legal immigration rather than an economic driver. so delaying this is what he wants. he does want immigration reform. this would shock both of them, they probably agree with this. and i think what we need to do is to say, let's fix this, grow the economy and lift people's spirits, again not exclusively because of immigration, there are a lot of other big challenges we face. but we'll turn people into republicans if we're much more aspirational in our message. our tone has to be more inclusive as well. >> let's try another sticky one. there's a movement among some parents to opt out of common core testing. if a parent came to you said and governor i'm considering doing this what would you tell him-her? jeb bush: if it makes it harder to get into college and graduate i think you need it rethink it. we've had tests long before

common core. the idea is that this is common core that you have assessments is really not true and people have been opting out. florida had the most meaningful accountability system in the country. we also have the greatest learning gains in the country. they go together by the way. it's a comprehensive reforms that create the rise of achievement. we were on the nape test, you can't teach for that test. we were 29th out of 31 in 1997 on the fourth grade reading test. ten years later we were six out of 50. florida hispanic kids do two grade levels ahead of their counterparts and equal to 33 states on this test. low income are in the top five. african-american are in the top five in these tests. the reason is that we have

meaningful assessments and we have robust accountability and we have school choice that puts pressure on a system that wouldn't otherwise move. eliminating elements of the accountability system would get a bad result. when a third of our kids are 40% at the best or career ready that's where we are. how do you know unless you measure? how do you know unless you test? the idea you're opting out of a test because it's stressful, think about this. i mean, what's the world like? >> this is my college career? >> opting out? >> opting out of tests that were stressful. jeb bush: i'm thinking how we're going to compete in this economy

when we have large numbers of parents telling our kids it doesn't matter. in korea they're sending their kids to tutorials from 6 o'clock until 10 o'clock at night to be able to speak koreans and english by fifth grade and doing math that is 3 or 4 grade levels ahead of us. who is going to be the competitor that wins. this works if you're in an affluent family and you nurture your child and you help them along the way, fine. okay. that probably works for you. what about the single mom struggling to be able to provide for their kid where kids generally because they start in poverty well they can't learn. what my brother called the small bigotry of low expectations, that exists in america today and you can't deny it and keeping these lowering expectations and

limiting limiting accountability will doom us and i won't take it. >> this is a controversy that has sprung up the last couple of weeks. is a governor or former governor ready to be president of the united states in the area of foreign affairs? jeb bush: well, i mean let me think. ronald reagan? i don't know what else i have to say. you can be prepared from day one from being a governor and governors have to make decision and they have to say no to people and speak in english. it's a novel language. once you leave washington you you might actually hear it a little bit. they can't hide behind the collective skirt and say i passed an amendment about this. they have to lead. they have to make decisions and persuade and convince. they actually have to compromise from time to time.

and those skills apply directly to the presidency. and there's enough examples of governors who have been extraordinary leaders in foreign policy starting with ronald reagan. >> is islam a religion of peace? >> it's been hijacked by people who have an ideology who are barbarians. that part which is the part we need to confront is clearly not a religion of peace and i think you're not offending the sensibilities of people who are peaceful in the adherence of their faith when you say what i just said. for example, here's one of the -- you think about all of the foibles of the foreign policy over the last six years, one that may not be on the top five list but should be is

egypt. this was secretary clinton's -- i think she was primarily responsible for this. we've just begun to developing a relationship. here's a guy who should be the strongest ally we have because he for the first time that i've seen and i'm sure there are other arab leaders, but he's said it's our responsibility to confront radical islam. and that is what we need to support and should be no uncertainty about this. we should be a strong supporter of leaders like this. because the option is the dismemberment of the modern statements of the middle east and nothing good will happen when that happens. >> we have some questions on

cards and this must be one that slipped through from a journalist. dear governor bush we'll never forget your regime. what is it about your mother that men associated with her ten times likely to hold a high office? jeb bush: well, i don't know. i'm actually kind of struggling with this these days because i know there are some people in the press that would love to make this if i go beyond the consideration of this to make it where i'm giving the impression somehow that i want to break the tide between the bush family and the adams family. i guess you could say the same thing about abigail, right? it's different and unusual. i have self awareness to know it's kind of strange. on the other hand, if i go beyond the consideration i'll count on the good wisdom and directness of my mom to help

make communicate with people. she's pretty good at that. internally in the family for sure and also externally from time to time. i tell people whenever i start this -- which i've done before i've been tooting my own horn as governor. every time i start i feel this presence of behind my back and it's the looming -- you don't see it back there, right, this looming presence of my mother saying don't brag, it's not about you. i'm almost feeling like she's about ready to do what that woman did in baltimore when she tried to get -- >> i thought w. got that treatment. jeb bush: we all did. i think my mom and the woman who was bringing her child back home have a lot in common which ied a hire her a lot for doing what she did. that was a nice visual symbol of what needs to be restored.

>> among current u.s. court justices who is your model justice? jeb bush: wow. i love -- i actually when i was governor i'm not a lawyer but -- [applause]. jeb bush: you got to play one sometimes when you're governor because you're always getting sued. so i learned to appreciate the law a little bit more and i made a lot of appointments to the appellate courts which is important. i started ruling rulings, they were sending me rulings so i could find interesting things and scalia is the most interesting opinion writer. probably informs his views in the most eloquent way. we would be on my list. i actually admire and like the opposite of that would be clarence thomas who is quiet and speaks with great clarity when

he opines and there is a consistency there i admire i like and i generally share his views. >> pizza hutter -- peter says he he's coming after you next. are you worried? jeb bush: no, but i hope he gives me a heads up. >> you seem to suggest if the press reports are accurate that law needed to be fixed. what was wrong with it? jeb bush: i supported pence. i think he needed to create clarity this was not an intent or attempt to discriminate against people. it was an effort to provide space for people to account on their religious conscience. we need to get to a place where government is not going to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation and at the same time make sure that there is ample space for people not to have a

religious view but to actually act on their religious views. conscience what is we need to protect. i fear that we are not finding that balance right now. i just -- you listen to the solider solid solaceter general in defense of the government's position, when it was scalia or spheupb asked, does that mean religious institutions or others are discriminating if they don't want to participate and he said that's not what's in front of you today. my interpretation was that may be in front of you tomorrow. that's where we need to focus. i think the country is open and big as this country opt to be

able to find common ground on both those front. >> something that has divided the right is federal reserve policy and quantitative easing. and you had others this is a huge risk and not working and debase the currency. where are you on that? >> i don't know. i would have thought based onl people i admired and respected thought we already begun to see some of that impact on the second side this have and hadn't happened. the massive lou quid ity that the federal reserve brought into the market has got to be of concern. here's the problem with it. we're not growing.

we're in this weird dichotomy where the fed policy is creating bad behavior in washington. debt service is lower than it was 12 years ago. how can that be? we doubled and 250% rise in the debt but debt is lower. we shortened the maturities 60% of debt comes due in 4.5 years and interest rates in the low end, the low side of the maturities is next to nothing. basically the net result of this they complain washington is not dealing with the structural challenges they face. they are not forcing the conversation they need to have which is how do they fix the things that impede real economic growth. if we were growing at four% a

year and open kind of society where our tax code didn't create $2 trillion overseas but the opposite. imagine if it created them coming our way which would happen this country big and dynamic and a huge market and productive and our labor laws are better than most countries we would get sizeable amounts of that investment. that's the better way to get to low interest rates by having demand of money coming in to invest, not created by print money and holding it in banks. i do agree that the risk over the long haul could be the debasing and penalizing savors. i live in florida. the contract -- the modern contract would be you work hard and you save and you buy your

cd's and you sell your home up here somewhere and you go live in paradise. that's the american way, american dream. it's worked out pretty well except when your 401(k) went to a 201 (k) and mortgage got did he appreciate because we had a huge access of sub prime loans and were penalized and now you can't live off savings. so the savors are punished because those who are trying to secure capital are limited because of this massive regulation and so this policy is not getting the desired effect and they should pull back. that would be my view. >> have time for a couple more. how do we go about approving the assimilation of immigrants and i would add on to that, would you have any concern if puerto rico would become a state. any concern about assimilating?

>> first of all they're american citizens, so this is not a sub of the first question. it's a separate question. >> i got two questions for you. jeb bush: puerto ricans can buy a $79.01 way ticket to orlando and participate fully as american citizens. when they're there they don't. it's been the position of the republican party since the 1970's and it's been a view that puerto rico have the right of self-determination and decide if they want to have -- want to be a state or not. if they do, just as ronald reagan suggested and george h.w. bush and george w. bush and every republican candidate i support that. there's one puerto rican guy in the room. i just think it's a moral question. i don't think you can -- citizens should have the rights and responsibilities of full

citizenship. the other issue is one of huge importance because our immigration works when people embrace a set of shared values. it doesn't work when we divide ourselves up into parts where we move towards the european model of multi-culturalism. it's a disaster when it works this way. one of answers is, maybe we should have a conversation about what our shared values is. one of them is learning english for sure. other is being tolerant and having a respect of the bill of rights and understanding the uniqueness of our country where our freedoms are protected. these are a part of what have been shared values. the set may be called into question. part of any significant immigration reform i think would

be make it create a deeper requirement that's deeper. let me put it in perspective. to become a citizen you have to become a test. there are 100 questions that you're given and you'll get ten of those -- you'll get asked ten of them. if you get six of them right you're in. native born americans fail at a higher rate than immigrants because immigrants want to be a citizen so they memorize the questions. i think we need to go deeper than that and a deeper understanding what it is to be an american. if we don't we have problems. i think that's a key element of success. how? you make the test tougher. it was made tougher during my brother's administration. i think it should be made tougher again and get back to civic's education in our country in the k-12 system. look anybody do their kids

homework? read the social study books that your children and grandchildren read. it's not common core by the way. this crap hola has been going on for a long while. we would have been different if washington had not been or our mutual friend abraham lincoln. there should be a deep understanding of the courage and conviction and integrity of these great men and they should be held up high as examples of what it is to be an american in this extraordinary country. embracing that and making sure that all of us understand its power i think has to be part of any reform on immigration. frankly a more hopeful optimistic america. there's no reason we should be moping

around right now. i don't know. i don't think i'm naive to think this. we're on the verge of the greatest time to be alive. we've had greater challenges in our country's history. this is a time of abundance. we fix a few big things, part of which requires us to go back to our history and appreciate its greatness. i'd rather be 21 than 62. with nothing to my name. i'd rather -- as long as i could go back with my beloved nothing to my name. give me a credit card so i could play off one after the other. this is the coolest time to be alive and we need to believe that and then act on it. >> couple real quick ones. is it called the paleo diet? >> i'm tired of talking about because someone will catch me cheating and it will be like a big deal. but it's worked. look at me.

i'm skinnier. isn't that what diet are for? it's a simple diet. they call it because you're not eating processed food. that's about the principal of it. it's meat and fish and vegetables and fruit and nuts, lots of nuts. a whole lot of nuts. >> not that you have a lot of time for this, what kind of books do you like to read, what books have had a big impact on you? >> i like the charles murray books which means i'm a total nerd, i guess. he wrote the book about the columbian exposition, the chicago world's fare. i love that guy. i'm reading all his books right now. that's the one i'm reading.

i recommend those books they are -- they're non-fiction but written in a fiction kind of way. >> governor, thanks so much jeb bush: i should have said the national review. >> yes. you blew it. jeb bush: thank >> are wrote to the white house coverage continues next week with announcements from those seeking the presidential race. dr. ben carson will launch his campaign on monday at an event in detroit. we will have that live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. tuesday, we will have live

coverage of former arkansas governor mike cut canhuckabee. live tuesday at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> remarkable partnerships iconic women -- their stories and first ladies, the book. >> she saves the portrait of washington which was one of the things that endeared her to the entire nation. >> whoever can find out where francis was staying what she was doing, what you look like, that was going to help sell papers. >> she takes over a radio station. how do you do that? she did that. >> she exerted is enormous influence because she would move a mountain to make sure her husband was protected. >> first ladies, looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history.

based on original interviews from c-span's first lady series. learn about their lives ambitions, families and unique partnerships with their presidential thousands. first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women filled with lively stories of fascinating women who survived this routing of the white house, sometimes at a great personal cost, often changing history. c-span's first ladies is an illuminating and inspiring read, now available as a hardcover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> coming up next, a look at new authorization for the use of military force against isis with two members of congress. that is followed by a meeting with nato commander. later, ohio governor john kasich talking to reporters at a breakfast hosted by the christian science monitor.

continues. host: for the next hour we have to two congressman -- we have two congressman to talk about their group. walter jones and jim mcgovern. mr. jones, let's start with you. what is the purpose -- what is this constitutional work study group? guest: the power to declare war including the power of judging the costs of war is fully and exclusively in the legislature. we have no debates. the only time we have a debate is when they are asking for money, millions and millions of dollars to send overseas. mr. mcgovern and i have been outspoken about our constitutional response ability. before we send young men and women to get their lives -- that's why we wanted to put this study group together because we

believe members of congress should have an opportunity once a month, bringing in speakers to try to educate our colleagues to feel more responsible for these young men and women who have given their lives host: what is the role of congress when it comes to declaring war or pursuing warfare? guest: we are supposed to have a role in declaring war. we're supposed to have a role when the president commits troops to combat operations. war is a big deal. congress does not treated as a big deal. we debate authorization bills. we don't talk about what's going on in afghanistan or iraq or syria. we try to offer amendments and often times they are denied. we don't have the opportunity to debate these issues on the house floor. that is a great service to the men and women who serve in our armed forces.

-- disservice to the men and women. you cannot have it both ways. you can't criticize the president for committing troops into another war in iraq and syria and then say but i don't want to do my job, i don't want to vote yes or no. it's too easy for congress to stand back and let it all happen. if it goes bad coming you can seattle do it was going to go bad. if it goes good, i was with them all the way. we are trained to force our colleagues, forced the leadership to do what congress is supposed to do. host: you are saying that congress is reluctant to step up to take its constitutional duty. guest: walter and i had a resolution we brought to the floor last july. if u.s. troops were engaged in sustained military combat

operations in iraq, we would have to come back and have a vote to authorize that. it passed with 370 votes, a huge bipartisan vote. everyone is on record saying we ought to engage in this issue. in august, we begin bombing in iraq every single day again. we are more and more engaged and we have boots on the ground and there is no end in sight. we can get the committees of jurisdiction to bring a resolution to the floor. walter and i both have serious issues about what we are doing in the middle east right now. if you think it's a good idea, you vote yes. you cannot blame the white house. the president has done his job. he submitted an amuf to congress. congress is not doing what it's supposed to do. host: the president's amuf is

too broad from your perspective. from a conservative's perspective, it is too narrow. guest: i think it is to brought. -- broad. put it on the floor and let's have a debate. those who don't want to have a time in, let's debate that. i blame the speaker of the house -- the president did send to congress this new amuf that we have not had members -- we have not had any formal hearings. the hearings included other issues in addition to the president's request for a new amuf. we cannot get it to the floor. host: you are racing senior member of the armed services committee. this article this morning -- it

says tom cole and adam schiff have sent a letter saying we need to have this debate. have you to sign on to this letter? guest: we sent a similar letter a few months ago. we have done this time and time again. we are a bit tired of sending letters. one of the things we will probably do when we come back offer a privilege revolution -- resolution and try to force a debate and a vote on our involvement right now in iraq and syria. if i can make a quick point -- we are spending roughly $8 million a day. the american people and those who wear the uniform, we have a

responsibility and obligation to have this debate. it makes no sense for this leadership of the house to not let us meet our constitutional responsibility. this study group could help educate our colleagues, bringing in people who know the constitution to say you have a responsibility, bejewel responsibility -- mutual responsibility. host: let's put the numbers up on the screen. guest: not only do we not vote on whether or not to put our men and women in harm's way, we don't pay for it, either. these wars have cost us trillions of dollars. if you go to war, congress and the president ought to impose a war tax. right now, the only people that

are sacrificing are the men and women serving in afghanistan and iraq. the rest of us don't have to pay for it. the american people don't want to paperwork, maybe don't go to war -- pay for war maybe don't go to war part we've made it so easy to get into these foreign entanglements. congress sits back and ignores this constitutional responsibility, it's outrageous. we have done letters, done resolutions. we may use the privileged resolution to force a vote on this in the next few weeks. guest: we have done five-minute speeches. i've done one a week. you've talked about the waste and abuse. that's why jim and i feel so passionately about this.

it's about the taxpayer -- host: are we still operating under the 2001 amuf right after 9/11? guest: absolutely. the amufs we passed during the bush time -- the amufs from 2001 and 2003 is what obama is using now. he has his legal advisers, they say he has the authority to use the existing amufs. it's a new fight, it's a new world. we need a new plan. guest: it's 2015.

we are relying on a amuf from 2001. it is ludicrous. we are fighting a different war in iraq then when we entered into thousand three. -- th when we entered inan ♪n when we entered into thousand 2003. we should have a thorough debate on this issue. i'm skeptical of what we are doing right now. it ought to be tough to send american men and women into war. it has become too easy and i'm not sure that what we are doing in some of these involvements is for our security one bit. host: should the president have

the free hand he currently has to wage the war? guest: the president has the authority but we have a war powers resolution. the constitution says what our response ability is. -- responsibility is. it is pretty clear -- the fact that they are using the 2001-2003 amuf to justify what they are doing now tells you they even recognize that. that's a long time ago. we ought to repeal those amufs. if you want to start another series of wars, they ought to have a new amuf. i don't believe we should start another series of wars. that's one of the reasons we have to have this debate. are there alternatives that are more effective?

it reminds me of the dr. seuss book, cap and accurate we go over to clean up a mess, it gets bigger. -- cap in thet in the hat. host: it has cost over $2 million so far, the air attacks and bombings on isis. -- $2 billion so far. guest: we have to deal with isis. the aren't evil group -- they are an evil group. we have to have a debate on the floor of the house. we continue to allow the president, who has the authority to continue this bombing, yet we say nothing about it. i blame the leadership of the house and senate for not allowing us to meet our constitutional responsibility. host: let's take some calls. walter jones and jim mcgovern.

this is robert in georgia who is a democrat. caller: thank you. i can get to questions out in 30 seconds. can you tell me if you believe the special forces and intelligence were the most likely cause or ability for getting the people they wanted to get in al qaeda in afghanistan? it was sold that we need to send troops and. -- in. for iraq, it was weapons of mass distraction. -- destruction. there was a boat held on that. we sent regular troops in there. you were talking as if you were proud of that vote. are you? guest: no, i was not proud of

that book. it was one of them worst mistakes i've made. the administration was misleading, manipulating intelligence a lie about the iraq war. it doesn't do my heart any good but i show god that i regret my vote. i will go to my grave regretting that vote, quite frankly. guest: you are right. we got osama bin laden with a well-trained group of special forces, navy seals got them in pakistan -- him in pakistan. we ought to go after the bad guys, but how you do it is something we ought to discuss. i would argue that our

involvement in afghanistan all these years has been incredibly costly. we have put up one corrupt government after another. al qaeda is gone and now we are fighting the taliban and there is no end in sight. we were supposed to be out of afghanistan this year. we offered an amendment saying ok, we support the president come if we decide to stay beyond 2015, congress ought to vote to authorize that or not. we were denied by the congressional leadership to even offer that amendment. host: is you are leadership and support -- in support? guest: i think they are. the weight displaced work, whoever is in majority is in charge. -- way this place works, whoever is in majority is in charge.

at the end of the day, congress says no, the answer is no. if congress has yes, the answer is yes. the majority, the people in charge have the responsibility of scheduling what goes on the floor. i know our democratic leader wants to have a boat and discussion on this -- vote and discussion on this. she is not in charge. john boehner is. guest: jim mentioned afghanistan. i went to walter walter reed tuesday. i had these two little girls whose daddy was killed two years ago in afghanistan. his name was sergeant kevin balded. benjamin palmer was from cherry point, in my district. they were sent to afghanistan to train afghans to be policeman. the night before those two men were killed, kevin e-mailed his

wife and says i don't trust them , i don't trust any of them. the next day, he and palmer were killed by the people they were trying to train. i had no idea that i was going to meet two of the four who were part of the group were a medic was shot in afghanistan and killed by the people they were trying to help. we need to have this debate. the military deserves it and the american taxpayer deserves it. host: al in tampa, florida. caller: i'm a disabled vet. i've been waiting nine years, two months and five days for my v.a. claim. my concern is, you don't know where anybody stands anymore. republicans or democrats, even

their speeches about these wars. at least you can go and look at the voting record. it's nice to see republicans and democrats talking about the same issues. i've given my service, i was not injured during the war. i was injured in an accident in the service. the problems with the v.a. and not being treated -- host: thank you very much. guest: i would say quickly that al should call his member of congress. i have 7000 retired veterans in my district. they come first and they call our office response quickly. thank you for your service. -- they call and our office responds quickly.

call and say i've waited so long, i need my benefits, i've earned them. guest: we are very grateful for your service. we owed them a debt of gratitude. that means making sure the healthcare services they are entitled to are available. we took up a v.a. appropriations bill that is underfunding rva system -- our pa system. -- v.a. system. we are told we have a tough budget situation, we can't afford it. that is just wrong. host: have you seen improvements in the v.a. in the last year or two? guest: i have seen some improvements. there is more to do. the v.a. got the message.

it's too bad we had to confront these issues by learning about this terrible scandal that occurred. idc changes in massachusetts -- i do see changes in massachusetts. host: joe. caller: good morning, peter. i'm 63. i wholeheartedly agree with both of these gentlemen, republican and democrat. if you look back at what congress did when george bush was negotiating with saddam hussein to go and inspect him he told congress he needed the war power so that saddam knew he meant business. this congress did the most cowardly thing in its history and gave the power to declare war to the president, which is

the most of noxious -- obnoxious thing i can imagine. no, they did not hold any hearings on that back then. i don't know why these gentlemen expect them to hold hearings on anything of substance after that. guest: we appreciate your comment and we certainly feel your frustration. that's why we are putting together this group. that's why we're also putting our fellow members of congress on notice that we will use every procedural motion available to us to try to force this debate. if you go to work, there ought to be a clearly defined mission. -- if you go to war. no one can tell us how it ends. i can't figure out what our current mission is in afghanistan anymore. we need to exercise our proper constitutional role in oversight

and providing authorization or not providing authorization. sitting back and letting all of this twiddling of thumbs is unconscionable. host: you may use a privileged resolution. how does that work? guest: this is jim's initiative. this really is getting to a point where it's about the only option we have to force any discussion to put debate on the floor. jim would introduce it and i would join it. this is his idea. guest: we mentioned we took the vote last july, we introduced a privileged resolution saying invoking the war powers resolution enforcement an end to further escalation. we negotiated with the speaker about a less forceful resolution.

if we are engaged in sustained combat operations, we will reconvene and vote on a formal amuf. that was in july. nothing has happened. we come back from our break and we will introduce the privileged resolution. it forces the vote on the floor. host: what makes a privileged? guest: there are procedures in place that give us that ability to bring a resolution like this to the floor. unfortunately, you can't write the legislation you would like to write. it's about withdrawing our forces. we hope people will vote with us . to send a message to the leadership that you have to do something. if the majority in congress is saying no, it's no. if the majority say yes, it's yes.

but being silent, that's moral cowardice. it really is. walter talks about the veterans that he has seen at walter reed. i've talked to veterans come i've been to funeral after funeral after funeral. to not even be actively engaged in the discussion about what we are doing is a sad commentary. host: tom in harrisburg, pennsylvania. democrat. caller: he took a lot of fe heat -- guest: i voted for the afghanistan resolution because i thought it was appropriate to hold those responsible for 9/11 to account. what i did not expect was that resolution would be so broad in

terms of its interpretation that we would still be in afghanistan , not fighting al qaeda, now fighting the taliban, god knows who else -- i voted against the iraq resolution as well because i thought that was a mistake. i'm glad i voted against it. the important point here congress was on record on both afghanistan and iraq. we are not on record in this current war. host: robert in rochester michigan. independent line. caller: i would just like to say that i am very proud of both of these gentlemen for being sociable and giving -- getting along with each other, which is very rare for both parties.

as far as all these wars, i don't know why are in the middle of everybody else's for. we have to keep the shipping channels clear. if we are going to be in the middle of everybody's work, they should be paying us instead of us paying to control everybody else's war. there is no reason for us to be in the middle of every war. host: a response by walter jones. guest: i want to thank robert because that's exactly why jim and i are grateful to you to have us on this show today. we will be in afghanistan for nine more years. it's an agreement that obama signed with the new president of afghanistan. nine more years of life, limb and money. we have not even had a

discussion on that. a nine-year agreement with a foreign country to have a troop presence and to help them rebuild their roads and streets when we cannot build our own roads and streets, spending billions of dollars every month that's why we are so frustrated. you hundred percent correct. -- you are 100% correct. host: is this different than the congress being involved in the iranian negotiations? guest: the president should have the latitude to have ongoing negotiations. we do have a role. once they complete this agreement, congress should have the ability to analyze the agreement on behalf of the american people. i do think that we need to have an ongoing negotiation.

both parties have a right to see what the agreement is. guest: what walter and i are talking about are instances where we are putting american servicemen and women in harm's way, directly involved in hostilities and combat operations. that is war. it is very clear that congress has a role in that. even the executive acknowledges that. that's why the president keeps pointing to these amufs from a long time ago and why he's amid a new -- what he submitted a new amuf. when it comes to war, it's ironic because the iranian deal is not about us putting troops into harm's way. everyone feels congress ought to have a role, we ought to have a

debate and approve this and prove that. yet, we have people in harms way right now. we are borrowing billions of dollars to fight these wars. where is everybody? why doesn't congress have a role in that? host: you are a member of the rules committee. could you explain briefly why that is such a powerful committee? guest: it is the traffic cop of congress. every bill that comes to the house floor goes to the rules committee. we sometimes alter the text of the bill. we decide whether amendments can be offered. we keep the trains running, if you will. the rules committee -- i'm on the committee -- it's where we make the decision to say let's add these amendments, let's be able to debate whether or not we should continue to be in afghanistan or expand our

military footprint in iraq. the leadership has been very insistent on saying no, we don't want these debates. i was told this is a defense bill. the are a lot of important matters in the defense bill. what can be more important than the fact that we have american men and women in harms way fighting a war? that deserves debate. people can have differences of opinion. walter and i have some disagreements with the administration on their amuf. i respect them for putting their views on paper and presenting them. good people can differ and we ought to have those differences aired publicly and we ought to be on record as voting no or yes on these things. host: do you consider yourself an outlier on the republican party? guest: i am an independent.

my first obligation is to my lord and savior. i think an obligation is to do what i believe my lord wants me to do. when walter jones goes to the floor, i don't know whether he will vote as a conservative, a populist or libertarian. i guess that is who i am. too many times, i see the influence of money in policy in washington and that bothers me greatly. host: why did you vote against the budget? guest: i voted against the budget resolution because i think it is a shell game. it will not accomplish what they say it will accomplish in 10 years. they continue to use a gimmick type of system to say we will balance the budget. i don't think it is an honest

budget to begin with. host: do you support the defense spending portion? guest: no. the problem is, it's like why we are here today. in these bills, they write the bills so they can get the votes of certain members. if they had not been able to get those on the committee by $94 billion in the slush fund, they probably would not have gotten the resolution passed. host: muriel in new haven connecticut on our democrats line. caller: hey, peter and walter and jim. i have to say this, on the issue of war and peace, i support peace 100%. here is the thing -- walter and

jim represent what is really great and true americanism. they support our flag, they support our country and they know what war means to families their sons, their daughters, their husbands. a famous poet wrote "the poppies grow amid the crosses row on row." wars do not solve anything. the only thing i want to say more than what i already said, if you support our flag, if you support our country, this issue of having a debate among our people that represent us is the

most important thing to the republic. host: we will leave it there. guest: i appreciate her statement. i agree. i think it is a very american thing to have this debate. it's a very american thing to have to set. -- have dissent. that's the way this country operates. in coffee shops all across the country, people talk about these things. if i want to go to a diner in worchester, people ask why we are still in afghanistan. they wonder why we are not having that debate in congress. congress is becoming a place where we debate tribute -- trivial as issues casually.

we need to talk about this and we need to get it right and there are alternatives other than doing the same old same old. guest: she made some great points. why don't you in congress meet your constitutional responsibility? that's why we are here today. host: the work-study group, when is the first meeting? will it be open to just members open to cameras, what is the plan? guest: we are working together with jim's office and we will have the first meeting at the end of may. i will be the first host. we will rotate every month. we want to bring in any one that would like to join us. we are trying to get enough members of congress, anywhere from 201125 that would come sit

on a regular basis -- 20-25. we want experts on the constitution that can remind us that we have a duty based on our constitutional -- host: have other members joined the study group yet? guest: we have people calling in wanting to be part of it. there are a lot of members of congress who are hungry to have discussions on these things. to talk about the alternatives or the procedures. they are hearing from their constituents as well, why are you so silent on this? why don't you do your job? this is an attempt to try to force us to do our job. we will look at privilege resolutions and procedures to force this debate.

this debate might be for some it's a debate that has to happen. host: mark in clearwater, florida. republican. caller: good morning. thank you for letting america have their voice. on a bostonian, i'm familiar with mr. mcgovern's politics. if i recall, thousands of kurds were killed with syrian guestas. there were two resolutions for war. we told them we were coming in what the we were landing them on and he moved them out before we got there. there were cameras on the beach. the republican independent stated that bush lied. i would like to know now, what information he has to prove that

bush lied. that is the comment you made. guest: i have spent, ever since i voted for the amuf to go into iraq, i have met with people such as general anthony zinni who oversaw the iraq territory. he told me he was in constant contact with you when inspector, going in every day to see what saddam hussein was doing. -- with a you and inspector. i've talked to people on the in before we went into iraq and they all said it was manufactured. -- with a youu.n. inspector. host: corey from vermont. independent line. caller: this is for congressman

jones. i would like to know how far he has gotten with this bill on the 9/11 commission report declassified. when you was when what the bill is actually about -- would you explain what the bill is actually about? guest: we have read the 28 pages that came from the 9/11 congressional inquiry. what we want to do -- president obama has promised the 9/11 families on two separate occasions that he would declassify the information to 9/11 families. mr. president, please keep your promise.

bob graham was up here this week , i had a chance to talk with him, he has had in conversation with rand paul -- i asked rand paul yesterday to put the same resolution in on the house side. senator paul will talk to -- it's all about relationships. host: you were able to read them as a member of the armed services committee? guest: any member can read them. you have to ask permission of the intelligence committee and they would give you authorization. you go into a room and someone watches you read them. i read the 28 pages. the american people have the right to know the truth about who financed the 9/11 attack.

guest: i was afraid to read classified pages because i was afraid i would repeat it. it seems to me that people ought to know what their government does and what the government does. it's our job to keep everything a big secret, people can't handle the truth -- people's taxpayer dollars are funding this operation in washington. they ought to know what's going on. i'm all for letting sunshine in on what's going on. host: the war powers act passed in 1973. how will that take a role in your constitutional or study group is work-study group -- constitutional work-study group? guest: we will invite some constitutional scholars.

we will talk about what our constitutional responsibilities are and why we are not meeting the right now. we will file a privileged resolution in conjunction with the war powers resolution which says the president has 60 days in which to come to congress and ask for our approval. we are not doing that. either we disagree with the president -- he submitted an amuf. he has done his job. we had to wait for him to submit an amuf and he did. now, were told that we should not vote on anything, we ought to wait until the new congress comes in. we now have a new congress. we have exhausted that excuse.

now, we're being told that we can't come together on it because there are too many differences. bring it to the floor. let us have this debate and let people vote their conscience. if you don't have the vote, you don't have the vote. you can't do things without the votes. to say, well, it's too complicated, too uncomfortable or to blame it on partisan bickering -- walter is a conservative and i'm a liberal. we have a lot of differences. we have come together on this. this is not republicans versus democrats. it's about what we think is right and what is wrong. we are not the only republican and democrat below on this. you mentioned tom cole and adam schiff. there are lots of republicans democrats who feel as we do.

host: any appetite for this in the senate? guest: it's going to be interesting -- that's why we appreciate this opportunity to meet with you today. we just sent the first letters out this week, asking our colleagues to consider joining us in this study group. we will see how this develops. i hope we will get a lot of energy from people who believe in the constitution, scholars and not scholars and give us a bit of momentum with this effort. this is about our response ability -- response ability. host: senator kaine has been very vocal on this issue. all we are trained to do is to get this place, this congress to do its job. we could argue about every different positions. that's our different positions but right now, we are doing

nothing. host: tom in clinton, maryland. democrat. caller: good morning. these wars have cost the american people so much. we had the marshall plan for germany. our roads are coming apart. baltimore is an example of people in the inner-city that get nothing from the government. our money is going overseas to help other people. why aren't we spending money on our people to help them and we won't have all these shootings and riots? guest: i agree, totally. our nation's debt is $18.1 trillion. when bill clinton left office,

it was $5.9 trillion. that's why we are sitting here today, so frustrated because we are finding all this money to send to these foreign countries afghanistan for nine more years so that they can build roads and schools and let the taliban blow them up while we can't fix our roads and schools in america. it's time for america to have this debate, time for congress to reestablish the policies for this country. guest: we had a vote supporting this notion that every dollar we spend over here, we ought to spend a dollar over here. every dollar we spend on a road or bridge in afghanistan or iraq , spend at least a dollar here in the united states. if we did that, we would have created millions of jobs here and fixed all of our roads and bridges.

it is frustrating when we have these budget debates and we are told, we don't have money for infrastructure here, we don't have money to rebuild schools or invest in revitalizing neighborhoods. when it comes to sending money overseas, whatever money we don't have, we borrow and nobody says anything. to those who are fiscal hawks out there, they ought to demand that we pay for these wars or stop them. going to war on a credit card can no longer be an option. our country is paying the price. our constituents are saying, why are you helping us back home? we are told there is no money. that's not what we are being called when it comes to investing in these wars overseas. guest: general campbell, i asked him recently, would there ever

be anyone in the military or administration to come to congress when congress is funding a nine year agreement with a country and ever come back to congress and say look, i think four years i cannot see any changes, let's stop it? we won't do it. we will probably be there nine years after nine years. this is our frustration. it's not fair to the american people. host: george in jacksonville, florida on our public . -- on our republican line. caller: i would strongly suggest that we cut back to shock and all, pullout come up the christians and the moderate muslims out, send them to lebanon or other countries that will take them in and tell them we will be back if they attack us.

there are six steps to islamic conquest. diplomacy, immigration -- host: if you could, go straight to your point. do you think our current policy set up with -- caller: 100,000 troops, four weeks, pullout. guest: i'm not sure i subscribe to his solution. we ought to have a debate on it and people ought to be able to express their views. lyndon johnson had this great line -- he said it is easy to get into work, hard to get out of one. it's been too easy for us to get into these wars and no one can tell me how this ends.

the ultimate answer is, the people in iraq have to live with each other. you cannot bomb that into a reality. we need to think differently. otherwise, we are doing the same old same old. i don't think it has been worth it, quite frankly. host: kevin in manchester, new hampshire. democrat. caller: i just want to say, as far as democrat-republican goes it doesn't make any sense anymore. no one is working together. used have -- you should have general wesley clark on there with you guys. he talks about the destabilization of other countries because they don't want to use our paper money because our paper money is in deep trouble right now. the federal reserve is a private organization -- every piece of

dollar bill that comes across the bank has a debt attached to it. we are all working under debt. we pay our bills with debt, we're constantly in debt. we've had enough of your bickering. we could go over and stop this thing if we wanted to. there was a false flag attack to put the pressure on the american people. i can start my own business. -- can't start my own business. the states have stepped in and they want to take money from me when i'm not a part of anything? guest: i agree with kevin on 90% of what he said. this country is in financial chaos. i believe sincerely -- $18.1

trillion in debt -- i believe we are headed toward a financial calamity if we don't start dealing with the out-of-control debt of this nation. you can start that by having a foreign policy that makes sense and has an end to it. guest: we are frustrated too with the bickering and partisanship. we agree. host: how did this relationship form? guest: jim and i are strong together on home health care. a totally different issue. host: you were working together? guest: absolutely. we established a relationship, a friendship. it's through these relationships

that you were less you have a lot more in common than you think. you don't have to agree on everything to agree on some things. when it comes to war congress ought to stand up and vote yes or no on it. people who are watching, call your members of congress and tell them to join our study group, to be part of this bipartisan effort to demand that congress do its job. maybe we can change some things. host: the constitutional work-study group begins when? guest: it is being formed as we speak. we get members together and learn about what our options are. what are the different solutions to these difficult situations in the middle east? it is primarily organized to

remind our fellow members of congress that we have a constitutional responsibility when it comes to war and peace and we are not living up to that response ability. host: a privileged resolution after the break next week. >> on this weekend's news makers, mac thornberry is our guest. he talks about the defense budget the committee recently approved as well as other issues facing the military. >> sunday night on c-span's q & a. walter pincus on the situation in the middle east and his opinion on the 2003 invasion of iraq. >> i think one of the things about the bushed a r

administration and paul was never an expert on the middle east and iraq, has proved it. history has proved it. is that we look at things from our own point of view and get deceived by it and you can go back to vietnam as a great example of the first time we sort of did it openly but we have a history of it. trying to think other people are like us, who want our standards and the world is different. particularly in the middle east it is a totally different culture. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. >> nato supreme allied commander general philip breedlove discussed the russian ukraine

conflict and fighters flying in and out of europe. this is 45 minutes. general breedlove. all righty. staff: sir, we're going to end right at 3:30, just so everybody knows that up front. just gotta connect the engagement we've got to book up, so right at 3:30. gen. breedlove: so thank you all for being here. it's already been a long and a productive day. i do have an opening statement, and i'll get to questions, but first and foremost, i want to welcome young juliette back there, who came to work with her dad. and if -- juliette, can i put my coin in your hand? shake my hand.

[applause] gen breedlove: as many of you know, i just completed eucom's posture testimony with the sasc. we had a great exchange, which i believe many of you watched, but for those who did not, i'm going to follow a few of the points that i made there. europe faces a very different and much more challenging security environment, one with significant, lasting implications for u.s. national security interests. russia is blatantly attempting to change the rules and principles that have been the foundation of european security for decades. the challenge posed by a resurgent russia is global, not regional, and enduring, not temporary. the situation on the ground in eastern ukraine is volatile and fragile, and we remain convinced the best way to bring the conflict to an acceptable, lasting solution is through a political settlement, one that

respects state sovereignty, and territorial integrity. and while many question the kind of assistance the u.s. should provide, we need to expand the conversation of it to ensure we include all elements of national power to support ukraine, using the dime formula, which we like to use in the military, of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. we cannot fully be certain what russia will do next, and we cannot fully grasp putin's intent. what we can and are doing is learning from his actions. and what we see suggests growing russian capabilities significant military modernization, and ambitious strategic intent. we also know that putin only responds to strength and seeks opportunities in weakness. we must strengthen our deterrence in order to manage his opportunistic confidence. eucom and the nato alliance are

adapting through improving our readiness and improving our responsiveness, adapting to the challenge, and increasing our own collective security. coupled with the challenges posed by russia, europe faces a surge of violent extremism from foreign fighters returning home from the fight in syria and in iraq. the spread of instability into europe and the reach of transnational terrorism could have a direct bearing on the national security of the u.s. homeland. in facing both of these serious challenges to the east and to the south, eucom is working closely with our sister cocoms nato partners, as well as allies, and other international organizations including the e.u. addressing these challenges means our own u.s. efforts in europe remain utterly essential: more important now than at any time in recent history. our reassurance activities over the last year through operation atlantic resolve have demonstrated our resolve to keep

the president's and our nation's commitment to article v of the nato washington treaty. our ability to be as responsive and to reassure quickly rests on the fact that we are there in europe, forward and ready. there is simply no substitute for our forward force presence in europe. it is the bedrock of our ability to assure our allies, to deter real and potential adversaries and to respond in a timely way should deterrents fail. rotational presence is no substitute for permanent forward present, but genuinely and fully funded rotational presence can play an important role in helping meet the requirements in our theater, if it is heel to toe and properly resourced. they are complimentary, and there are advantages of both forward stationed and u.s. rotational forces. the increased readiness and

interoperability gains associated with rotational forces has added value because of the flexibility i have to assign them throughout the theater for exercises and training which is meant to assure our allies and partners. these advantages are at risk because of budgetary challenges and resourcing trade-offs we face now, based on the budget control act, which have already forced eucom to assume significantly greater risk. our timelines are longer, our preparations are less robust and our fundamental ability to deter and defeat in a timely and effective manner is less sure than it could be. the security challenges in and around europe are only growing sharper and more complicated and will be made much worse if sequester occurs. with that, i think i'm ready to take questions. >> thanks very much.

jim sciutto with cnn. you're very -- on the hill and your comments here, on your twitter feed, you're very forward leaning in your assessment of the seriousness of the threat from russian military activity in eastern ukraine. to a degree, the white house is not, when you hear their public comments. and i just wonder if you feel that the policy response from the obama administration, the gradual ratcheting up of economic sanctions on individuals, et cetera, meets the challenge, is commensurate to the challenge to u.s. national security, because as you just laid out here blatantly challenging the rules that kept the peace in europe, putin only responds to strength, seeks opportunity in weakness? seems to me there is a mismatch between your description and the policy response. gen. breedlove: so, there are things that we are doing broadly in europe, which i do believe addresses putin's calculus. the things that we're doing with our nato allies to build the assurance measures that are happening from north to south, air, land, and sea.

these are strong responses. our nation's reply and the european initiative taking almost a billion dollars to build that infrastructure that we need in the eastern-most portions of our nato nations, to bring exercises, which you see playing out now, training, which you see playing out now, helping not only nato allies, but nato partners, create partners like georgia, who is the second-largest troop contributor in our resolute supports in afghanistan today. so, i think we are taking broad measures which mr. putin does understand. and the concern that i have about what is going on in the east is based on what we have seen across the last year as russian operations have continued in the donbass. >> general breedlove in your

testimony today, you also said that russia's recent activity and buildup during the reset gives you pause, leads you to believe that they're getting ready for another offensive sometime this spring, and i was wondering if you could please provide some details of what you've seen and what you think is going to happen? gen. breedlove: so, i think what i said was that these preparations are consistent with the possibility of an offensive. and that is what we have seen through several of the previous pauses in eastern ukraine, what we saw is a pattern of resupply, training, what we call refurb and refit, getting set for any future actions. and we have seen that happen during this lull in fighting this ceasefire since 12 february agreement. so we can't know what mr. putin has in mind. we can see what he has done in the past and what he has done during this pause, and that does concern me.

>> on that if they were to go forward after this reset, what would their objectives be? and on a specific question, when the finns detonated depth charges because of underwater activity, at this point, are you -- are you prepared to say that that was russian underwater activity? gen. breedlove: ok. so let's talk to the objectives first. we don't know what mr. putin's objectives are. i could offer you my personal opinion, not the opinion of either the eucom commander or the nato supreme allied commander of europe. you know, i believe that mr. putin very much wants in a very simple way, he wants the west out of ukraine, and he wants ukraine out of the west. and i believe that he will do -- bring pressure on the government in kiev until that simple formula is met. mr. putin wants ukraine as a part of his sphere

of influence. you have heard this. and he wants a state that is not leaning towards nato on his borders. and i believe that he will continue to pressure towards that. that is my opinion. as far as the finns, i know about as much as you have. i've been back here getting ready for testimony in the senate and working that. i followed what you have followed in the press and -- i'm not dodging your question. i just don't know anymore. we know that they've dropped them shallow, and i think they're signaling. that's what's been in the press, but i do not have any more explicit information on that. >> general in the past plants have called for the navy to begin deploying sailors to the aegis ashore site in romania to do the european missile defense at about this time. is that still on track?

are those sailors going to deploy there? and if they get there and that site becomes operational, how will it change this situation that you've described between us and the russians, or you know, nato and the russians? gen. breedlove: so i have a very broad understanding of the schedule. it's not down to when sailors are supposed to leave, so i can't address specifically when sailors are supposed to leave. what i can address is that the program of standing up this first site in deveselu is on track. i would say to be intellectually honest, very slightly behind in construction, but the navy and mda is absolutely certain that they can turn it over for technical occupancy on time. so, without getting jargony, it's on track. the other good news is, it's on budget. and that is also a good thing. so, right now, we are on time to deliver and stay on the schedule to bring this site up. it will be important. it will be the first of those ashore sites that enable the epaa, the european

phase adaptive approach in european missile defense. and our allies are coming along right beside us. >> this has been a big fly in the ointment for the russians though. the europeans missile defense, they've been very upset about it. if it does stay on track as you describe, is that going to only increase the stress for everyone on the continent right now, because that'll be one other thing to upset them? gen. breedlove: so as you know, we've had a long conversation with the russians. physics is physics. they understand the physics. their public position on this is that it's not good. this hasn't changed in a long time. i'm not sure that -- that this will be any new incremental leap in concern. >> general you had some back and forth this morning with senator reid about -- you said that offensive weaponry should be considered, the u.s. should consider arming ukraine with offensive weapons. could you expand on that, sir? what type of offensive weapons

are you talking about? gen. breedlove: so thank you for asking that. 2 1/2-plus hours of one witness testimony this morning, and after i left, i thought it went pretty good. and my staff said, "sir, you said offensive weapons twice." so thank you for letting me clear the air here. what we're talking about is what we have always talked about, which is defensive lethal weapons. i use those words and didn't even know i used them. so we just -- we'll clean that all up with the sasc and make sure that all understand, this is not some big policy leap or change or anything. it's just a fighter pilot doing two and a half plus hours worth of testimony in front of the senate. so, my position has not changed. that is that in ukraine, in crimea, in georgia, and all these other places, moldova, russia, brings all of the elements of national power to bear when they begin to exert influence on a nation. back to that dime model:

diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. in ukraine, intense diplomatic pressure trying to discredit the government of ukraine and try to bring pressure against all of those supporting organizations in the west that are standing aside of ukraine. informational. i don't need to tell you all how -- how strong, deep, and wide the russian misinformation campaign is out there. militarily, this is probably the biggest change in the last two decades. we've seen now a russia that will use its military to change the international borders of a nation, and then economically we see intense economic and energy pressures on these. so russia is bringing to bear all elements of national power. what i have said continually -- i said it here, not all that long ago, is that we should not unnecessarily take off the plate any of those tools to include military tools, defensive lethal aid. >> what kind of defensive

weapons, sir? gen. breedlove: i don't discuss individual weapons. i find all too often that we get very limiting conversations when we choose one thing to talk about. we have had an opportunity through our joint commission in ukraine, the u.s. european command has had over 25 visits into ukraine, many of them before august of last year, and we had to go repeat a few of those because as russia came across the border in august of last year, they very much changed the face and complexion of ukraine military. so, when we went back and revisited as a part of this joint commission, we have a firm understanding of what the ukrainian military needs, and the good news is, it matches fairly closely to what it is asking the west to help it with, and it is broad categories of capability. i don't really think it's useful to talk about any single one or two types of weapons. >> you've outlined the threat

posed by russia and president putin and the -- what you call the broad range of responses that you have had. but i think it's fair to say that there's a sense of frustration among some people in the senate armed services committee today that the united states and its nato partners are not able to take action that would bring about a result more consistent with u.s. national security policy goals and that they find the description of what's going on now to be somewhat unsatisfactory. so what is your response that when you sense that frustration that the united states is not able to do more to bring about a result more favorable, what's your response to that? gen. breedlove: so, i have a role to play. i am the combatant commander of my area. it's my job to bring my best military advice to my leadership, both civilian and military, and that's what i do.

i continue to work with the situation, observe, do what we're doing specifically in ukraine, but there are other nations we're doing all the same things, work through our joint commission to determine what's appropriate, and then i make my advice and i pass that advice up, and then we allow the policy makers to make their decisions. >> are you saying there isn't a more satisfactory option that you can offer at this point? gen. breedlove: i'm having trouble understanding what you're asking me to say. what i think i've done, so i'll grade my own paper. i believe in the work that my people have done. i think we have put good advice on the table, and that advice is being looked at. >> thank you, general. earlier today, you talked about sharing resources with africom. i'd like for you to give us a little more detail on the forces that you share there, what percentage, if you have them numbers, specifics, and how often does this occur? and i know, sir, that you do not like hypotheticals, but if there were a major conflict that were to occur on the european continent

and on the african continent would eucom and africom be able to handle this with the numbers that they currently have? gen. breedlove: right. so, it's a great question. i'd love to answer this one. so, first of all, the sharing agreement that we have is unique. we didn't have this authority before, and because we are so closely linked in where we are in the world, and because so many of our allies are so closely linked to the issues in africa and because so much of what happens in europe is affected by the flows out of africa, it was important that "rod" rodriguez and i have the ability to quickly use forces without having to go through a cumbersome process, which goes back and allows for the transfer, et cetera, and so secretary hagel and his team looked at a proposal that we put

forward between rod and i that would allow us at the cocom and deputy cocom level to agree to use forces back and forth without having to go through more cumbersome processes. so literally, just about everything in eucom and just about everything in africom can be shared left and right if we have to do that. that is very positive. we have done this numerous times. it saves great time in responding to an issue when rod and his team can come to us and say "we really need these c-130s. we really need these mv-22s. we need this to do this, and boom we're off." so, this sharing arrangement, i think is a model for the future. it's kinda started off because first of all, general rodriguez and i have such a close relationship. and then, we decided we're going to make this happen and the staffs would follow, and then we were able to make it work officially through new authorities that we have. now, to your question on major conflict. let me just say that the forces

in europe over the past 20 years have been sized for a situation where we were looking at russia as a partner so we have come down over 75 percent in our forces since the cold war. and our staffs and headquarters the same way, because russia was a partner and we didn't need this great force structure. what we see now of course is that russia has demonstrated it's not a partner. also, we have new challenges from the south in foreign fighter flows and other migrations. we have the issue of syria and iraq on one of our allies' borders, et cetera. so, i think it is fair to say that we probably ought to look at that force structure and see if it's now adequate to the tasks that both africom and eucom place on it. >> sir, is it possible to get your assessment of russia's -- the pace of russia's combat aviation patrols around europe? has that picked up within the last year?

i believe between '13 and '14 it's like quadrupled or something. gen. breedlove: so we saw, and we talked about this the last time i was standing at this podium. there was a period where we had a spike in these aviation patrols. we are back down now to essentially norms. so. >> why do you think that is? gen. breedlove: i can't tell you. there are all other kinds of focus that the russian military has right now, including the ukraine and other places. they may have put demands on their force structure that they now have to address in maintenance ways. i really would not want to speculate, but we are back to a pretty close to norm. >> i'd like to go back to one of the questions you asked earlier today about turkey. specifically, they had said no to bringing combat search and rescues to incirlik. and as operation continues and american pilots are still flying over unfriendly areas, and earlier today you talked as a pilot how important these guys are to you,

is there a discussion to bring guardian angels or to bring them in other areas to help support the operation? gen. breedlove: this is a subject i just can't discuss with you in an open forum right now. >> you also talked a little bit this morning about what would your concerns -- what are your concerns about isis potentially using the refugee flow from north africa, from libya and other countries and do you believe isis is using that flow? what is your current assessment about isis's penetration into the nato countries, into southern europe? can you keep -- your concerns about keeping europe safe? gen. breedlove: so, it's a tough question. ki tell you that i am concerned that isis will use every vehicle available for moving their operatives back and

forth into europe, into the united states, into the west, wherever. i don't think that there's any opportunity that is out there that i would not consider that they have either used or will use in the future. so, i do believe that many of these transient types and capabilities to include this migrant flow across the mediterranean need to be looked at for the possibility of isis. as i said today, i don't have any one glaring example to point to. but this is a concern that we have. >> what is your concern about the ability right now to keep essentially europe safe from isis and your current assessment about commercial aviation across europe, since that's always a target? gen. breedlove: so, i have said before and i would still say the same thing, that the problem

that we're going to face from foreign fighters of which isis could be a part of that, but certainly foreign fighter flow is going to get worse before it gets better. i think we all realize that there are a lot of fighters in iraq and syria from all the nations of the west to include the united states. and while some of them will answer the call to stay there, others will return. and they will return with skills, and many of them with malicious intent. i think the good news is that the nations are beginning to take action in that for awhile nations have been coming together in smaller coalitions and addressing this via intel sharing, policing, et cetera, et cetera. and now you see larger

organizations taking it on. and in nato, we are going to take on how do we address this very nascent, very beginning, is as a large institution, but some of our nations have been working very deeply together for a long time. >> just to press for a minute, what do you think nato can do, what do you want nato to do to fight this foreign fighter flow into europe? gen. breedlove: what i think nato will do at first is begin to share intel and to begin to work inside the nations to understand that this is bigger than a military problem. each nation handles intelligence inside their nation in different ways, and it's important that we do an all of government approach, meaning the moi or ministry of interior functions and mod defense functions sharing together. so i think what you will see, and i really can't speak, because as i said, it's a nascent, we're just beginning it, but i think what you'll see first is a broad beginning of intel sharing and being able to cooperate with

intel sharing as we track these people. >> talking about the flow of foreign fighters into europe, do you know what's the size of those fighters who are coming from syria and iraq, and also do you believe that turkey is doing enough to counter the flow of elements who want to join isil isil inside syria? gen. breedlove: so, i don't think i have a number to give you on the number of foreign fighters returning. i'll make all kinds of news, but i can't back up if i throw a number out there. so i -- i think i'll just avoid that. we know there is returners because we're capturing them. they've been involved with

issues in our nations. so, as you have seen, three attacks from belgium to paris to copenhagen. so we're -- this to turkey. i'm often asked this. in a military relationship, military to military, eucom to turkey, our mil-to-mil relationship is strong, our cooperation is strong. we have seen them come and help us with several things now like training and equipping and other things that are going on. turkey is addressing those problems at its border because they're problems to them, just like they are problems to us. i don't share the concerns that some do that there are issues here. i see a strong ally who recognizes the problem and is working with us on it. >> general if putin only respects strength, why are you removing 150 helicopters from europe? gen. breedlove: so, i don't think that number is correct

that you just quoted. you ear -- you're asking about the aviation restructuring initiative, where some aircraft will return. so, i mean, we are all still dealing with the budget control act. the first $478 billion reduction in our budgets, and facing budgets that could be sequestered from here out, all the services, not only the army, have a structure problem, and the services are dealing with those structure problems the way they have to. as to our specific situation in europe, the way that they're backfilling with the rotational force will actually leave me probably with more force structure than i have now. the force structure i have in europe now is gone about almost exactly half the time over the last 10 years it's been deployed to afghanistan, iraq, or some other place, and that leaves a certain amount of capability. i will be backfilled now with a

rotational force that arrives ready. i don't have to train it to get it ready. it arrives ready, and it will not deploy. it will be there with me in order to serve full time. and so if the initiative is heel to toe, back to back fully funded, we will have the capability that we had before. >> are you concerned the message it sends the russians that you're taking out permanent aircraft with rotational, temporary aircraft? gen. breedlove: i think what is concerning possibly to the russians or all the other things that are taking on around it the eri, a billion dollars worth of investment in presence, training, infrastructure in our eastern-most things. a strong reassurance measures rotation. now, as you know, we're into our third rotation: heavy armor forces, stryker forces, paratroopers, strong aircraft presence north, south, and center. amari cholet and at campi

aturzzi. i mean, we're -- the presence right now of our u.s. forces in europe is quite exceptional. >> do you have plans to increase your army units or add more armor to the force, strengthen the force? gen. breedlove: we are talking with the army about numerous initiatives. i don't want to lay them out there because it would be premature, but how we rotate and how we forward pre-positioned forces are all being discussed. >> general, could you talk about some of the propaganda initiatives that russia has, and what's successful, some examples, broadcast, leaflets, that sort of thing, and what you're doing to counteract it? gen. breedlove: so to the russian information campaign, or as i like to call it disinformation campaign, it is a well-orchestrated, well-run

effort across all media, printed, internet tv. some of the tv that is offered in the baltics, it's really quite extraordinary. it's very good tv. the programming is very slick and very good. it itself is not often propaganda, but because it is the programs that people want to watch, they are tuned in to the station. and then in between the programs, you get the message. and so a very, very slick, very, very well-orchestrated audiovisual, radio, internet, et cetera, et cetera. strong in all of the media. i -- this is not my number, but i've used it before. i think i may have even used it here. we have heard that essentially

they've put about 333 million u.s. dollar equivalents into their program. this is a big investment. it is clear they see the value of getting their story, their narrative out. i would say that in the west all of us, bigger than nato, bigger than e.u., all of the west has really not answered yet. we find it harder to deal with this. remember that the speed and power of the lie is it's fast and it doesn't have to be backed up. as long as it is accepted, it's good. to attack that narrative is harder. so we have work to do. >> what are some of these messages that they're getting across? gen. breedlove: rather than go into that, i'd just say tune in r.t. and watch. >> sir, there is a crisis with

migration migrants from the north african coast into southern europe. has eucom put forth proposals to assist in -- in the relief of that effort, or to assist the -- some of the countries there? and then in another part of your aor, a couple weeks ago you had that incident with the reconnaissance plane that was buzzed by a russian fighter. do you have an update on that? do you have an update on what happened there? and have you gotten a suitable response from the russians? gen. breedlove: ok. let's talk to eucom and migrants first. so yes, there is a problem of a flow of migrants across from the north african continent into multiple european command allied nations along the mediterranean. probably the most demonstrative, into italy. italy, for instance had an operation, mare nostrum, which addressed this issue for awhile, and handed that

operation off to the e.u. who may be a little better suited because they are an all-of-government sort of organization where -- where it was the italian navy dealing with it before. right now, the involvement that we have in the u.s. is helping them understand the situation on the water, the operational picture out there, et cetera but we are not directly involved in that business yet. this, i think, is something that will evolve. i believe that the european union will be ever more involved in this. they're really a very appropriate organization to deal with it, because they have capability afloat, and they have all of that connective tissue to the rest of government: judiciary, policing, et cetera, et cetera. and so that right now is the way ahead. yes, we did have an intercept

that you have heard about that was unprofessional. i think that it's become real clear to us now, one of the thoughts we had when it happened is it could've just been a lack of proficiency, and we do believe that has happened. we messaged the russians about this incident, and we have had another intercept since that time, and it was done completely professionally. >> you stated earlier that the level of intercepts or the level of flights through that region have returned to normal. is that -- is that -- gen. breedlove: it's about norm. it's about norm. a couple of months have been slightly below norm. a couple of months, slightly above. >> thanks. can you quantify in rough terms the force structure reductions eucom implemented that assumed continuing russian cooperation? and you'd mentioned that or look

at someone -- or look at the adequacy of the current force structure. have you recommended that? gen. breedlove: so as i shared earlier, the number that is widely used is about 75 percent reduction. it really depends on where you start. i can give you a very easy way to understand it. when captain phil breedlove was serving with second brigade, third infantry division, in germany, there were two corps, five divisions, and over 400,000 troops in europe, and now we're at 64,000. we have two brigades and about well, a lot fewer airwings there. so we have come down a lot. and again, i don't judge that that was incorrect. that was done in a context of we were forging a path ahead where -- where russia would join to the west in its values and its approaches to how we do business.

how we conduct ourselves militarily, et cetera, et cetera. so, i'm not standing here in judgment of anyone in the past. this is just the way it happened. we've been trying to make a friend or a partner of russia for two decades, and now we realize that that may not be where we are. and so now i think it's appropriate that we step back and ask ourself the question you just asked, and that is is our current structure correct? and as we talked about with the gentleman over here, what we're talking with now or those rotational forces, those pre-positioned forces, how do we address to get closer to the appropriate force structure in europe? >> is this discussion taking place in the context of building the fiscal year '17 budget, or where is that taking place? gen. breedlove: it's taking place in the construct of the current budget, and the '16 budget and the '17 and out. these are all things that we're looking at right now.

>> general, to what extent in eastern ukraine is russia calling the shots? is moscow calling the shots in eastern ukraine? gen. breedlove: you may have heard this morning that the state department actually started using a different term and that term describes that it is paired forces, russia forces and ukrainian forces. i have said, always said, that these are russian-led forces because we've seen russian command and control structures for a long time in there. as you know, in the early stages of this, the separatists were not well-organized, not acting in a military formation. and we saw efforts almost immediately by russia to organize those formations, give them the enablers that they need to be able to do their job et cetera et cetera. so i believe that russian

command and control is prevalent. >> how many forces are there? gen. breedlove: we are not -- we have stopped talking about numbers a long time ago. remember that this border is absolutely and completely porous, wide open. forces, supply, money, people, equipment moving back and forth all the time across the border. inappropriate to try to label it on a day to day basis. >> so you're seeing obviously the hybrid warfare against ukraine. are you seeing hybrid warfare against other, you know, nato allies, like estonia, latvia, lithuania, that have a substantial russian population? are you seeing the misinformation campaign perhaps trying to reach those folks? and i -- are the targets the nato nations or are targets the countries that are more associated with the west, but not in nato?

gen. breedlove: so, i'm not >> i do not think it is appropriate for me to comment. we see things happening all over eastern europe. i think i will leave it there. >> general, thank you for being here. i am going to asking a question not directly in your approval you mentioned former sliders. we heard at the pentagon there are as many foreign as indigenous, given all of that we are also hearing today that the u.s. naval ships will begin