst terrorist incidents there. in egypt we have seen the muslim brotherhood come to power and nearly snuff out the opposition. had there not been a military coupe against it today no one is in control of the peninsula and it is a highway for extremists and terrorists and traffickers and drugs and human beings. nobody has control over it. just been reading in the news pape hes recently yemen has collapsed as a state. allies of iran and ohouthis now control the capital. another capital where our embassy officials had to flee because we can't protect them. in what used to be yemen you have al-qaeda in the a arabian

peninsula as a base and the surrogate for iran in the backdoor of the oil producing monarchies of the peninsula. this country that the president called an example of a success story of the counter terrorism policies. and to thing for, isis literally creating new sit out of the remains of what used to be syria and iraq. i think we are at the point where realistically you have to say that the country of iraq as we have known it since the brokeup of the ottoman pappier doesn't exist anymore. i don't see the kurds going back that a country that looks like what iraq used to. they are de facto independent and only force would change that which they would resist to the end. the sunni arabs are not going to go back into a country dominated

by political forces that operate under the will of the ayatollahs in iran. syria has come apart. the kingdom of jordan is threatened and only there because of the latest attack by isis we have seen the king step up and act like a real leader to the embarrassment of many people in the united states who wished that oh had a leader of that kind of strength. with you the fact is that isis -- but the forecast is that isis continues to develop support all around the world. it is a threat in the region. a threat to jordan obviously. again, it, too is a threat to the oil-producing monarchies. we have in activities tan pakistan taliban waiting for the ultimate american withdrawal. many probably heard the famous saying referring to us saying you have the watches we have the time. this are right. at least under this administration. and if afghanistan falls to the taliban again it will not simply put that country back to where

it was before 9/11 but it will be a major threat to the stabilitystability of the government of pakistan and if that government were to fall to the radicals not only would it also be a base for international terrorism but with its is supply of nuclear weapons it would be an iran on steroids right now. a grave threat not only on the sub continent but for terrorist attack around the world. and then, of course, i have saved the best for last. iran. which is a state experience of terrorism. it has been since 1979 the largest source of financial support pore terrorists around the -- for terrorists around the world and it is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. of course, the obama administration is working to reach an agreement with them on their nuclear weapons program abandoning the basic premises of an acceptable agreement that the europeans have pressed for for over a decade that iran would

have to give up uranium enrichment. their uranium enrichment capability will be legit mizeed by the deal and the substance of the deal when we finally see it announced is simply a deal that will try and maximize the amount of time that we have to find out when iran violates the agreement. that is what this boils down to. and i think it will be a destablizing event all over the region. i think other countries will accept that iran is on an inevitable track toward nuclear went. they will try and get nuclear weapons as well and this already volatile region will be even more dramatically at risk. we do have allies in the region. we have israel. its prime minister is coming here to this congress in less than a month to speak about the threat of iran's nuclear weapons. the president of our country

will not receive this leader of one of our closest allies. what signal does that send to the terrorists, the state experiences of terrorism to nuclear proliferaters? what signal does it send to our friends who say if this is the way the united states now treats its closest allies how will it treat us when our time of trouble comes? it really is a low point i think in recent american history. although i'm sad to say there is a lot of competition for that dubious honor. and i think the low point to date to come back to libya has been the evens before, during and after the attack on our consultate in benghaz on september 11th 2012. obviously we weren't ready for it. whether we were able to or not

we didn't do anything on the date of the attack to save those four americans. or to do anything else to protect other americans in the region who were at risk and potentially enn. in danger for days thereafter. you with worst of wall -- but worst of all from the point of view of american national security look at how little we have done since that attack in benghazi. the administration has arrested one person, brought them to united states after some unknown amount of interrogation and will now try them in a full due process criminal trial in u.s. courts. no retaliation. no retribution to the terrorists. a criminal trial in the united states for one person. the lesson i think that being sends and the administration's prosecutor formance is that --

performance is that an ambassador is the president's personal representative in the country to which they are accredited, the lesson is under barack obama you can kill the personal representative of the president of the united states and do it with impugnity. and that really is the low point. the president doesn't seem to understand that. soion that is why -- so, that is why i think it is important to have this broad national debate on what america's role in the world is. to you believe -- do you believe as i think the overwhelming percentage of americans do that we are a strong a and positive and benign force in the world? or do you think america is too pushy? too successful? too assertive? and that a more withdrawn america will mix a peaceful world? i think that is the way the president looks at that time. i think it is like looking through the wrong end of the telescope but this is debate we are going to have.

i think we will have that debate in 2016 and i think the candidates who are likely to win are the candidates who can explain why supporting a strong american presence in the world is critical to our liberty here at home. thank you very much. [applause] >> suzanne, we have time for questions? is that right? >> yes, sir. >> could you touch briefly on turkey with their proximity to the mayhem in northern iraq? it seems very tempting for them to -- >> well, i think turkey has been increasingly a problem for the western alliance over this past 10 or 15 years. i think we first saw it back in the runup to second gulf war when we couldn't get the requisite parliament are authority to allow the transit of american military units

across the country into northern iraq. turkey was then and still is a nato ally and this conflict was on their border. but i think it certainly has gotten worse under prime minister now president. i think he has made a very clear decision to move turkey away from the vision of turkey as a secular westernizing country. he has done this in a whole variety of ways. purging the military and courts. suppressing domestic dissent. and i'm very worried about the direction turkey is takingion moving further away from the west. i don't know whether he has ottoman style ideas or whether some think you do or whether it is more focused on turkey but i do know that when he was mayor of istanbul he said the following "democracy is like a street car. you ride it to the stop you want

and then you get off ." i find that a pretty chilling proposition. and i just worry when i read that he is considered to be obama's best friend among foreign leaders. i think we should be red shirtingvigorous inour diplomacy with turkey. do what we can which is limited but try to bring them back toward the west and maintain them as a strong member of the that i tow alliance. im-- nato alliance. i'm very much afraid they are slipping away. yes, ma'am? >> yes on the peace process. there have been statements from the right sector saying they won't even observe the cease fire. is this something that is in control of of the government of kiev? and then the secretary general of the osce who is overseeing the process said while there

were some russian soldiers identified in eastern ukraine they could find no evidence of the russian military. how do you parse -- i'm sorry. that was silly. they could find no evidence of heavy military equipment in there. >> yes, well they didn't look very hard, did they? i think this deal is very shaky. i think the odds of it being sustained are small and i think putin obviously has been pursuing a strategy of fight and talk. and i honestly don't know what his ultimate objective is. certainly the conflict and even the annexation of of the crimea represent only a small percentage of the total territory in aah you ukraine you mightion peck russia to wan to carve out of the country. i don't know whether it is

because putin doesen feel he is capable of going as far as he might. but i think that because of the price of oil in international marks russia has been badly harmed and putin may feel that he needs a respid from the fighting in the the short-term for the russian economy to recover, maybe get some of the sanctions lifted but that is why i don't have any confidence it going to be sustained. certainly since the last settlement or the last cease fire along the lines of the september principles was signed, and then broken that russia's territorial control in the disputed eastern province has grown very considerably. do that every three or four months pretty soon the amount of territory effectively under russian control will be p much more substantial. i think the worrisome aspects about the deal in mensk are the political questions below the level of the cease fire.

when is means for autonomy and the eastern provinces. the two eastern provinces and what it might serve as a precedent from putin's perspective for increased you tommy from kiev for other provinces that he considers in the russian sphere of influence. so i think this is an effort to gain a breather on the part of russia. i think it is satisfy to france and germany. they want a breather too, they have to figure out what to do with greece and the crisis in the euro and they don't see the united states playing a roll at all. so i think -- playing a roll role at all. the strategy might be to freeze the problem in ukraine until they can deal with their other problems and then hope that america comes to its sinces. i don't think this is over in ukraine by a long shot and i very much fear it is not over in other countries once part of of the soviet union. yes, sir?

>> chuck downs here. you just outlined a number of specific instances in which the obama administration has made things that many of us would consider to be mistakes given american strategic objectives and principles around the world. i'm always shocked by the statements that every once in awhile float out from the white house that suggest there is an ideology behind it. if you think the global warming is something that has more i impact on more people than the murders of a few americans being held hostage by isis then you probably don't think that the loss of people in being, a few americans serving in being even benghazi you probably also do not think that comes up to a major point of concern.

and in fact state department a the time of benghazi was i think too often heard saying those people knew when they were getting into when they signed up for overseas assignments, which is really a shocking thing. throughout your career, you have always focused on some very specific and sometimes very smallish somehows you have defended the situation of the sirawis in western africa, very much loved in the lockerbee crash. what does it take for america to be shaken out of ideological drift that makes us think foreign policy doesen matter? it is only crimea, they had the ukraine since alexander and we all know it because we know music.

at what point do americans welcome alert to fact that the individual little particles actually form together to a mass that rolely matters? >> i think it happens from time to time. i think it certainly happened on 9/11 and what is amazing to me is that 13 years after 9/11 we appear to have foregoaten about it or some people appear to have forgotten about it. i don't tout the president's policy a triben in large part by idoology. a lot of people have theories on it. my theory. went to ivy league schools and believed when was taught. if you went to the faculty lounges of great universities today, he would just slip right into the conversation. he just happens to have been elected president. and that is what the danger is. i'm very worried that if we don't look at events around the world and draw what seem to be to be clear conclusions that it will take another tragedy, a tragedy of great dimension to bring america back to its

senses. and i have feared for many years that that next tragedy involves a weapons of mass destruction. that is why i focused on iran's nuclear weapons program all theses, north korea and the risk of proliferation generally. if the terrorists could get their hands on a nuclear device, god knows the north koreaians will sell anything to anybody for hard currency. you know, how will that play out for the united states? and i just think that the risk of this kind of terrorist attack is so acute that people have to be -- we have to have this debate to make people aware of it. and if we do have the debate, it will come out the right way. >> yes ma'am? >> last year i was monitoring a a aring hearing up here on the house. the witnesses were general kelly, commander of south command then admiral pat the

commander then of our coast guard. they were discussing the national security threat coming from the south, the absence of our military assets in the caribbean central american region and more accurately general kelly was saying we have the communication assets we can hear what is going on. we are hearing in the coms, chinese, arabic, a new environment now in the caribbean, russian activity. and in summary he basically identified what is going on south of our border in the region as a threat. could you a address his comments? >> secretary kerry has taken all that into account and he has decided the monroe doctrine is outdated and doesn't apply anymore. i think obviously we are threatened by a lot of interests by adversaries and potential adversaries in the western hemisphere and we governments

all around the western hemisphere luke in cuba and venezuela and like in nicaragua and other southern american countries that would be receptive to these sorts of the overtours from these adversaries. even the obama administration indicted high officials of of the iranian revolutionary guards corps for conspiring to murder the saudi arabiaian ambassador in washington by infiltrating assassins through mexico into the united states. a stunning document when you read it. and yet the president's response to all this is to throw away half a century of american strategy and in effect try and get open full diplomatic relations with the castro regime in cuba. another significant until to our adversaries that everything is up for grabs. and i think ignoring the geostrategic reallots realities that

we face is something that we do at our own peril. it as problem for the united states. every president says we need to spend more time on the western hemisphere and then every president doesn't do it. and we really do need to spend more time and more concern with the threats we may face who face here in the hemisphere. i'm quite concerned about it. trouble it and as my i think entire remarks dem monarchies stray there be so many problems that have fess at thed for six years because the president won't address them when you lay them all out it sounds pretty gloomy and in fact it is pretty gloom createy. if we are not prepared to face up to it as a country or even if we faced up to a limited number of these problems, others would still remain to endanger us or our friends and allies and it is not going to get any better. the presidents simply wrong if

he believes that not talking about foreign threats and challenges is going to make them easier to resolve. it doesn't. it obviously makes them harder. i will take one or two more here. yes, sir. >> korean freedom alliance. you fisa of all i would like to -- first of all, i would like to say that i was a really moved by our excellent description of the failure of obama administration. i think if you become the president i think it will solve the national security problem of ofthe united states. i notice that you haven't mentioned much about north korea. my concern is generally focused on that issue. i think that problem north korean problem as well can be solved by exerting pressure which obama administration is failing to do that because he is

afraid of war like in crimea, ukraine problem when united states says that we don't want to war war is too dangerous then the enemy with win without fewing a war at all. >> right. >> if we pressure north korea not afraid of war then that is a way to solve the problem. no war and win over north korea. the worst dictatorship. >> an important question. i didn't mean to slight north korea. i spent a lot of time worrying about the north korean problem and was duly insulted by the rulers of north korea in my time and still view it as quite an honor that they attacked me. my view is that the only long-term solution to the north korean nuclear weapons threat is to merge the two koreas. that is what we said we were going to do in 1945. the division of the peninsula was supposed to be temporary. obviously a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. i think the moment is at hand to make the argument to china that

if they are serious that the north korean nuclear capability endanger arers stability in east asia and impair's china's chuck growth and risk -- economic growth and risks the peace which i think is all true then china has to do the unique examsity it has to do and bring the regime down. it supplies 90% of north korea's energy and food and humanitarian assistance into north korea largely to keep the regime in power and keep the north koreans on their side of the border. i think among younger choy niece lead ares there is an -- chinese lead hes there is an increasing recognition the north core rean regime is an ugly piece of baggage and ultimate li it is in china's interest to see the two koreas united. unfortunately, much of the problem is in south korea which

sees unification as a costly burden to them. i think that is a bad reading with what happened with the the reunification of of the two germanys. this would be an enormous accomplishment if we could reunify the two koreas. it would help economic developmenting for and south and stablize the region but it takes time. the chi noose have to be talked to at -- the chinese have to be talked to at some length. what to do with the american forces on the peninsula. i would be happy to move them from the 38th parallel where they would bo woolridge no longer be needed to a base where they would be available throughout asia. the chinese see the threat of the americans a along the river they saw the movie in 1950 and they didn't like it then and they don't like it now. we can found a way to work this out with china but it takes time and we are not even approaching it. as you i think alluded to instead we just ignored north korea the last six years.

that at least is better than making concessions to the north core creians in hopes that they will give up their nuclear program which is no more likely than iran giving up its nuclear program. six years of ignoring the north doesn't mean they have been sittingsitting there. they have made six more years of progress and if you don't think that north korea isn't a global threat ask yourself why north north core rewere in syria building a nuclear reactor that was a clone of their own reactor at pyongyang until the israelis destroyed it in december of 2007? that is the very definition of a global threat. and i think the relationship between the iranian nuclear weapons program and the north korean nuclear weapons program is one the issues that nobody wants to talk about but i would be amazed if there weren't substantial work between the two. we know they are coop o a red cooperating

on ballistic missiles. and that ought to be troubling to everybody. maybe we will take one more here if there is. i'm sorry. i apologize. you are too far to the right. [laughter] >> a concern that i have is that for as important as it is for the u.s. to have enough military power to defend its interest overseas it seems as though a large number of our allies take our strength for granted and aren't spending enough for their own defense. what can we do to ensure that our allies hold up their end of the bargain? >> welshing i think it is a very legitimate question and a question asked for a long time since in the nato circumstance for example downward trend in defense expenditures by nato allies has been going on for a long time.

and i think what is required is and perhaps it is happening now unfortunately if there is a silver lining in this debacle in ukraine that at least in eastern and central europe they understand what is at stake for their own safety's sake and what happens when the united states fades away. but americans for a long time have said we have got to tell the nato allies to do more and we do and they don't and we just act like it doesn't make any difference. i think a new president would have to take a very strong line inside nato alliance to say we are not going to do this as business as usual again. i think there would be a lot of support for it. this goes to the critical question of american leadership. if you don't lead, don't expect the others to follow if you are not out there. now, by contrast on the pacific side i think the japanese are engaged in a very important and legitimate debate about the post

world war ii constitution what it means to be a normal nation and i think they can safely say they are a normal nation and shouldn't a normal nation provide for its own self-defense. i think the japanese will have that debate but i think it is going in the direction of a a logical conclusion that theyville to be more active, especially if the united states is not. so the circumstance is different. different parts of the world. we could have a fascinating discussion about india in that regard too, and how they events playing out on the sub continent and in asia generally. but all of of this says something about what happens when america withdraws from the world, when it doesn't play the role we need to play not because we are ail truityic. we are not out there doing this for the other countries for their benefit. we are doing it for our benefit. and if we don't do it nobody else is going to do it for us. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute which is respo

>> next, ace in the intelligence hearing on global threats. then governor rick perry speaks to republican women. >> here are featured programs for the weekend. on book tv, saturday morning live coverage of the savanna book festival. sunday at 9:00 eastern david axelrod on his 40 years in politics. saturday morning the 100th anniversary of the release of the realm "the birth of a nation." and the showing of the entire

film followed by a live call-in program. sunday 8:00, george washington portraits. find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think. e-mail us at comments at c-span.org, or follow us on twitter. >> national counterterrorism center director testified before the senate select committee on intelligence thursday about global terror threats in the ongoing efforts of his organization. this is an hour and a half.

the director from the national counterterrorism center. we have invited you to here today in an open session. there were some of the news outlets that said this would never happen with me being chairman. i just want to point out we are having an open session. this is to provide the senate and the american people with an update on the current threat from terrorism. the committee remains concerned about the expanding nature of

the threat and the challenges facing the intelligence community, and the evolving nature of the threat. this is the first of what i hope will be a number of open hearings that should give the intelligence community an opportunity to better inform the public of its current efforts and challenges. here is what we do. here is how we do it. more importantly this is what the american people should understand about why it is important to them. it is about their defense. i want to remind everyone to use extreme caution and to protect intelligence sources and methods. while this is an excellent venue to engage, i reserve the right

to suspend any questions or comments that may be sensitive in nature or whose response could disclose classified information. congress is currently debating several matters that impact our counterterrorism efforts in iraq and syria. as we take up these issues i want to make sure our members and the public understand the serious and credible threat that many of these groups present to the security of the united states and to our allies. in addition to addressing the threat itself, i hope you will discuss the impacting media leaks, and other challenges on your ability to fort terrorist attacks. i am afraid that your job is getting harder at a time when we can least afford it.

senate committee. the threats we face today are greater than those we face since 2001. al qaeda in 2001 was estimated at less than 1000 members. the group was relatively geographically contained. plots against our interest were infrequent by today's standards. we face groups today like the islamic state of iraq, which is described as a terrorist army with membership estimated to be in the tens of thousands. we face safe savings -- safe havens in the middle east and south africa,. we have evacuated our indices

due to threats against our personnel and terrorist groups are becoming more creative threatening our citizens and allies with nonmetallic iuds and massive truck bombs. they are mastering the use of the internet and social media to disseminate propaganda, recruit fighters that already have access to western culture, like we have seen in europe, canada, and new york. one of the biggest lessons we have learned from september 11 was that we cannot get terrorist the century from which they can plan attacks against us. arguably isil has control of the largest territory ever held by a terrorist group. this safe haven provides isil and other extremist with the time and space they need to train fighters to plan operations. it has provided them with access to weapons of a network that can be used to support external

operations. we know about the threat we face from al qaeda but we failed to act. i hope we don't make the same mistake again. i once again thank you. i welcome you here, and turned over to the distinguished lecture. >> thank you. let me say that i have been reading a number of your intelligence on threats yesterday. i think your agency is doing a very good job. i think you are hourly bound -- outwardly bound. i want to thank you for that good work. i had no opportunity for the committee to discuss in unclassified terms the terrorist threats to the united states and to the rest of the world. this is particularly important

that the american public understand these threats. they provide the necessary context for a number all of c decisions that the united states government is facing and that we have to help. these threats affect whether we authorize the use of force against isil, the need for continued miller terry deployment, and the need to reauthorize and intelligence tool necessary to keep our country safe. i believe that the terrorist threat facing the united states is as diverse and serious as at any time in our history. i have never seen more serious threats. these come from inside our country and outside. more so than any other terrorist organization we have seen in the past, i still is -- isil is

seeking to radicalize followers around the world they are extraordinarily visible. if you look at aqap, just as much a danger to us, but much more invisible. the uniforms of isil, the equipment, they're taking over the city, the children that have been beheaded, the christians who have been sacrificed, the iraqi army that having frog-walked, and then shot down in cold blood, all of this has been on television. americans have come to know the threat that isil is. the guidance from isil to potential terrorists is clear. it wants westerners to come to syria and to iraq to fight. isil instructs them how to carry out attacks at home, and that's what we're up against. there are more than 100 americans who have either