ever that americans want an alternative vision for how america can protect itself from threats like al qaeda and isis and the taliban that are something more than simple military intervention. americans will responsible to a new forward-looking, progressive strategy that meets these new threats with new tools, rather than simply relying on interventions that were designed for a time when armies marched against each other and grand peace treaties ended conflicts. and to be political for just a moment in a place that i know is not supposed to be political this is a moment for progressive democrats to seize the opportunity to lead. i'd argue the congressional democrats, especially over the last few years, have been absent from a serious interesting debate over the future course of american foreign policy. yet we weigh in on the weighty issues that demand our temporal attention, but it's only president obama and the republicans that are attempting to offer a broad vision for the rules of how we engage in a world full of very new, very scary threats. now maybe our vision silence has been understandable since we've frankly been able to lean on a president who we broadly agree with. we read the president's may 2014

west point speech and in it there's really little to argue with. but we only have his cover for the next 18 months. now, i support secretary clinton and i support her foreign policy ideas, but in a 50-50 country, we can't simply hold our tongues and hope that she wins. we have to show some leadership and show it now so that the american people have a choice when evaluating how to respond to these new enemies that we face. so this is the context in which we decided to produce a set of eight pretty common sense principles that we think should guide american foreign policy and congress' foreign policy ajeblda as we reorient our policies to meet these new challenges. first we argue that america's nonkinetic tool set is dangerously underresourced. we seem to have forgotten the lessons of post-world war ii in which we were spending 3% of gdp on foreign aid in an attempt to rebuild stability in war-torn areas.

we learned the lessons from after world war i and we invested gigantic sums of money in rebuilding our friends and our enemies to use economic development and political inclusiveness to stomp out instability that could undo the post-war balance of power. today foreign aid is 4% of what it was in 1950 as a share of our economy. a 96% realtime reduction. so we believe that a new marshal plan for at-risk regions like the middle east or portions of russia or china's periphery can get us the stability and win us the allies that were produced by a large nonmilitary investment in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. now, we don't need to spent 3% of gdp on foreign aid on this but you can't justify spending 15 times more money on military and military aid than we do on us aid and peacekeeping combined. secondly we believe in working multilaterally to increase your

effectiveness, working through international bodies like the u.n. and nato make us stronger, not weaker. just as importantly, multi lateral support can be a check on american hub russ. if no other ally is willing to join us in a military endeavor why shouldn't it cause us to question the wisdom of that intervention in the first place? yes, there are instances where america is under immediate threat and we can't wait for partners to sign up. but as a rule with limited exceptions, our actions are more effective within coalition. third, we believe in a far more thoughtful and restrained approach to military intervention. significant military action has got to have clear goals, exit strategies, a plan to pay for it and it's got to be authorized by congress as the framers of our constitution intended. if you measure calls to dramatically increase troop levels in iraq to fight isis i'd argue that none of these tests can be met. fourth, we believe that military action is only worthwhile when there is a political strategy to

clean up the mess once the fighting ends. this is our caution. the u.s. military is the most powerful in the world but even it has limits. if there isn't a political answer on the ground to remove the impetus for terrorist organizations, then military gains are only going to be temporary and rarely worth the price in lives and treasure. fifth, we believe that covert actions like mass surveillance and large scale cia lethal operations have to be constrained. the dramatic expansion of our intelligence operations after 9/11 needs greater oversight and restraint. the usa freedom act is a step in the right direction but more has to be done, like taking large scale military operations like drones away from the cia for good. sixth, we believe that strength at home leads to strength abroad. americans simply won't support more foreign aid spending if we aren't rebuilding our own roads and schools. if we aren't addressing their own economic limitations. that makes sense in part because america leads by example. countries follow our lead

because they look up to our track record, to our standard of living. as it slips, so does our ability to lead. seventh, we need to watch the gulf between what we say on human rights and what we do about it. how can we tell other countries to get serious about how they treat people if we are mealy-mouthed on torture. if we hold people at guantanamo bay with no hope of trial. if we listen in on our allies and own citizens. our ability to affect international change on human rights is dependent on our ability to walk the walk at home. finally, we believe that climate change has to be at the center of every international relationship we have. future generations are going to judge us by whether we elevated this discussion in every forum possible given the catastrophe that will be wrought if we don't act. plus the effects of climate change like increased drought in syria and mali are already here. now, i think it's important to say that i'm not suggesting that there's anything earth

shattering or ground breaking in these principles, but at least they would stand in contrast to the enviably simple world view of our neoconservative competition. they argue for ending sequester only for the defense budget. we'd say that the other elements of the national security budget are just if not more important than military funding. they believe that participating in international -- that participating in international organizations demonstrates weakness. we think it's the key to strength in this new multi polar world. they think that terrorism exists in a military vacuum. we believe that it exists in a political and economic vacuum and that our policies should respond accordingly. they think that there's a choice between protecting civil liberties and national security. we believe that they're co-dependent. and these differences play out in realtime as applied to current crises. a progressive foreign policy applied to the fight against isis would start with an honest assessment of our goals. for instance, it sounds really good to say that the american

objective is to defeat isis. but should it be? frankly our policy should be to eliminate the ability of isis to attack the united states. and whether isis is going to be wiped from the face of the middle east is really a question for our partners in the region. and if our goal is to end the threat of isis in the united states, then ground troops makes no sense. but it would argue for the massive plus up of assistance. it would argue for a robust military partnership with our regional partners so long as that partnership is broad and deep. it wouldn't ever rule out going after high value targets that present a threat to the united states and it would call for us to learn from the successes of those bags of cash that we handed out in anbar province in 2007. it was the wrong tactic, but a bigger, smarter assistance budget administered in coordination with the embodied government could move mountains. on the night of our delegation's visit to parmacan we were briefed by admiral mccraven at

special operations command. as we walked in the briefing room, he showed us a pyramid of pictures of the most wanted terrorists in the region. at the top of that pyramid was the photo of osama bin laden. what we didn't know was that before and after our briefing mcraven was putting the finishing touches on the bin laden raid. the night after we left, blackhawk helicopters set off to take him down. despite what we saw, the bin laden raid was a reminder of the seemingly infinite capacity of our armed forces, our men and women in uniform. when you watch them work, it is easy to understand why our influence in the world has been viewed through the prism of the u.s. military for so long. they are damn good at what they do. but today as president obama has warned us, we can't view every problem as a nail simply because we have the most effective hammer in the world. the tactic of terrorism is

impossible to fight with an army. disease epidemics can't be cowed by an air force. today we are reading reports of attacks on the parliament building in kabul. it's crushing to hear. after over a decade of american intervention in afghanistan. but last week a report noticed almost by no one noted that the taliban in fierce fighting had taken back four villages in harat province, afghanistan, in the district right next to parmacan. the new threats that we face don't look like the old ones. that's why we need new rules for engagement and new allies in this endeavor. thank you to the wilson center for having me and i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> senator, let me again welcome you to the wilson center. i didn't know about the connecticut connection but it's an important one. wilson was our only ph.d. president and our only one buried in

washington, d.c. let me thank you also for a thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion. there's a lot to unpack here. i have a few questions for you and then we'll go to audience questions, but i want to make several points. not necessarily directed at your presentation, although there are some relationships. it's more a personal cree de cour. first i think the challenge for this republic is not to identify progressive or conservative foreign policy, the challenge essentially is to try to find a policy that obviously is designed to protect the national interests but also a policy that in essence should work. the dividing line for that policy, and i worked for republicans and democrats and i voted for republicans and democrats shouldn't be between left and right, liberal or conservative or republican and democrat.

it should be between policies that are smart on one hand or alternatively policies that are dumb on the other. and if you want america to be on the smart side, it seems to me we need to focus on substance and effectiveness, not politics. on reality. that is the world the way it actually is before we get around to conceptualize and conceive how we want it to be rather than ideology. on tactics for sure but also on sound strategies. and understand that while american leadership is critical, it also has limitations too. second, from my own personal experience, doctrines and principles can be extremely effective, particularly in articulating clearly and with a measure of honesty a general approach so that congress understands our policy and more important so the american people understand our policy. the problem with doctrines and principles, of course, is that

they're limited in how they apply to a blueprint to navigate in what has become an anomalous hypocritical, cruel and unforgiving world. think about it just for a minute. we participated in military action in libya but not in syria. we supported an arab spring in egypt but not in saudi arabia. we claim to stand for democracy and human rights, particularly in the wake of the arab spring and yet our most stable partners right now aren't democrats, they're authoritarians in the gulf and in egypt, and we're negotiating even now as we speak a punitive nuclear deal with iran and yet at the same time for whatever the reasons, we can't, won't or are unable to take a tougher view on iranian repression at home or their efforts to advance their interests in the region.

so the question is how do you reconcile these anomalies and in fact do you need principles, but do you also have to recognize that a principleless foreign policy for a great power may well be more suited to the complicated world in which we live in. finally, if you ask me what the greatest challenge was for our foreign policy, it would be finding a better balance between the risk readiness of previous administrations, perhaps one in particular, and the risk aversion perhaps of the current administration. that is to say we've abandoned the middle ground. we insist on looking at the world as all in or not in. and the question is, is there a more effective balance between risk readiness and risk aversion, perhaps borrowing on some of your principles, that might in fact serve and suit our interests. one final point, we have an

extraordinary advantage over the rest of the world. it's basically our location. we have nonpredatory neighbors to our north and south and fish to our east and west. but one historian called brilliantly our liquid assets. these oceans literally create the framework within which we see the world. our privileged security position explains our naivete. we somehow believe we have abandoned the notion of what it's like to be a small power. it explains our pragmatism. we believe every problem in the world can somehow be fixed. it explains our arrogance, because we don't have to listen. great powers have tremendous margin for absorbing mistakes and even very costly errors. we need to take account of that and understand that our view of

the world is not necessarily the one that will be held by those whose security positions aren't as fortuitous as ours. so with that in mind, let me ask you a question or two and then we'll go -- we have plenty of time, we'll go to audience questions. i'll start with something you didn't refer to, which is congress' role in foreign policy. the founders in their infinite wisdom created an open invitation to struggle, a system in which powers are shared and separated. if i asked you whether or not you thought congress' role in foreign policy was an effective and credible one, how would you respond? >> i hope that in some way this entire effort is a call to action for congress. it's underlaid by my belief that we have largely been out to lunch, and what i would agree is that our constitutional obligation to set in some degree of measure with the president foreign policy moving forward.

now, the constitution gives us very specific powers to decide how much money gets spent on a variety of activities. it's not lost on me that we haven't passed a state department authorization bill through the united states congress in over a decade. it tells us that we are the only branch of the federal government that declare war and we simply have chosen not to do that when it comes to the current conflict, unless you believe that the 9/11 amf gives you the authorization to take on isis. so i think senators menendez carter and corker have done a tremendous job of putting the foreign relations committee in the senate back as a relevant element of the debate. the willingness to take hard votes on intervention in syria or on a process for evaluating an iran agreement.

that's important, but it's insufficient i would argue, so these other pieces are left undone. let me -- i really love your comments, but let me take the opportunity to just maybe give a little bit of flavor as to how the guy who gave that speech might respond to a couple of things that you said. i completely understand the caution on doctrine and principles. i think it's important that we have tried not to presuppose outcomes in foreign countries as an element of these principles. what i mean by that is nowhere in here does it say that the united states should always pursue democracy, right? or nowhere does it say that the united states should only pursue our immediate security interests by supporting people that we might idea logically intervene with. what it does say is that you have to have some political plan of what happens in the aftermath.

as to this question of risk, i think that's a wonderful challenge as well but i think it's important to talk about what kind of risks we're debating. we normally think about that in terms of military risk. that's the parair paradigm in -- paradigm in which we exist. the president has not been willing to exercise the degree of military risk that others would want him to. but there are other kinds of risks we aren't even talking about because there isn't even the conversation space with which to debate it. for instance, in eastern europe, it would be risky but incredibly important to make a mayor -- major u.s. investment in energy independence in our allies. to put u.s. dollars, planning resources on the table to try to change the way in which gas moves in and around that region. but we can't have that conversation because there's nowhere in the budget where that's allowable. but we can have a conversation about a military risk, increased intervention in syria because there's just a common acceptance that once the president wants to do that, we will fund it one way or another.

but if the president takes a nonkinetic risk, there may not be anybody there to back him up. so i love the conversation about increasing risk, but i want to frame the discussion that allows for it to happen in military terms and nonmilitary terms. >> with respect to risk, you do transition into the issue of an authorization to use force memorandum. you've got the two longest wars in american history, which is a stunning fact, fought by 0.5% in a volunteer military which gives the president tremendous discretion to use military power and force without controls without constraints in response to the perception that america is under threat. that would imply a greater role on the part of congress in an effort to create some sort of sound basis as to when and under what circumstances force can be

applied. now maybe congress is simply too -- i suspect this is the answer, too divided on these questions to create a consensus that would be meaningful, but it does really come -- if you want to change the nature of the discussion, there is a piece of this which does imply a much greater level of congressional involvement and, frankly, unity in response to safeguarding and protecting the american -- this is a very risk averse administration. can you imagine a risk ready administration under these circumstances. you implied it in some of your comments. so congress' role would be even more important. iran. now, you don't know what's in

this deal, neither do i. but based on what you're sensing, do you think you'd be in a position to support the administration's case for a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear issue with iran? >> absolutely. i agree with you, that we don't know what the details look like and there is evidence that there wasn't as much agreement in the framework as we might have all suspected or maybe there's just evidence that a political conversation has to play out in a certain way in and around tehran and we have to accept the reality of that before we get a signature. but to me this speaks to the principles that we're talking about here, which is finding alternatives to military action that may, while not being perfect, may be much better than a thoughtless military prevention without a planning process afterwards. that's what i think is amazingly absent from this conversation about this debate.

one of my colleagues goes down to the floor of the senate and says, well, taking out iran's nuclear capability militarily would be a two-day endeavor without any conversation about what the follow-on effects of that would be. so the conversation of the framework can't happen in a vacuum. it has to come with a comparative analysis as to what the alternatives are. would i love for the agreement to be longer than ten years? absolutely, but elements of it are. and i do buy the argument that if you're able to give wind to the moderates that there is a better chance than if you rejected this agreement that ultimately you were able to work with that coalition on other underlying festering issues as well. and as to congressional intervention, i would say the way in which the president decides to conduct these operations matters as to how congress is -- how willing congress is to react. in syria, he said he wasn't going to act without congressional authorization and so a debate was forced in the united states senate foreign relations committee.

when it came to the fight against isis, he provided in a very different way. what would have happened if he said i need to act and i am not going to do it until the congress gives me the power to do it. i would argue that we would have come together, that we would have figured out a path forward. the division on this is significant, but not irreconcilable. but we haven't forced to do it because there is no consequence, no practical consequence for our inaction. it's incumbent upon the president to follow the constitutional balance and alignment of responsibilities as well, and i would argue that he should have come to us for authorization on this war before proceeding. >> one final question. you referenced the marshall plan. how would you respond to the argument that the world or at least the area of the world to which that extraordinary

assistance program proceeded what came after it, was directed, was simply a parallel universe to the one we see today. we occupy japan from 1945 to 1952. there were no americans killed. not one. during the entire period on the japanese mainland. you're talking about a marshal plan for a region of the world that is broken, angry, dysfunctional. how do you reconcile -- in other words, doesn't a marshal plan become to some degree as difficult a prospect as an open-ended military intervention? without the political infrastructure, how do you actually do that? >> so -- good question. it's a fair critique, right, and it's a very imperfect, imprecise analogy.

i make it more just to sort of wake folks up to how little we are spending on this project today compared to how much money we spent. you know, it's still stunning to think that the average american taxpayers thinks that 28% of their dollar is going to foreign aid when 1% arguably of it is. i think it's just important to remind our country as to how much money we used to spend on this. no, it is fundamentally different but that's why i reference what was happening during the surge. these bags of cash being handed out. i can't tell you that i can sit here and lay out the precise manner in which you develop long-term economic stability that tamps down on the reasons that people join terrorist organizations. but i know that part of the reason why we did get a modicum of stability there was because we answered people's economic concerns. i would argue that political stability follows economic stability. it's hard to stand up a politically stable government when you have over 50% of young people out of work. and so if you start with economic stability, and with partners, by the way, i'm not

suggesting that america be the only one, but nobody else is going to spend billions if we don't commit to spending billions. if you even attempt to put in a place for economic answers to the problems in places like iraq or lebanon or yemen, then political stability at least has a shot. it doesn't without that endeavor. i would just argue that -- people will say that it's crazy, how can you say we're not trying that right now because they look at how much money we spent and say that must have gotten us something. that's why i talk about the marshal plan because comparatively we are spending a fraction of what we spent on a like, although albeit, very different endeavor decades ago. >> thank you so much. okay. to questions. let me emphasize questions. please identify yourselves before you speak. we have mics. yes, down here in the front row -- or the fourth fifth right here. we'll get to you next. promise.

>> my name is alex fenoff. i used to teach at the foreign service institute. you talked about aid. i would like your views on title viii programs which fund international exchange language, our education about the abroad. those funds have been slashed. how do you see bringing them back? >> last fall i took a trip to the balkans and in another forum i can tell you why i think we should be talking much more about what's happening there. we sort of take for granted the level of stability there, but there are very few great conflicts over the last 100 years that didn't emanate in some way, shape or form from that region and there is some simmering instability that should concern this. i was in serbia, which is a country that russia has a lot of interest in. it's very relevant to us because it's a transit point for energy through and around the region.

i happened to be there on the day that vladimir putin was marching his army through the streets of belgrade in an enormous show of force. our ambassador there, our great ambassador there was begging me for $20,000 for an exchange program that he had had cut from his budget. and just the incongruity of putin marching billions of dollars of assets down the streets of belgrade and our ambassador wanting a handful of dollars for an exchange program seemed to suggest how wrong-footed our priorities had become. but he spoke to how incredibly important this was. as you went around that region you saw all of these graduates from title viii funded exchange programs in positions of power friendly to the united states and our allies. it was a small amount of money that paid off. as i would argue for how we spent money on these projects, how we allocate a new marshal plan, part of it would certainly

be on that type of programming. >> okay. let's -- yes, right here. wait for the mic. here it comes. >> yeah. can you elaborate on how your nan nonkinetic approach would deal with isis, given the 1400-year disagreements between the shia and the sunni and at this particular time we know that the sunnis are the backbone of isis. how would you handle that senator murphy: well, i go back to a couple things. first, i'd go back to the notion that we have to be honest about what our objectives are here. and i don't think that we could have a realistic objective that could be settling that dispute.

nor do i argue that we could have a realistic objective on our own that would use the terminology defeat isil. i think that our objective has to be degrading them to a point where they are no longer a threat to the united states. that's very different than the objective that you might be foreshadowing, which is to somehow find a way for usaid to mediate a fight in the region between the two sides. but, i would go back even further. no one can guarantee that this sort of cascading proxy war wouldn't have occurred notwithstanding the iraq war. but you can make a pretty good argument that if it didn't create the mess that we're living with today, then it at least exacerbated it or expedited it. and so clearly the case i'm laying out today would have never allowed us to go into iraq in the first place because we simply didn't understand the political ramifications of that decision. many of them were tightly knit

inside iraq, but many of them also have spilled out to other places around the region. and so some of this is -- some of what i'm offering is totally unsatisfactory looking forward. it's just a caution to not do something again like iraq without understanding the hell that it often brings to regions like that. >> okay. how about right over here to the left. yes, thank you. >> hi. my name is sally and i'm from sixth killer consulting. my question is twofold. the first one is that the press had stated that the senate foreign relations committee met to discuss uamf. i wanted to ask you if you believe that has legs and then the second question is what are you doing to ensure that the 2001 aumf sunset is part of those discussions. thank you.

senator murphy: well, there's two issues. 2001 aumf, 2003 aumf. i don't think anybody can argue the 2003 aumf should hang around. 2001 is trickier. we can't get rid of our 2001 aumf. it is our authorization to fight al qaeda. it authorizes current activities of the u.s. government so what we can kredably do is sunset it and force us to have a discussion. i would like that to be baked into any aumf that we pass, but i think it's more important to get an aumf that limits the authorization of fighting isis to the terms of that aumf. that's a greater imperative. i am so appreciative of the work that senator cane was done in particular but also senator flake to bring the two parties together around an authorization. i have worries that the limitations in their authorization will not prove to be limitations at all.

i believe that we should put a box around the deployment of combat troops to the middle east. i'm worried that their language does not do that. i would be more comfortable with looser language on troop limitations or geographic limitations or language on connected forces if there was a sunset, if we were forced to come back and debate the whole thing in three years. that's not included in that authorization either. so i think it's an important starting point. but to me, it it allows for a little bit too much leeway for the next administration to take strategic steps that i deeply disagree with in the region and listen, there's been an important debate happening over whether congress should be involved at all in the strategy of warfare or rather if our job is only to name the enemy and then get out of the way. i would argue that there's a long history of congressional

intervention on foreign affairs that suggest that we have the power and i'd argue the responsibility to also include some discussion of strategy in our authorizeationuthorizations. -- authorization. >> thank you, senator for being here and provoking us. you just used the term put boxes around the middle east which gets back to what is in our national interest, a term that he used earlier and you hinted at that and why are we so focused on the middle east. what happened to south asia and what happened to latin america africa? the different kinds of -- the different parts of europe? what is -- what are american priorities for you and how do you plan to deal with them? because we're totally obsessed with the middle east and is it or isn't it in our interest. senator murphy: well, listen.

our interests are multifold. they start with protecting the united states from attack, and that project is not exclusive to the middle east. what we know is that terrorist groups, isis at the top of the list these days are setting up shop in a variety of places all around the globe and we simply again don't have the resources to meet that challenge and i would look to africa as an example and the paltry sums that our state department has to spend means we can't do spending for the group like al shabaab moves and the american foreign policy would have seen what was happening in somalia and easily predicted the move of that organization in parts of kenya and taken steps ahead of time to try to blunt that momentum. we just didn't have the resources to do that. so again, part of this challenge is plussing up the resources we have available to think outside of the box of the middle east.

um, we do have an interest in preventing slaughter and genocide, and so i accept that as part and parcel of america's interests in the world, and i just argue that in proposing an intervention you make damn sure that it's going to make the carnage better rather than worse, and i argued two summers ago that in syria dropping bombs in the middle of a stew of civil and military unrest would have made the situation for people on the ground worse, not better. so there would begin to be your set of interests, but you are right. we are hyperfocused on the middle east. there are good reasons for that. not so good reasons for that and part of this project is to try to hopefully awaken people's interests and attention to other parts of the world, as well. >> yes.

right here in the middle. thank you. >> my name is steven short. senator, would you please speak about the importance of trade with relation to american foreign policy specifically fast track authority? senator murphy: so there's no doubt that as hillary clinton coined it, there's an important element of economic state crafts to all of the work in which i'm talking about here. many of us would just argue about the terms upon which you're engaging in that discussion. so i voted against fasttrack and this is off topic, but i will tell you my opposition to it. i totally understand the rationale that greasing the wheels of the legislation process makes a trade deal easier to pass, but why on earth do we elevate trade for fast track consideration and nothing else that's important? a energy bill increasing

american energy independence would also make this country a lot more secure, but we subject that debate to the traditional set of rules and nobody talks about a fast track for energy reform and immigration reform which you could argue that our demographic advantage is one of our primary strengths in and around the world, but nobody is talking about a fast track for immigration reform. i think it's oughtdd that we set a process for trade and nothing else. i hope that there will be one of these deals, either tpp or ttip that i can support because i believe trade is intertwined with american foreign power and it's just to be on the right terms. >> way in the back. i mean, as far as you can go. >> i hope i'm not the only one interested in the china

question. so tomorrow the u.s.china strategic dialogue will begin. what do you expect are the most pressing issues that should be discussed? does congress play a role in it? thank you. senator murphy: i mean -- congress arguably has been pretty awol on u.s.china policy. you know, there hasn't been a lot of significant or really relevant discussion in the united states congress about what to do with china moving forward. you know, a lot of us believe that there are places where we can get tougher that, for those that worry that increased sanctions against currency policy or cyber attacks would erupt a trade war. we suggest that we're already fighting a trade war with china and it's only one country fighting it, but i, again, look internally when i think about how we deal with china. it's hard for us to say that disputes in the east and south china sea should be resolved through diplomatic means when the united states won't sign the treaty of the seas.

it's hard for us to make that argument credibly when we're not willing to be at the table. if we expect china to really be a participant in the 2015 climate change negotiations then how do we do that when the majority of the senate and the house argue that climate change isn't happening and 99% of scientists are wrong. so i -- i think that there are tangible things that congress can weigh in on the u.s.-china relationship and obama will say that the trade agreement is a big part of that, but i also think the way in which we conduct ourses and this is a big part of the principles is you need to look inward in order to look outward. i think we have to do a lot to strengthen our hand when we sit across the table from china. on cybersecurity, it's a big problem. there's no way to defend against what they're doing with stealing secrets and invading people's privacy. they claim we do it, too. we don't, but when we are tapping into the cell phones of

foreign leaders without much of a credible explanation, it just robs us of the moral authority to get them to change the way in which they do things. >> i think we have time for a question -- one more question. maybe another? yes, in the back? >> thank you. my name is david and i represent the georgian television station in washington, d.c. you made several statements of nato enlargement and offering member expansion plans to the states and neighboring russia. how do you see russia's neighborhood in the new foreign policy of the united states? thank you, sir. senator murphy: so, you know, again, back to the ideas that we rolled out. none of these are breakthrough ideas and one of them is clearly reinvesting in the international organizations. you know, i think we threaten nato's future legitimacy as we slowly close the door on the

open-door policy. there are countries that are willing to join, that are ready to join. i think georgia obviously has some particular and important problems that have to be worked out, but it is absolutely ready to join and when we refuse to enlarge, we start to diminish the importance of the organization to begin with. just a word about ukraine before we end because it's intertwined on the responses to crises. i am stunned with how it begins and ends with arming the ukrainian military. that is 80% of the oxygen that we expend. i think that's a really important question, and i've come around on it. i opposed it, at first, but i think as long as we're doing it in coordination with the majority of our allies in europe

which is nothing that we can presuppose today that it's worthwhile, but the reality is that right now the most important debate playing out is how ukraine structures its debt to the point of $15 billion of relief. america has a lot to say about that in part because it's american companies, american pension funds that have to come to the table, but nowhere in congress is there a realistic conversation about putting the pressure on those companies or investing in real economic assistance that would help ukraine. we're willing to spend potentially billions of dollars to hand arms to the ukrainians apparently for free, but we're arguing over guaranteeing loans to them in a manner that sort of i compare to arguing with your neighbor about how they're going to pay back the cost of the bucket of water before you deliver it to them to put out the fire. i just think that we should be

much more generous with that country, but we're not having that debate, but again, there's an obsession with the military power of the united states to the point of -- in the ukrainian debate almost ignoring all of the other levers and resources that we have at our disposal and i don't argue for reducing america's comparative military advantage. i just think that there are other conversations and other tools that desperately need to be plussed up if we really want to keep ourselves safe and we want to be able to take the right kind of risks in the world that are really demanded by these new times. >> we've come to the end of the hour and there are many more questions than time would allow which suggest a degree of interest and i think your talk has sparked some interest in a good conversation. please join me in thanking senator murphy for coming and you'll come back at some point? >> i will.

thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, wiich is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] x for hearings are scheduled for this week. catherine archuleta will testify about spending for inspiration that technology the good help prevent the breaches from happening again. that is live this morning at 10:30 a.m. on c-span3. o a senate subcommittee on carbon emissions. that is also on c-span3. >> first families take vacation

time. of like presidents and first ladies, a good read can we the perfect companion for your summer journey. what better book than one that appears inside the personal lives of every first lady in american history? first ladies historians on the lives of 45 iconic women. inspiring stories of fascinated women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. of a great summertime read available from public affairs as a hardcover or e-book. if>> nikki haley called for the removal of the confederate flag. she took sides on an emotional issue. it hears that news briefing. it standing with her was the

delegation. gov. haley: this has been a very

difficult time for our state. we have stared evil in the eye and watched good, prayerful people killed in one of the most sacred of places. we were hurt and broken, and we needed to heal. we were able to start that process, not by issues that talk about issues that divide us, but by holding vigil, by honoring those we have lost and by falling to our knees in prayer. we were hurt and broken and we needed to heal. the outpouring of love and support from all corners of people across the state and country has been amazing. the families who lost loved ones have been unbelievable pillars of strength and grace. their expression of faith and forgiveness took our breath away. they have truly shown the world what south carolina looks like at our best. the mother emmanuel church

reopened its doors yesterday. michael and i were there, we took our little ones. my children saw what true faith looks like. they saw the true hate can never triumph over pure love. my children saw the hardest role of south carolina starting from there. i want to talk a little bit about the heart of our state. i want to talk about the people of south carolina i'm so proud to serve. the country and the world have watched our strength and resilience over the last two days. we are strong people who love god, our families, and have deep faith. we believe in neighbors helping neighbors. we hold tight to our traditions and continue to grow and change in ways as we move forward. we were recently named the friendly estate in the country and the most patriotic, too. american flags fly proudly from home to home in south carolina.

in just the last few months, the nation watched our state go through another time of crisis when we dealt with the betrayal of one of our own in the tragic shooting of walter scott. south carolina did not respond with writing and violence, like other places have. we responded by talking to each other, by putting ourselves in other people's shoes, and by finding common ground in the name of moving our state forward. the result, both republicans and democrats, black and white, came together in past the first body camera bill in the country. and i stand in front of you, a minority female governor, twice elected by the people of south carolina. behind me stands my friend, senator scott, elected by those same people as one of just two african-american members of the united states in it. five years ago, it was said in the last 50 years, south carolina is the state that has

changed the most, for the better. that was true when i quoted it at my first inauguration in 2011. it is even more true today. we have changed through the times and will continue to do so. but that does not mean we forget our history. history is often filled with emotion, and that's more true in south carolina than a lot of other places. on matters of race, south carolina has a tough history. we all know that. many of us have seen it in our own lives, in the lives of our parents and grandparents. we don't need reminders. in spite of last week's tragedy, we have come a long way since those days, and have much to be proud of. but there is more we can do. that brings me to the subject of the confederate flag that flies on the statehouse grounds. for many people in our state the flag stands for traditions that are noble. traditions of history, of heritage, and of ancestry. the hate filled murder that

massacred our brothers and sisters in charleston has a sick and twisted view of the flag. in no way does he reflect the people in our state who respect and in many ways, revere it. those south carolinians view the flag is a symbol of respect, integrity, and duty. they also see it as a memorial way to honor ancestors during time of conflict. that is not hate, nor is it racism. at the same time, for many others in south carolina, the flag is a deeply offensive symbol of a brutally oppressive past. as a state, we can survive and indeed, we can thrive, as we have done, while still being home to both of those viewpoints. we do not need to declare a winner and a loser here. we respect freedom of expression, and for those who wish to show their respect for the flag on their private

property, no one will stand in your way. but the statehouse is different. and the events of this past week call upon us to look at this in a different way. 15 years ago after much contentious debate, south carolina came together in a bipartisan way to move the flag from atop the capital doll. today, we are here and a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say this time to remove the flag from the capitol grounds. [cheers and applause]

150 years after the end of the civil war, the time has come. there will be some in our state who see this as a sad moment. i respect that. but know this, for good and for bad, whether it is on the statehouse grounds or in a museum, the flag will always be a part of the soil of south carolina. but this is a moment in which we can say that that flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state. the murderer now locked up in charleston said he hoped his actions would start a race war. we have an opportunity to show that not only was he wrong, but that just the opposite is happening. my hope is that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward as a state in harmony, and we can honor the nine blessed souls who are now in heaven. [applause]

the general assembly wraps up their year this week, and as governor, i have the authority to call them back into session under extraordinary circumstances. i have indicated to the house and the senate that if they do not take measures to ensure this debate takes place this summer i will use that authority for the purpose of the legislature removing the flag from the statehouse grounds. [applause] that will take place in the coming weeks, after the regular session and the veto session have been completed. there will be a time for discussion and debate. but the time for action is coming soon. i want to make two things very clear. first, this is south carolina's statehouse. it is south carolina's historic moment. and this will be south carolina's decision. for those outside of our state the flag may be nothing more

than a symbol of the worst of america's past. that is not what it is for many south carolinians. the statehouse belongs to all of us. their voices will be heard, and their role in this debate will be respected. we have made incredible progress in south carolina on racial issues, yes, but on so many others. the 21st century belongs to us because we have chosen to seize what is in front of us, to do what is right, and do it together. i have every faith that this will be no different. it is what we do in south carolina. it is who we are. second, i understand that what i have said here today will generate a lot of interest. what i ask is that the focus still remain on the nine victims of this horrible tragedy. their families, the mother emanuel family, the ame church family, and south carolina family, we all deserve time to grieve, and to remember, and to heal. we will take it, and i ask that

you respect it. we know that bringing down the confederate flag will not bring back the nine kind souls that were taken from us, nor rid us of the hate and bigotry that drove a monster through the doors of mother emanuel that night. some divisions are bigger than a flag. the evil we saw last wednesday comes from a place much deeper much darker. but we are not going to allow this simple to divide us any longer. the fact that people are choosing to use it as a sign of hate is something that we cannot stand. the fact that it causes pain to so many is enough to move it from the capitol grounds. it is, after all, a capital that belongs to all of us. july 4 is just around the corner. soon we will once again celebrate the birth of our nation and of our freedom. it will be fitting that our state capital will soon fly the flag of our country and of our state, and no others. god bless the people of the great state of south carolina. thank you. [cheers and applause]

c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local satellite provider.

"washington journal" is next. the house returns at noon. they will be debating 14 bills. they will be researching how drones could commit a terrorist attack. the white house is issued a veto threat against the bill. we look at the debate over gun laws after the recent church shootings in south carolina. of colin goddard joins us. he is a survivor of the virginia tech shooting.

also and coulter talks about her new book. host: good morning. the house convened for morning our at noon. the senate is in at 10:00 a.m. we focus on south carolina, six days after nine black churchgoers were left dead. attention is turned to the confederate flag. yesterday, south carolina governor nikki haley called for the removal of that life