senate will have its annual reading of washington's farewell address. senators will also consider whether to proceed to the homeland security spending bill. current funding for the homeland security department is set to expire that same week on february 27. when the house returns it will take up a bill expanding the 529 college savings program. it is also possible members will consider funding for dhs, should the senate approve a measure that is different from the one that passed in the house last month. you can watch the house live on c-span, the senate live on c-span two. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there is also eight women -- 108 women in congress beat keep track using congressional chronicle on

c-span.org. new congress, best access on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> former u.s. ambassador john bolton spoke recently about national security threats at an event hosted by the defense form foundation. he also discussed president obama's foreign-policy strategy and why he expects national security to be a big issue in the 2016 presidential election. he has been mentioned as a potential candidate in that race. this is an hour.

>> good afternoon. we had the great honor of organizing this wonderful group. we are so grateful you came. organizing this wonderful group many years ago back in the 80's. we established with the specific purpose of giving congressional staff the opportunity to hear from our expert speakers on critical national security issues. primarily to deal with our national security and defense of our country. over the years, under the leadership of susan, we focus on programs for freedom, democracy, human rights. she 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 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 and will himone 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] >> it is important to talk about the new congress and how they got here and what it means for the future. it one that wasn't important during the 2014 cycle, a lot of

the freshman house and senate members owed their election in substantial part to their strong advocacy of american national security. i think a number of factors in the external world help repelled national security into public attention, isis beheading americans caught a lot of people's attention. i also think the people in the country are ahead of their would be leaders in washington. i think they have a deep sense of the importance of it -- of protecting the country, of the risks we face around the world. and i think it is the continuing reputation of the political conventional wisdom in washington. you 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 the debate for some of the 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 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 counterintuitive, 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 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 inciting extremism, which is the word he uses because he doesn't use the word "terrorism" if he can avoid it. to think that the deployment of american troops 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 respectful and civilian control over the military, something that is extraordinarily important. we haven't fostered 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 brits believe in british exceptionalish and the greeks believe in greek exceptionalism. if you parse that sentence, 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 in exceptionalism, 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 be 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 more years. 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 what 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 cold war to 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 ends, or if it did it has certainly returned with a vengeance. the crimea are in the process 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 in mensk will 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. what i think he sees the prospect for an 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 a 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.

and will 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 -- 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 in 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 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 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 capital 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

ina 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. you are 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 allies in the region. allies who were concededly not jeffersonian 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 and that has just disintegrated since the overthrow of ghadaffi. and boko 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 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 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 stability 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 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 vigorous in our 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 gloomy. 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 the 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 sitting 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 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 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 responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] lacks the film is based in many ways on the work of deborah willis.

there is this other thing going on as well in which black people were to post slavery, even before the end of slavery, as something other than human green -- human. it was part of the photographs and stereotypes. in many ways they are still haunting us in ways we may see ourselves and others. >> this week, while congress is in recess, the tv is in prime time. beginning tuesday night, the tv features programs on topics like the war on terror, the green

berets, and on wednesday it is world affairs. and the emerging crisis in europe. politics in the white house with david axelrod and april ryan. and biographies of robert e lee. on american history tv, tuesday night at 8:00, interviews with pows. the 100 anniversary of the release of the film the birth of a nation with an interview. thursday, historians debate the social changes of the 1970's of the 2015 american historical association meeting.

and japanese american internment. this week in prime time. >> lisa monaco announced the formation of a new agency this week designed to recognize and thwart cyber threats. at the wilson center she spoke about the agency and how work with other departments. this is one hour. >> i often save you want to get the job done right, but i woman in charge. let's give a shout out to three. number one, caroline karen c. she came to us from the basement of the white house. she had to adjust to the fact that we had windows with sunlight. number two, to make king. my right hand woman and the head of our cyber initiative at the wilson center, building our

capacity in norm asleep. number three is lisa monaco, advisor to the president here to discuss the administrations cyber strategy. she has the worst job in washington. and one of the most essential. we are glad to give her an hour of escape today. people pay lipservice to the cyber challenge. lisa lives in. she was the first assistant attorney general for national security who happens to be a woman. she got excellent training at the start of her career. she was an intern with the wilson quarterly. they can have a significant impact on the enormous cyber challenge. obviously the administration has

a critical role to play directing the department of homeland security to partner with the private sector. using the bully pulpit. the white house is tried to move forward in the absence of congressional action by issuing executive orders. leases here to announce a new center similar to the one we have for counterterrorism and counter h and -- counter proliferation. and them joins a long list of high-profile hacking victims sony, target, jpmorgan. even the background check contractor that clears employees for the department of homeland security. once again we are thrilled to have the main man in the white house on these issues, lisa monaco.

she is a wilson center alone -- alum. it takes a woman to get the job done right. please welcome lisa monaco. [applause] >> thank you very much for the very kind words. it is very nice to be back. as jane mentions, my first job in washington postcollege was here at the wilson center. it was a paper quarterly. it has now gone digital. before i get to my main topic today though, with your permission, jan, i would like to say a few words about very sad news this morning. it is with deep sadness that we have confirmed the death of

kayla gene mueller. today, our hearts go out to her family and my thoughts, in particular, are with her parents carl and marcia mueller, who have shown such grace and strength and dignity over many many difficult months. my thoughts are with carl and marcia, kayla's brother eric and the rest of her family because kayla represented the best of us. her generous spirit and her legacy of compassion and herself was works for those in need should serve as inspiration to all of us. so thank you again, jane, for having me. i want to thank the wilson center for hosting me. the job that i hold, as jane

rightly observed, is not what you normally see in the basement of the white house. i get to go see the sunlight. you do not serve up any windows in this room. as a presidents homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, i briefed him every morning on the most significant, destructive, and frankly horrific threats facing the american people. i'm often times, as the president reminds me, the bearer of bad news. since i began this job two years ago, i can tell you the increasing terror of the bad news that i've deliver is unfortunately on cyber threats. in just the last nine months, we have seen a growing list of high-profile targets. home depot, jpmorgan-chase target, sony pictures, and the u.s. postal service, to name just a few. we are at a transfer the hit -- transportation will moment and

cyber threats. the actions that we take in the actions we fail to take will determine whether the cyberspace for maine's a national asset -- remains a national asset or increasingly becomes a liability. it could become a source of old mobility. today, i want to talk about the threat we face in the administration's approach to countering it, drawing on counter tests and -- counterterrorism learned in last decade of war. let me start with the facts. according to a recent united states government assessment cyber threats to our national security and economic security are increasing in their frequency, and their scale their sophistication, and the

severity of impact. the range of cyber threat actors, methods of attacks targeted systems, and victims are spanning added unprecedented clip. the peso cyber intrusions have also picked up substantially. annual reports of data breaches have increased roughly fivefold since 2009. and the seriousness of those breaches is also rising, causing significant economic damage. no one it seems is immune. from health-care companies and universities to the tech industry, critical infrastructure and the entertainment sector. just as i noticed last week, anthem announced that hackers breached a database containing

personal information of 80 million customers and employees. inside the united states government, we know that states and nonstate actors, terrorists, hackers, and criminals are probing our networks every day seeking to steal, to spy, to manipulate, and to destroy data. at the state level, threats are coming from nations with highly sophisticated cyber programs including china and russia. and nations with less technical capacity, but greater disruptive intent like no -- iran in northern korea. they use the espionage for the commercial gain of their company. politically, the attacks are growing and they are growing in reality. this is what we saw with north korea's attack on south korea and their banks and media outlets last year. as for nonstate actors, threats are increasingly originating from profit motivated criminals, so-called "hackers for hire,"

those who would steal your information and sell online to the highest bidder. transnational criminals use cyber as a vector for profit and there are the ideologically motivated hackers and terrorists. you have groups like anonymous that thrive on creating disruptions on companies websites and lanky personal information online. you have groups like the so-called syrian electronic army which conducts cyberattacks in support of the brutal regime in syria. and then, there is isil, which is a propaganda machine which is recruiting people to their hateful message around the world. most concerning on the cyber front perhaps is the increasingly destructive and malicious may picture -- nature cyberattacks, as we saw with sony pictures entertainment last fall. this attack stole large amounts of data and rendered inoperable

thousands of sony computers and servers. it was a game changer. because it was not about profits, it was about a dictator trying to impose censorship and to prevent the exercise of free expression. at bottom, it was about coercion which the united states believes is unacceptable and is why we took the extraordinary step of publicly identifying north korea as responsible for the attack and responded swiftly, imposing additional sanctions on kim jong-un's regime. in short, the threat is becoming more diverse, more sophisticated, and more dangerous. and i worry that malicious attacks like the one on sony

pictures will increasingly become the norm. this is unless we adapt quickly and take a comprehensive approach just as we have in other contexts. which brings me to the counterterrorism model. now to be sure, there are many differences that make it difficult to apply all the lessons learned on the counterterrorism experience to the cyber realm. the private sector plays a more central role in responding and responding to cyber incidents than it does in the counterterrorism wrote -- realm where the government largely takes the lead. having observed the nation's response to terrorism post-9/11 from three different purchase and united states government, as the fbi, the assistant to the attorney general, and now at the white house, i can tell you that there are structural or organizational and cultural shifts in the counterterrorism realm that also apply to cyber.

we need to develop the same muscle memory and the government response to cyber threats as we have for terrorism incidents. structurally since 9/11, our government has done the very hard work of breaking down walls in our car owner terrorism agencies every people together -- in our counterterrorism agencies in bringing people together to get the best response to threats. whenever possible, we get partners to share information and extend our operational reach. this model has made our counterterrorism mission against a revolving enemy more effective and more sustainable. like counterterrorism, fighting cyber threats requires a hold government approach, one that uses all the tools available to us including our global

diplomacy, our economic clout, a law enforcement expertise, our competitive technological edge and, when necessary, our military capabilities. those who would do us harm should know that they can be found and they will be held to account. in the cyber contacts, we need to share threat information more broadly and coordinate our actions so that we are all working to achieve the same goal. and we have to do so consistent with fundamental values and in a manner that includes appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. we need to sync up our intelligence with our operations and to respond quickly to threats against her citizens our companies, and our nation. make no mistake. over the last several years, we have developed new and better

ways to collaborate across all levels of our government and with our partners in the private sector. this includes at the operational hubs at a government that are charged with monitoring threats, issuing warnings, sharing information, and protecting our critical infrastructures. at the white house, we have taken steps to improve our policy response. last summer, following a rising number of breaches and intrusions to both public and private networks, we created what is called "the cyber response group" or the c rg. you know it is official because it has an acronym. the c models on the very effective and long-standing counterterrorism security group. like it's terrorism analog, the

c rg paul's knowledge about ongoing threats and attacks and coordinates all elements of article governments response at the highest level. despite the steps in the progress that we have made, it has become clear that we can do more as a government to quickly consolidate and analyze and provide assessments on fast-moving threats or cyberattacks. as president obama said last month, we will make sure our government integrates intelligence to combat cyberthreats, just as we have done to combat terrorism. so today, i am pleased to announce that we will establish a new cyberthreat intelligence integration center, or ctic. currently no single government entity is responsible for

producing coordinated cyberthreat assessments, ensuring that information is shared rapidly among existing cybercenters and other elements within our government and sppingt the work of operators and policy makers with timely intelligence about the latest cyberthreats and threat afters. the ctic is intended to fill these gaps. in this vein, ctic will serve a similar function for cyber as the national counterterrorism center does for terrorism. integrating intelligence about cyberthreats, providing all sorts of analysis to policy makers and operators, and supporting the work of existing federal cybercenters. network defenders, law enforcement communities. the ctic will not collect intelligence. it will analyze and integrate information already collected under existing authorities.

nor will it perform functions already assigned to other centers. it's intended to enable them to do their jobs more effectively and as a result, make the federal government more effective as a whole in responding to cyberthreats. ctic will draw on the existing cyber centers to better integrate their expertise and information to improve our collective response to cyberthreats. now, responding to today's threat is only part of the task. the real challenge is getting ahead of where the threat is trending. that's why the president's national security strategy identifies cyber as a critical focus area to ensure we both meet the challenges of today and prepare for the threats we'll face tomorrow.

the president's budget backs up this commitment with $14 billion to protect our critical infrastructure, government networks, and other systems. and later this week, at stanford university, president obama and i and several cabinet members will join hundreds of experts, academics, and private sector representatives for a first of its kind white house summit to discuss how we can improve trust, enhance cooperation, and strengthen america's online consumer protections and cyberdefenses. but to truly safeguard america online and enhance the security of what has become a vast cyber ecosystem, we're going to have to work in lock step with the private sector. the private sector cannot and shouldn't rely on the government to solve all of its cybersecurity problems. at the same time, i want to emphasize that the federal government won't leave the private sector to fend for itself. partnership is a precondition of success.

there's simply no other way to tackle such a complicated problem. it requires daily collaboration to identify and analyze threats, address vulnerabilities, and then work together to respond jointly. to the private sector, we've made it clear that we will work together. we're not going to bottle up intelligence. if we've got information about a significant threat to a business, we are going to do our utmost to share it. in fact, within 24 hours of learning about the sony pictures entertainment attack, the u.s. government pushed out information and malware signatures to the private sector to update their cyberdefenses so they could take action. we want this flow of information

to go both ways. the private sector has vital information we don't always get unless they share it with us and the government has a unique capacity to integrate information about threats, including with noncybersources to create the best possible picture to secure all of our networks. when companies share information with us about a major cyberintrusion or a potentially debilitating denial of service attack, they can expect us to respond quickly. we will provide as much information as possible, as much information as we can about the threat to assist companies in protecting their networks and their critical information. we'll coordinate quick and unified response from government experts, including those at the department of homeland security and the f.b.i. we'll look to determine who the actor is to hold them to account, and as we respond to attacks, we'll bring to bear all of the tools available to us and draw on the full range of

government resources to disrupt threats. i want to commend companies that have shown strong leadership by coming forward as soon as they identify breaches and seeking assistance so we can work together to address threats more rapidly. this is good for the company. it's good for the consumer. and it's good for the government. across the board, we're tearing down silence, increasing communication, and developing flexibility and agility to respond to cyberthreats of the 21st century. just as we've done in the counterterrorism world. moving forward, as our live become more and more dependent on the internet and the amount of territory we have to defend keeps expanding, our strategy will focus on four key elements. first, we need to improve our defenses, period. in particular, using the

framework used last year would enable every organization to manage cyberrisk more effectively. even just employing basic cyber hygiene could stop a large percentage of the intrusions we face so we've got to start by getting the basics right. second, we need to improve our ability to disrupt, respond to and recover from cyberthreats. that means using the full strength of the united states government, not just our cybertools, but to raise the costs for bad actors and deter malicious actors. third, we need to enhance international cooperation, including between our law enforcement agencies, so that when criminals anywhere in the world target innocent users online, we can hold them

accountable, just as we do when people commit crimes in the physical world. and fourth, we need to make cyberspace intrinsically more secure, replacing pass words with more secure technologies, building more resilient networks, and enhancing consumer protections online. president obama will continue to do everything within his authority to harden our cyberdefenses, but executive actions alone won't be enough. we need durable, long-term solutions codified in law that bolster the nation's cyberdefenses. this is not and should not be a partisan issue. the future security of the united states depends on a strong, bipartisan consensus that responds to a growing national security concern. everyone shares responsibility here, including the congress. in december, congress passed important bills to modernize how the government protects its systems and to clarify the government's authorities to carry out its cybermissions. today, we need the congress to

build on that progress by passing the package of cybersecurity measures that president obama announced just last month that encouraged greater information sharing, set a national standard for companies to report data breaches, and provides law enforcement with updated tools to combat cybercrime. and we look to congress to pass a budget with critical funding for cybersecurity, including at the department of homeland security. the administration is ready to work with congress to pass these measures as quickly as possible. cybersecurity is and will remain a defining challenge of the 21st century, with more than three billion internet users around the world and as many as 10 billion internet-connected devices, there is simply no putting this genie back in the bottle. we have got to get this right.

our prosperity and security depend upon the internet being secure against threats, reliable in our ability to access information, open to all who seek to harness the opportunities of the internet age, and interoperable to ensure the free flow of information across networks and nations. we are at a crossroads, and the clock is ticking. the choices we make today will define the threat environment we face tomorrow. all of us have a responsibility to act, to practice better cyberhygiene, to build greater resilience in our networks so we can bounce back from attacks, so break down silos and improve information sharing, as well as the integration and analysis of threats, to pass cybersecurity legislation, and to ensure that we take a comprehensive, whole of government approach to