ryan: tonight i shared what i think it will have -- kick to have a unified conference. i made a few request for what i think is necessary. back from myar colleagues by the end of the week. first, we need to move from being an opposition party to being a proposition party. second, we need to update our rules. constant withthis leadership challenges. we should unify now and not

after the divisive speaker election. the last point, it is personal. i cannot and will not give up family time. i may not be on the road as often as previous speakers, but i try to make up for it with more time medicating our vision, armitage -- our message. i said if you can agree to these requests and be a unifying figure, i will gladly serve. unifying, that will be fine as well. i will be happy to stay where i am at the ways and means committee. here's how i see it. thes our duty to serve people the way they deserve to be served. to make the tough decisions this country needs to get the nation back on track. the challenges we face today are too difficult and demanding to

turn our backs and walk away. global terror. war on multiple fronts, a government grown out of touch. persistent poverty. a scout -- sluggish economy. flat wages. a skyrocketing debt. we cannot take on these challenges alone. now more than ever we must work together. all of us are representatives of the people, all people. we have been entrusted by them to lead. yet, the people we serve do not feel that we are delivering on the job they hired us to do. we have become the problem. if my colleagues in trust me to be the speaker, i want us to become the solution. one thing i have learned from my upbringing is that nothing is solved by blaming people.

we can blame the president. we can blame the media. that is fun sometimes. we can point fingers across the aisle, blame each other, dismiss our criticism as unfair fire. people don't care about blame. people don't care about effort. people care about results. results that are measurable. results that are meaningful. results that make a difference in their daily lives. i want to be clear, i think we are still an exceptional country with exceptional people and a republic clearly worth fighting for. the american idea is not too late to save. we are running out of time. make no mistake. i believe the ideas and principles of results driven commonsense conservatism are the keys to a better tomorrow.

a tomorrow in which all god's children will be better off than they are today. the idea that the role of the federal government is not to create dependency but an environment of opportunity for everyone. the idea government should do less and do it better. the idea that those who serve should say what they mean and mean what they say. the principal that we should all determine the course of our own lives instead of seating that right to those who think they are better than the rest of us. yes, we will stand and we will fight when we must. and this presidency will require that. a commitment to natural rights, a commitment to common sense, to compassion. to cooperation one rooted in genuine conviction and principal is a commitment to conservatism. let me close by saying i consider to do this with

reluctance. like many of you, jenna and i have children who are in the formative foundational years of their lives. i genuinely worry about the consequences my agreeing to serve will have on them. will they experience the viciousness and incivility that we all face here on a daily basis? my greatest worry, the consequence of not stepping up. of someday having my own kids as me, when the stakes were so high, why didn't you do all you could do. why didn't you fight for my future when you had a chance to do so? none of us wants to hear that question and none of us should ever have to. i have shown my colleagues when at i think success looks like. what it takes to unify and lead and how my family commitment come first. i left this decision in their

hands. should they agree with these requests i am happy and willing to get to work. thank you. chad. >> what happened in the past couple of days? [inaudible] you said you had concern. is that the underlying issue? mr. ryan: i'm in the job i have always wanted in the congress. i came to the conclusion this is a dire moment not just for congress and the republican party but for our country. i think our country is in desperate need of leadership. >> [inaudible] they have gone after john boehner's head. what assurances do you have your won't be the next?

representative ryan: i laid out what i thinks to have a successful speakership and i will leave it up to my colleagues to decide if i am that unifying person. that is what we always do. >> would you want an anonymous vote? mr. ryan: i laid it out with our conference about all the various groups having their endorsement and being the unified candidate. i'm not going to get into that now. that is something that has to be done by a conference as a whole. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> the house republican leaders meet wednesday to discuss their legislative agenda including the race for speaker of the house. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> this sunday night on q and a, the new york times reporter

shares her experiences from the clinton campaign and shares what it was like compared to 2008. >> i was the traveling person. i was not in a senior role. when you are traveling all the time, i got to know the people traveling with her. i got to know her pretty well because she would come back in the plane and talk to us. at the same time, i did not have the same sort of sources, high-level people that i have now. whether that is a function of being at the times or just any more senior role. at 8:00 eastern and pacific on q&a. >> coming up, the heads of the house and senate armed services committees on the defense authorization bill. then he defense department syrian airspace.

wednesday, a house armed services subcommittee get its which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] gets an update on the f 35 joint strike fighter program. clinton, hillary testifies before the house select committee on benghazi about the terrorist attack. and threer stephens other americans were killed in the attack. we have live coverage of mrs. clinton's testimony at 10:00 a.m. eastern. tuesday, senator john mccain and congressman mac thornberry caution against vetoing the defense authorization act.

the leaders spoke at the brookings institution about defense spending. this is one hour. host: good morning. thank you for joining us. i see we have a standing-room only. i'm a new yorker, so i'm impressed when anybody is that a meeting before i'm bruce jones 9:30. i'm the director of foreign policy at brookings and delighted to welcome you today and our very distinguished guests. we are very honored to be joined today by senator mccain and congressman thornberry chairman of the house armed services committee to discuss the defense authorization act. it is vital to the national conversation.

moderating our discussion will be our co-director here at brookings and well known expert on the defense budget. senator mccain is known for his service to the nation both in the u.s. navy and representing the people of arizona and u.s. congress and one of the key voices to strengthen our armed forces to eliminate wasteful government spending. congressman thornberry has served on the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the budget committee, and is widely known as an innovator and the two of them have been working together to put together the national defense authorization act. in a moment, i'll turn to mike. let me make two contexts. we are entering a moment of geo political challenges in asian

europe as well as confronting the role and collapse of the order in middle east with huge implications. and the second is despite -- the united states is the most important world actor on the world change. that is the context in which we have to have the debate and discussion about our defense appropriations act and the tools we need for america's national security. mike, with that, over to you. mike: the congress will send the

president the national defense authorization act. these gentlemen have been working on all year. that it would, in addition to funding the pentagon at the $612 billion which is the level the president had requested last winter and takes important steps forward on acquisition reform and authorizing syria, ukraine, deal with the military pension question where so far in our history, the military has given a generous pension to 20 years service but nothing for those who did 19 years or less. many other important bipartisan achievements. we are at a juncture where high-budget politics are interfering with this bill and the president has threatened to veto it and will have 10 days excepting sundays to make his decision about whether to veto or not. if he does, we will lose all the

-- potentially lose all of the reforms in addition to the $612 billion authorization. the senator and congressman have pointed out that the president could support this bill and then veto an appropriations bill if he wishes, later on. what is going on, the congress has tried to fully fund defense but the budget control act continues to present the funding levels the president would advocate for nondefense. at this juncture, how do you reconcile these competing concerns. we'll get to those questions when the chairman wishes. but i thought we'd begin by talking about some of the specifics that are in the bill that are so important. and regardless of one's position on whether the president should veto or not, most would agree that the reforms and initiatives in this legislation are very, very helpful to our national

defense and would be wonderful to find a way to institute them in law. that is the subjects with which i wanted to begin, senator mccain, again by asking you to address the military pension reforms and anything else you wish to touch on and work on acquisition and some of the hot spots in a minute as well before getting to the big questions. thank you for being here and ask you about military pension reform. senator mccain: as i always say when i return here and i'm happy to and nice to see old friends and enemies. thank you for inviting me back and could i also say it's been a real honor for me to have worked with chairman thornberry, a very dedicated and hardworking chairman who also is committed to many of the reforms that we

were able to turn out together, particularly the issue of acquisition reform. there are many reforms, but acquisition reform, mac has been engaged in that for many years and that doesn't mean we agree on everything. we have had spirited discussions on occasion but i'm proud of the product that we and the members of our committees overwhelmingly bipartisan have approved. and our committee was 14-4 and similar in the house. so it's not -- our product is a bipartisan product. if there was objection to it was by members who were concerned or objected to this oco process that we could talk about later on. but the product was overwhelmingly bipartisan which is maybe unusual in congress

these days, but i think it shows the commitment of members on both sides of the aisle to the men and women who are serving in a bipartisan approach to defense. friends, today, 85% of the men and women who serve in the military, when they leave the military, don't have any financial benefit. they certainly have veterans' benefits and g.i. bill but as far as pure financial, 85%. 85% don't serve 20 years. with the benefit of a very excellent commission, that was composed of some pretty outstanding people, we adopted largely their recommendation, which now allows someone after two years and one month to contribute in a 401 k and the

matching funds are required. this way some 85% of those who serve will receive a financial benefit from their service even if it's only a minimum of two years. and if i could expand one second on that, there are other reforms that are going to have to be made in the entitlements in the military. secretary gates said a few years ago said we are going to be eaten alive by the ser son ell costs. but we are going to have to make some very tough decisions on that aspect, the entitlement aspect of the military over time and it's not going to be easy. mike: compromised on that with the military pay increase. it's modest.

and also some of the tricare issues. congressman, thanks for being here and if you would like to comment on personnel and acquisition reforms. mr. thornberry: thank you for having us and i very much enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to work with chairman mccain who has a unique place in history. and just in a preliminary way, i want to emphasize what he just said and that is, when you look at the merits of the bill, it truly is a bipartisan product. our bill came out of the committee 60-2 and there was one of each who were part of the two. from the very conception it has been republicans and democrats working together in committee, on the floor and in conference that has produced this product. only this overlay which i

believe is essentially politics that is causing us to be here to have any sort of controversy. and i think we have -- because a defense authorization bill has been signed into law every year for 53 straight years, we may take for granted all the individual provisions. chairman mccain was talking about the retirement reform. let me mention one other provision in the personnel section and that is a requirement that d.o.d. and the v.a. have the same formula for treating people for ptsd, sleep disorder and pain management. if you could do one thing, make sure the drug they get on when they are in the military they can stay on when they move to the v.a. system. the systems have not been able to do that. we require to do that.

and my point is, there are 600 something provisions in this bill that do important things that the system is not able to do on its own and so that's part of the reason we have a separate branch of government to pass a defense authorization bill. among the reforms, as chairman mccain mentioned, is a beginning of acquisition reform and my shorthand version of it, if it takes us years to continue a new airplane and then out of date by the time it gets there. we have got to be better at being better in responding to threats and getting more value for the taxpayer dollars. we have a number of reforms, fundamental reforms thinning out some of the regulations, requiring more the work be done upfront and not event as you go.

but it's only a beginning and we are committed on a bipartisan basis to doing much more work in the future. it doesn't happen if the bill doesn't become law. senator mccain: there are moments in people's experiences and i mentioned this to you earlier, mike, two years ago, we had a hearing with the navy, chief of naval operations, and i asked if the chief of naval operations knew who was responsible for $2.4 billion cost overrun on the uss gerald ford. i said who is responsible? he said i don't know. my friends, we now have a pentagon, multibillion-dollar cost overrun and no one knows

who is responsible. one of the major features of this legislation is that the service chiefs have to sign off when there is a cost overrun, and they have to sign off and they are responsible. and guess what? the service chiefs want that responsibility. they crave that responsibility because they want a better army, navy, air force and marine corps as well. as mac mentioned, we have a long, long way to go. both mac have been out to silicon valley and i'm sorry to tell you right now there's not a lot of interest in silicon valley being engaged in acquisition with the military and with the pentagon because they don't see any benefit in getting involved in defense

acquisition. and that has got to be another one of our priorities and we are making the first step to make it so we can engage silicon valley because we know the nature of warfare when we read in the paper this morning that the director of the c.i.a. has had his server hacked. my friends, we are in an interesting high-tech cybersituation. mike: if i could follow up on acquisition policy with some of you are here to talk about vetoes and top-level budget issues. but they have been working on this for so long with such commitment this is worth bearing down for a moment or two. could i ask you to talk about where we stand in the history of defense acquisition reform. if we go back to senator mccain, when you were a navy pilot, the

services did run the acquisition world and before gold water -- senator mccain: it was during the coolidge administration. mike: we thought at that juncture, we concluded that we had given them too much leeway to make their own decisions and -- perhaps they were putting too much high technology into weapons because there was the fighter jock and the carrier and so forth that put a premium on high performance and costs weren't sufficiently considered or timeliness in some of the acquisition programs. so we tried to centralize. and here we are today -- are you essentially saying we have overdone it and need to go back to the old days or is the current model that you are proposing in this legislation

essentially a new approach that gives the services more authority, but in a different way than in the old days? senator mccain: 30 years ago that gold water-nichols was acted. it was a great success we will all admit. but times have changed. the challenges have changed and a lot of things are changing. we are committed to starting as soon as we get through this hurdle, starting hearings to review that so we can make the changes that are necessary. it's not as difficult as one at first things and let me give you one examining. when we saw that the i.e.d.'s, many of them imported from iran, many of them sent by mr. suleimani seems to be in charge

of conflicts at least in three countries, sent in these copper-tipped i.e.d.'s and went through armor. the humvees were taken out and our casualties were high. the m-wrap was in being and got them over to iraq and i don't know how many lives that it saved. we used an accelerated process. if we had the route that mac just referred to of the f-35, god knows what would have happened. there is a model out there at least in some areas already in being that we could look at. that m-wrap was developed technology. it wasn't something brand new, but we were able to get it to the battlefield in a matter of weeks or months -- but in a very rapid process and i don't know

how many lives that it saved because the i.e.d.'s couldn't penetrate m-wrap. that is an example what we can do if we get the right process in the pentagon. mr. thornberry: i don't think anybody says turn back the clock and that was perfect by any stretch. but it is true that pendulum swing and we have swung in the direction where there are more layers of bureaucracy which results in no accountability for the decisions because everybody does this. and plus, it is incredibly slow. part of our just overall theme is simplify so that somebody makes the decision and you can hold them accountable for the decision. and also to speed up the innovation so that we can get capability, so that the m-wrap

is not the exception, so that that is more the norm. let's say there is a fundamental change and that is the number of complex national security threats that we face all at the same time. dr. kissinger testified in front of senator mccain, is unique in history. and we have to respond in a more agile way. you cannot respond with this layered bureaucracy that has developed. i will also admit, we are part of the problem. part of what happens is, there is a cost overrun in the past and what do we do? we set a new bureaucracy or procedure to make sure it never happens again. well, we can't do that and we can talk more about that if you want to, simplify and accountability and not all the checks and balances that parls -- paralyze the system.

too many programs we're inventing as we are buying and that is a source of the cost overruns and the delays. one of the things that we want to move more toward is have your technology development over here but you buy established technology so you are not inventing on the fly and we end up with better results. mike: speaking of global hot spots, one of the things in the bill that would allow the president to do different things in syria and ukraine. and i want to ask about the hypothetical, were the president to veto this bill, can we imagine a path forward or propose a possible road map recognizing that a lot of other

people will have a say in that as well. seems like it's a fairly imminent debate. back to the bill itself and the hot spots. you have important language on syria and ukraine, iraq, i wonder if you want to begin and the other follow up on those questions. mr. thornberry: we try to give the president more tools. we have authority to provide defensively for assistance to ukraine. and there is a huge amount of bipartisan consensus in the house and senate that that should be done. in iraq, we say if the secretary cannot -- if the iraqi government is inclusive, then they are authorized to give weapons directly to the kurds, to the sunni tribes and other groups so that everything doesn't have to go through baghdad. now, we can't make the president take any of those specific options but we are trying to

give him more tools. senator mccain: and we are expressing the sense of congress, bipartisan on both of those issues. i hope that we remain very careful that the constitution says the president is the commander in chief. to say he has to give those weapons, that, in my view, is not in our area of responsibility. but we not only give him the authority, but overwhelming, that is the policy we want him to pursue. friends, i have been to ukraine on many occasions and when these people are crying for a jaff lynn because russian tanks are in eastern ukraine. we won't give them that or intelligence, it's heartbreaking.

i used to get angry but now heart broken with so many killed. they are fighting bravely with 20th century weapons against 21st century weapons. the kurds and baghdad is concerned, it's obviously a vacuum that's been created but a new intelligence sharing now between iraq, russia, syria, and iran, that's an interesting scenario. one that, frankly, i never would have anticipated a fairly short time ago. now there's talk about, and i hope it's only talk, about russian air power being brought in to iraq against isis. might be nice to see them doing something against isis from one standpoint, instead of moderate opposition which is the object of almost all of their attacks. but i think one thing is clear.

the people who are really the best fighters right now for a variety of reasons are the kurds. they're the ones that liberated kobani. they're the ones doing a lot of work in part offings syria. as you pointed out, mike, this is a dangerous game. there's a turkish aspect, there's the k.k.k., none of this is simple. i think it's clear if we gave the kurds the weapons they needed they could be much more effective in achieving at least some of our short-term goalser that we are not achieving right now. mike: that's my final question, which has to do with the big picture and again to remind those of you, i think everybody in this room is following it to some extent but the basic idea is the president has said, he's happy with a higher level of

defense spend bug disagrees with using the overseas operations account to do it, an account that they have available that other groups don't have available. he wants to demand some kind of bill like the ryan-murray compromise that would increase funding on both the defense and nondefense side. the congress has said, we're not going to do that. but we do have a safety valve in the defense route. isn't that better than nothing to address defense needs and save the domestic debate for a different day and maybe next year's campaign. perhaps i'm oversimplifying. that's how i see the debate boiling down. which leads to my question, and you can say whatever you want and challenge my rendition of where we stand but in terms of if there is a veto, wouldn't a natural compromise be for the domestic accounts to get half as much of a plus up as defense? in other words a ryan murray

bill that tilted more in favor of defense because that would be a compromise between where the president is and where the congressional leadership is. one imagines preserving the funding levels you've got in your bill but maybe increasing the domestic accounts roughly half as much for this year and next year. if you don't like that proposal, obviously i'd love to hear anything else you think may be viable looking forward so we can someday get a defense bill even if the president veto this is in the short-term. chairman mccain, would you like to start? mr. mccain: we authorized to the level the president requested. that's an important fundamental fact. he asked for $681, i believe it was, mac, but the exact level the president requested. second of all, it's an authorizing bill. it is not a money bill. the money is in the appropriations committee. so the has a problem with the level of appropriations, then it

seems to me that fight should be with the appropriators and that aspect of funding. we authorize. we've just been through a small number, this is a big deal. of all the reforms, all the benefits and pay all the things that we're doing, the reforms and so, it seems to me he's picked the wrong target. second of all, second or third of all, he has accepted other bills with this in it. it's not as if this is a brand new problem. and oco, we don't like oco. we don't like it mac and i really dislike it. we'd like to see a multiyear level of authorization that we can plan on rather than lurching from one year to the next to see whether the budget budget committee is going to approve oco or not. i don't like it. and we'd rather in a perfect world see that level of budgeting that we can plan on and that more importantly, that the military can plan on.

they're lurching from year to year, my friends. they don't -- how can you, over in the pentagon how can you plan ahead on almost anything if you don't know what the following year's spending level is going to be? so it's a broken system. the president decides to veto this, then it seems to me that he is placing a higher priority over his concern and opposition to the funding budgetary mechanism than he is over the defense of the country. because if he cared most about the defense of the nation, then he would focus his attention on the appropriations bills? veto the appropriations bills, mr. president. because you don't like the way the money -- where the money is coming from. it really is -- it's hard for me

to understand, why the president of the united states should focus on the defense of the nation. finally, again, sequestration, my friends. it is a disaster. it's a disaster in so many ways. look at the world in 2011 when we enacted it. the budget control act. and look at the world today. yet we continue to cut defense spending. i wouldn't mind increases in some spending, particularly where intelligence and other aspects are concerned, the c.i.a., many other agencies of government. but this is really an unnecessary fight and i really wish that the president would reserve that fight if he feels that strongly about the overseas contingency operations to the appropriations process.

mr. thornberry: the president submitted a budget for defense that the chairman of the joint chiefs said is the lower ragged edge of what is necessary for the defending the country. he asked for more base than was allowed in the budget control act and he asked for $50 billion in oco funding. $50 billion. when the house and senate come up with a budget resolution, we have to follow the law, we believe, on the budget control act so we have a lower base but make up the difference in oco so it's an extra $38 billion in oco but the total is exactly the same. the only question is, which category the funding is put in. all of that extra oco, by the way, or i think essentially all of it, is operation and maintenance accounts and every dollar of it is authorized just like the base is. so there's no different between being allocated to specific programs by being in oco versus

being in base. in addition, section 1501 of the ndaa says if there is a change in the sequestration numbers or the caps or anything, then that oco is automatically adjusted to the base. we have this automatic flexibility mechanism to reflect whatever budget agreement comes up. but here to me is the bigger point. if you are a counterterrorism soldier in afghanistan today, or if you are training the iraqi army today, or if you are at a navy air force or marine or army base in the united states supporting those efforts, do you really care whether your operation and maintenance funds are classified as oco or whether they're classified as base? don't you just want the money? don't you just want the support to know that it's there? and so in some ways i think this is sort of an inside washington political game that loses sight of what we are asking men and

women to do for us all around the country. and in that way, i think it is tragic, i think it is, as the "washington post" has written, if he vetoes it, it will be historic but not in a good way because there is nothing we could do in this bill that would fix the problem he's complaining about. i mean, i'd be find with -- fine with your solution to put more money in domestic programs and i suspect at the end of the day, as john says, there will be appropriations, you know, something has to be worked out before december 11. so i'm for whatever can be done. but i'm not willing to put at risk all of the reforms that we were talking about and just -- last point. the world as we've been talking is growing more dangerous and more complex. i think if there's ever a time the world, not to mention our troops, need to see institutions

of the american government operating for national defense, it's now. and so i don't pretend that signing a defense authorization bill solves all this other problem. we still have other problems to deal with. but good heavens, wouldn't -- with such strong bipartisan support of the bill, wouldn't it be a good thing for the country and the world to see if we can do something together instead of playing political games? mr. mccain: i'll also point out one additional factoid. in this bill is $11 billion in waste and spending. as an example we require a 7.5% cut per year for four years in the size of staffs in headquarters. and so we are saving $11 billion in this legislation that is much needed and frankly, we're taking

out the easy targets in this bill and it's easy system of we're now going to dispense with his veto of $11 billion in savings. mike: let's go to you, please. get my attention, wait for the microphone and if you could just ask one question and we'll try to make room for everyone that would like to get into this. start over here, please. >> good morning. my name is erica mccann with the i.c. alliance for public sector and we want to say on behalf to have the tech industry, we appreciate the commercial item and regulatory review provisions in bill but you boast emphasized the word beginning in this bill. where do you see the f.y. 2017 bill going? mr. thornberry: i think one of the big challenges we face is inventing technology as we are purchasing it. so i think focusing on that

issue is something for the future. we have a lot more thinning out of the regulations and simplification to do. as john was talking about, the challenge of silicon valley doing business, and it's not just silicon valley, there's all sorts of key industries that are saying, i don't really think it's worth doing business with those people. they're so bureaucratic so difficult. i have to have so many lawyers and regulators and accountants to deal with them. that's a huge problem because a key strength for us has always been innovation that comes from the private sector that we plug into defense. there's so much more to do and we'll never fix it all the way, by the way. it is taking steps each year to make it better. mr. mccain: i would only add that there is a perception in many areas of industry that the

pentagon only does business with certain favored industry that they've done business with for years and years and years. whether that is accurate or not, i can't say. but that's the perception when i talk to people who don't traditionally do business with the pentagon and i think that's -- and the other aspect is, we're going to have to look at the entitlements. we're going to have to look at tricare. we're going to have to look at a number of those aspects of defense spending that need reform. and don't think that's going to be easy. that may be one of our most difficult challenges. mike: quick vignette, we had an event here with secretary kendall and of course be bill lyn, i asked secretary kendall how would you rate our acquisition system? he said, we have a lot of problems. i've been doing this better

buying power stuff, but we also have the best equipment in the world and i'm sure you two would agree with that. mr. mccain: not always as a reasonable cost. mike: not always at a reasonable cost or schedule. so he said overall i'd give us a b plus. then i asked bill lyn the same thing. he said maybe a b plus for some of the things we're traditionally good at but for anything more than that, maybe a c-minus. we went into whether we're at the beginning or mid range or closer to where we need to be. we'll stay here in the front row. >> good morning. i would like first of all to thank you for this beautiful time and thank senator mccain for his support for global security. which is right now we are seeing it to be at stake, specifically like there was an article in "wall street journal" yesterday that talked about the fact that obama is somehow

taking the military hostage and you've retweeted this just yesterday. i would like to say that it is not taking the military hostage but it's taking the global situation hostage. why? because of the issue that we are facing in ukraine, in syria, in iraq, in so many different areas around the world without crucial actions that we're taking place. but at the same time, i -- at the same time representative mac said something beautiful, political gain, which we are seing from this administration at the moment. what is your point of view regarding the future of the united states when it comes to global security? will they still follow the same path that president obama has assigned, which is the military new doctrine? mr. mccain: well, i'll try to be

as brief as possible. long-term, i am incredibly optimistic about america and its role in the world, whether you're talking about technology, whether you're talking about the fact that we are now energy independent, whether you're talking about all of the new devices, the new ways of conveying information and knowledge in the united states. manufacturing capabilities include long-term, i am very bullish on america. in the short-term, i agree with henry kissinger, the world has not seen more crises than we're in today since the end of world war ii. we see if there's any benefit, we now see a reliance or relationship between israel and some of the sunni nations we have never seen before. that's really big to tell you the truth. but i see an absence of american leadership. i see frankly some of the countries in the region kind of

hedging their bets and accommodating. saudi arabia just made a $9 billion arms deal with russia. i don't believe that russia can provide them with superior weapons. i think it's because saudi arabia has been looking at their relationships and i still think that a big moment was the day saudi arabia had planes on a runway ready to strike syria and found out on cnn that crossing the red line was basically meaningless on chemical weapons. so i think in the short-term, we are in the most serious challenge, and you didn't even mention the south china sea, by the way. that's another area. but finally, we're seeing what iran is seeking and russia is helping them and this is an arc of shia influence in the region. as we see the latest activities,

military activities in syria and the continued slaughter of young men who we are training and equiping and sending into syria, we're watching the russians bomb and kill them while our major priorities -- priority is decon flix, that is a new word for appeasement. we don't want to run into any russian airplanes. certainly we wouldn't want to run into russian airplanes while they're bombing the hell out of the people that we train and equip and send into syria. don't think that lesson is lost on other young people who we might ask to go in and fight against isis. and against a brutal regime which has killed 240,000 of its own people and driven millions into refugee status. mike: care to comment? mr. thornberry: the point was

made in the introduction, the united states is a unique force for good in the world. police dysfunction and political gamesmanship here has consequences far beyond our shores. it's even more the reason where if we can do something together, we ought to do that. here in the third row. >> good morning, sydney freeberg, breaking defense. to get back to the agonizing political games, for a moment, your favorite thing, i know, if there is a veto, is there some way to start disaggregating the n.d.a.a.? it's never been done in 53 years, never had to, are there ways to split off pieces, put placeholders in, say we offer for certain things so you can preserve, for example, the acquisition reform the compensation reforms, while

deferring perhaps parts of the bill that authorize us from sources which is a matter of contention. mr. thornberry: the president's basic complaint is he wants to spend more on domestic programs. e.p.a., i.r.s., whatever. we can't do that in a defense authorization bill. we can take it apart and put it together, put the pieces back a different way, but we cannot fix his basic problem in any defense authorization bill because his basic problem is he wants to spend more on other stuff. i might agree on some of those other things we ought to spend more money on, but we can't fix it in this bill which is why the post says vetoing it not for anything that's in it but for the broader budget disagreement, using it as a hostage, would be historic. mike: we'll stay in the second row and work our way back in a moment.

>> my question is for both of you. you talked about the differences with the white house over oco versus base budget funding. but are there any substantive policy disagreements and if so would you be willing to negotiate on any of those to preserve acquisition reform the white house is willing to approve an authorization act and fight over the money later in appropriations bills? mr. mccain: there's one major issue i know of and that is of course guantanamo. and we have pretty strict provisions in the bill and by the way, i would remind you, when the president released five prisoners in exchange for bergdahl, he broke the law which no one seems to be too concerned about, but what we have asked for is a plan. we have asked the president to

submit to us, i've been waiting 6 1/2 years for a plan as to how they want to close guantanamo and how they want to move those prisoners and where to. i don't think that's a lot to ask for us to authorize such a thing to get a plan. and as short a time ago as four months ago, the president assured me he would send us a plan and lisa monocoe and ash carter same over and sat in my office three months ago and said, we'll give you a plan. so far, there is no plan. but that is an issue that is of continuing disagreement between the president and us. mr. thornberry: and just as a reminder, the language the president primarily complains about on guantanamo is exactly the same language he signed into law in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,

and in 2014. so he doesn't really like it but until there's a plan that can get the support of the american people and their representatives, i suspect most members of congress are going to say, don't bring them here and don't modify facilities here. which is basically the provisions. of course there are other differences between what the president asked for and what's in our bill. the president proposed to retire the a-10 aircraft. it turns out they are sending a-10's into the middle east today and relying on them and our judgment was, probably it's not a good idea to retire that. so of course there are differences of opinion. we don't -- no congress rubber stamps a president's request. but if you look at the constitution, it says that congress has the responsibility to build and provide and maintain armies, navies and other military forces.

so of course there are differences. but our colleagues in congress and the president really focused on the oco issue. mike: in the very back, the woman in the white coat. >> victoria, with green cross international. the 2016 ndaa conference report states that there's congressional intent to reject the budget request to authorize another brac round in 2017. i was wondering why is that, since in the long-term there seems to be improvement in the recovery in most local communities? mr. thornberry: because the 2005 brac has not yet broken even. in other words 10 years later, it is still cost -- it has still cost the taxpayers more money than it has saved. i think there were a lot of members who were here for 2005 and say, we're not going to have a repeat of that.

now there is another provision in the bill that says the department has to come to congress with more specific data about where you think you have excess infrastructure. because what we've heard for the past several years is all based on a study they did in 2004 and we're saying, ok, let's not just trot out old information over and over again. if you think you have too much infrastructure, give us more specifics about it and we'll look at it and there may well be another brac in the future. but for this year, and remember this is a one-year authorize ation bill, whether we're talking gitmo or brac, for this year, there will not be another brac. mr. mccain: i'd just quickly add, a couple of decisions that i think looking back we never should have takeen that was a result of brac. one was closing the naval air station in cecil field, leaving us only with oceana which is having enormous encroachment

problems. the other was the consolidation of bethesda and walter reed. i don't know anybody when you look at the money that's going to be spent on transportation and all that, that was another bad decision. so to think somehow that bracs are nirvana is not an accurate depiction. and we all know, too, what bracs are. an abrodationgation, an act of cowardice on the part of congress because they can't close a single base on their >> are a good of out with a

statement that says we are on an unsustainable path. can you speak to that. john mccain: i can say they have been helpful. we will continue to use them. i think that all of us appreciate the gao come up particularly -- gao, particularly in the work they do. they are the watchdogs. more important as their knowledge and background on many of these issues -- we had an interesting hearing on the carrier if you weeks ago. -- a few weeks ago. presented their witness was very important in providing balance nothing -- in that hearing. thornberry: we have used gao in the past. as a lot of the things you focus

on, the business sort of things with the department have a huge effect on acquisition. buying goods and services. that is part of the reason that we are committed to taking many more steps in order to improve the way that taxpayer dollars are used for those things. we will need your help to do it. might: here in the fifth row. -- mike: here in the fifth row. jeff: jeff phillips with the reserve officers association, with the linkage of the reserve co, what will help our men and women? thornberry: it depends on what happens with the bills. you cannot buy things if there onnot some sort of agreement

the offers i -- authorizing the purchases to do so. that is part of the reason you have seen huge -- large numbers of house members saying that to just operating for the rest of the fiscal year on a continuing resolution is unacceptable. we are doing things we should not keep doing. we need to do more and we're not doing now. cr will not allow you that flex ability. there are needs and all sorts of areas. needs to be filled that will not be filled if this is eater and if there is not a budget agreement. i cannot emphasize enough come a continuing resolution for the year is incredibly damaging to our ability role this nation -- ruled this nation. respectn we have great

-- a gentleman we have great respect for has painted a stark picture of what happens if we do not stop sequestration. you don't stop sequestration and have a continuing resolution, i will to you it will be more damaging than any time that i have ever seen. >> clarifying question, mike: you mentioned a lot of the money is in accounts, you allow yourself more play in the procurement. in addition to having to continue policies of blaster, which might be inappropriate. we will be at a lower level of defense acquisition. mr. thornberry: a lower level of operations and maintenance. if sequestration kicks in and you have those across-the-board cuts, that is the same level as a cr. that would be devastating to any

semblance of what it takes to defend the country. please do not underestimate the effect this has on the men and women who serve. a lot of the really good ones and others are saying, i have had enough. they cannot operate. they cannot maintain. they cannot do the exercises. they don't know when the next operation is. talk to some of these young captains and majors and senior enlisted, they are hurting badly. over time this will hurt retention of a really outstanding people we have. has: bob, and the audience noted that we hurt the civilian employees with these kinds of messages. they are the ones that are for load -- furloughed. we have time for one last question.

>> high i am with the voice of america, the persian service. my question is for senator mccain. you mentioned the possibility of a no-fly zone on syria. i was wondering if there was a russian campaign there, would never be counterproductive with the coalition air campaign there? my second question, if you're still in contact with the prime minister in iraq, have you recommended them to restrict activities of the general there? and have they come back with a response? severalain: i have had authorizations of the prime and esther of iraq, but frankly dutch prime minister of iraq, not have to it does be meted carry the message of what we think so many -- solam

ani, in a hearing before the committee,ces senator content -- cotton asked how many marines were killed by the ied's that the iranians shipped into iraq and the general said he thought 500 were killed. i think it is let little less -- a little less than that. we are seeing mr. sola maney flip-flopping, including a visit orchestrating the activities in iraq itself. we have come a long way. i could not hear the first question. mike: it was about syria and a no-fly zone. formercain: even secretary clinton as well as general petraeus and others have all recommended a no-fly zone --

buffer zone for refugees to locate. , and an barrel bombing area where we could train and equip moderates. as far as i can tell, almost everybody that i know and respect approves of some sort of and, except for susan rice valerie jarrett, and barack obama. mike: we have been privileged to have these tillman here today. please join me in a round of applause to the chairman. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

announcer: the house republican members meet tuesday -- wednesday, that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. after that the homeland security committee holds a meeting on homeland six ready threats. and the head of the terrorism center are expected to testify. house armed services subcommittee gets an update on the f 35 joint fight strider -- strike fighter program. 3:30 p.m.ve at eastern on c-span three. announcer: a signature feature of book tv is our all-day

coverage of booked fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. , and are live in madison at the end of the month we are in nashville. at the start of november, we are on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month is the louisiana book festival. in the middle of november where live or the 18th year in a row for the miami book fair. at the national book awards from new york city. 's just some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's book tv. announcer: pentagon press secretary peter cook briefed reporters on a memo signed by the u.s. and russian military am a governing aircraft movements in syria, where both countries are conducting military operations. this defense department breathing is half hour.

sec. cook: good afternoon, everybody. a quick announcement before i turn to questions. today, senior officials from the department of defense and the russian ministry of defense signed a memorandum of understanding regarding measures to minimize the risk of in-flight incidents between coalition and russian aircraft operating in syrian airspace. with today's signatures the mo mou is in effect. it includes specific protocols for aircrews to follow. these protocols include maintaining professional airman ship at all times, the use of specific communication

frequencies and the establishment of a communication line on the ground. the u.s. and russia will form a working group to discuss implementation issues that follow. the mou does not establish sharing in syria. this does not constitute u.s. cooperation or actions in syria. we continue to believe russia's strategy in syria is counterproductive in their support for the assad regime, it will only make the civil war worse. the united states will continue to focus on advancing our interest in syria. we will continue efforts to go after isil that poses a threat to us, and the international community. we will continue to be the single largest donor in addressing the humanitarian catastrophe in syria and beyond its borders. unlike russian efforts, we are joined by a coalition of 65 partners. that is the latest with regard to the memorandum of understanding with russia.

that was signed a short time ago earlier today. with that, i will have you take -- happy to take questions. >> the reference that the communication line on the ground. what is that about, and also why are you not releasing the actual text of the understanding? sec. cook: the second part of your question, it was at the request of the russians at the memorandum in full not be shared. with regard to the first part of your question, i can tell you in broad terms, it is effectively another line of communication on the ground that would supplement any interaction that took place in the air. >> between where and where? sec. cook: i'm not any get into the details, but it is a line of communication between russia and the coalition. in the event that there is an inability to communicate effectively in the air. i will give you the basics.

we have a line of communications on the ground that serves as a backup. that is the best way to describe it. the opportunity to have real-time conversations if necessary. >> with different countries? sec. cook: i cannot get into all the details, but this is something both sides have agreed to as a backup in the event there is a problem with communication. >> the communication between russians -- this is before an operation overseas? sec. cook: i'm not sure i understand your question. >> the line of communication or any communications between russia and the coalition will take place before any operation? sec. cook: i apologize if you don't understand me on my end but this would be a backup form , of communication. there is a series of protocols in place that are effectively

intended to avoid any sort of risk of a midair incident between our aircrews and russian aircrews. effectively, if they follow the protocols, we should not have the risk of engagement with russian aircrews over syria. in the event there is, and -- an incident or engagement in the air, there are protocols they can follow, and the ability to engage with each other in the air to make sure everyone is safe and operating safely. as a backup to that, there is a separate line of communication that is available should communication in the air breakdown for some reason. i will call it a line of communication. honestly, i don't know technically what you want to call it, but rest assured there is a line that is available to be able to resolve some of these issues. should it come to that.

our hope is it does not come to that. >> is that military that says that? yes, i would say that. >> is this extend to iraq and you have senses from the iraqi government but the russians will not carry out airstrikes there? sec. cook: this agreement is specific to syria. my understanding is the iraqis have said publicly they are not calling for an airstrike. and for anything further, i refer you to the iraqi government. >> is their problem since the russians began carrying out airstrikes? sec. cook: we have expressed concerns in the past about that potential, the hypothetical. i referred to the iraqis and let them speak for themselves as to exactly what they would like to see happen. >> quick follow-up, can you tell us what happened, we understand general dunford's plane was not allowed to land. what was the reason for that, what was the reason given by the iraqi government? sec. cook: i'm learning some of this myself. my understanding is there was an

issue with flight plans. i don't know the details. but my understanding is the chairman was able to land, and is in fact there, and whatever issues there were were resolved. >> why did he go there. was it to deliver a message to baghdad that the kurds are important? was that a symbolic decision? sec. cook: i will let the chairman's office speak for his itinerary, but obviously this chairman thought it was important to go to iraq. we have an ongoing effort in iraq, in close collaboration with the government. i don't want to speak to his full itinerary, but when the secretary visited iraq to travel there as well, that's what happened. >> before landing in baghdad? sec. cook: he did not, but i did not read too much into the itinerary. there is a host of reasons why folks might travel to one place or another in terms of security,

to meet people in certain locations. i refer you to the chairman's office for the specific itinerary. yes, barbara. barbara: while the negotiations are discussions were going on with russians, they flew within 500 feet on one occasion and within 1500 feet of a u.s. fighter jets over syria. if they want flight safety, yet they are flying within 500 feet of u.s. aircraft, what makes you believe you can trust them? sec. cook: i think you just highlighted why we need this kind of agreement in place. our aircrews continue to fly in a professional fashion, and this agreement now, this understanding, obligates the russians to do the same. and we call on them to abide by the protocols that they have now agreed to. what you just described, would not reflect the professional

airmanship that this understanding calls for. >> what does it say that they are doing that even as they are negotiating or discussing safety with you, and at the same time flying within 500 feet of u.s. aircraft and pilots over syria? what does that say about their trustworthiness to you? sec. cook: it says to me that the russians need to abide by these flight safety protocols, that they have now agreed to. because we don't want miscalculation and misunderstanding. the kinds of activities you just described could lend themselves to misunderstanding and miscalculation. that is something we want to avoid. we do not agree with the russians on their strategy in syria. at a minimum, we can agree with them on unsafe operations of flights over syria between our aircrews and and theirs. barbara: if i could follow jennifer's question, it seems fairly inconceivable that the chairman of the joint chiefs air

force flight crew would have incorrectly filed any flight plans over iraq, in particular this is a country they have been , flying into for well over a decade. how can it possibly have been a flight plan miscommunication? sec. cook: again, i'm not there, so i don't know exactly what the discrepancies were. i just know that the chairman is on the ground. the airspace over iraq is a complicated place. they have security concerns understandably, given what is happening in their country. we will find out exactly what the discrepancy was here, but the chairman is on the ground safely. i think that is what is most important here. obviously, this is something we would love to avoid with the iraqis, but sometimes things happen and we will find out with the details were. -- what the details were. >> given the number of close flights between coalition and russian aircraft, what happens

now if there is another close call? if the russians live by another coalition jet? sec. cook: obviously they have signed this agreement. they are obligated under it just like we are, to abide by the rules. if there is an instance in which there is unprofessional conduct, and they are not the kinds of safety protocol that are called for, we will raise those concerns with the russians, and we will take it from there. our hope is that now that they have signed this, they will abide by the professional airman ship that our crews are already showing over syria right now. >> does this apply to drones as well? sec. cook: yes, it covers both. it covers all aircraft over syria operated by russian and coalition. >> is there a separation you would like to see here, 1, 2 miles, 20 miles? a safe distance?

sec. cook: safe distance is probably the key word. >> what is a safe distance, is that spelled out? sec. cook: i'm not going to get into all the details of the agreement -- let me finish. again, it calls for aircraft to maintain a safe distance, and i'm not going to want to all the -- walk through all of the details here, but we have the most professional and capable aircrews in the world. they operate with professionalism every day over syria. we are calling on the russians to do the same. these crews -- our crews w exactly no -- kno what i safe distance is. the obligation is upon the russians to maintain that safe distance and airman ship just as our crews display. >> can you give us a sense of the safe distance? feet or miles? sec. cook: it is safe to say anything that could be deemed as threatening or hostile, would

represent a violation of this agreement, and it is very clear to our aircrews what constitutes that right now. they are able to identify right away when another aircraft has crossed that line. and that should be abundantly clear from this memorandum, exactly what that is. there should be no question in the minds of russian pilots and coalition aircrews as to what the proper protocols are. >> i understand when the two f-16s diverged, the russian aircraft is 20 miles away. can we assume that that is the distance what the u.s. would like to see? sec. cook: will not get into distances with you, but our crews will know full well when a russian aircraft -- we hope it does not happen but the potential to violate these terms, it would be very clear.

>> just to be clear on your answer, it sounds like there are no numbers spelled out in the agreement in terms of the safe distance. is that correct? sec. cook: i will not get into all the specifics. >> i'm just saying, are there numbers? sec. cook: a safe distance is just the best way to look at this. that is the way the pilots are looking at this. this should give our pilots, if the russians abide by it, some comfort that these kinds of incidents can be avoided altogether and that there is no need for them to have an encounter if everyone is abiding by these rules. let me go to the back. >> isn't it reasonable to think that the russian notion of safe distance might be different than the american notion? so that the agreement would necessarily need to define in

some way because the russians might say, to us five miles is a safe distance, we are great pilots. it just seems like a safe distance has to be defined better. are you saying it is not or that you are not going to tell us? sec. cook: i'm telling you that the protocols put in place here, that we have agreed and the russians have agreed to should be abundantly clear to the pilots flying over syria, what is appropriate and what is not. what would be deemed a threatening and what is not. that is why we are confident this will ensure, and encourage the safety of our pilots over syria. safe distance, the other steps in here, i'm not going to read through each and every one of them. i will make it clear what you can and cannot do, in proximity to aircraft. >> to the pilots themselves had -- have the ability to

communicate now that they did not have before? sec. cook: they have always had the ability to communicate. the protocols, i think it is safe to say, make it easier and less chance for miscommunication, and perhaps enable them to communicate them more easily and efficiently than they did in the past. i think that is fair to say. i want to make the point, that if the russians abide by these rules, there would be no reason for them to engage audibly and -- in communication because they should not be that close to begin with. they should not be in that situation. >> we are just trying to understand what close means. >> just to clarify a safe distance. including the safe distance between the aircraft or, there are some conditions indicating forcing russian aircraft from that border?

sec. cook: this specifically refers to aircraft and flights over syria. >> any other condition? sec. cook: it refers to aircraft, specifically. the memorandum of understanding. we have made clear to concerns about the russian incursion into turkish airspace, nato airspace. we have made the understanding specifically with aircraft under syria. >> so is there a specific channel or frequency, what is it that makes it easier? sec. cook: i think i have mentioned before, that it would be a specific frequency they would use as a baseline. that's a good example of how this would be easier and more efficient, should they have to have communications again.

but these protocols, we would hope, with event that from even having to happen. >> one follow-up. you said that russia asked the language, was the justification and why did the u.s. agree? sec. cook: to be honest i don't know, i was not there for that part, but i know it was a request. >> closer to home, canada had elections. the prime minister elect said in the past he would look to end candidate involvement in operations and cut entirely the f 35 plan five from the current government. any reaction from from the pentagon? sec. cook: we noted the election results in canada. a nato ally, norad partner, part of our coalition and we look forward to continuing a strong defense relationship we have with canada moving forward. they are a partner in the f 35 program so it would be inappropriate for me to

speculate about how that can change. they are a key ally of ours in so many ways, but particularly in defense. we look forward to maintaining that relationship going forward. >> since the russians have been flying, can you elaborate on the numbers of unsafe encounters there have been and any details on the types? sec. cook: i don't have a list here. my understanding, there have been a handful of incidents. our hope is these protocols prevent anything like that from happening going forward. that is the hope and expectation. >> does that include manned and unmanned aircraft? sec. cook: yes, it covers both.

>> other incidents involving russian interceptions of unmanned as well as manned? sec. cook: those incidents cause us concern, so those were the reasons we were willing to at least talk to the russians about this one limited area where we could find mutual understanding and simply to promote the safety of our aircrews, and also the operations over syria, including unmanned aircraft as well. >> i don't know if you have a printout of general dunford's meeting, but weeks ago, they complained about the program and said that weapons that were supposed to be delivered had been decreased after that. you have any comment?

sec. cook: i'm not aware of that. i don't how the readout of the chairman's meetings. i'm not aware of an issue with regard to that. i think our support for them has been strong in terms of the equipment. i think you have the chairman of the joint chiefs to intervene. i think that is representative of that agreement. >> a few weeks ago and a different statement from the u.s. government, including the on then came out drones for the syrian including ypg. they were changing the statement, do you have any comment why they were changing the statement?

cook: the air droplets for the syrian air coalition, it was successful. i will restate that. it went to the people who are intended to receive it. >> it was not intended to be delivered 4 -- secretary cook: it was intended for the syrian air coalition. i have a tag team from fox. who do i go to? >> lucas. impressed.ook: i am >> do you trust the russians? secretary cook: the fact that we have had to resort to memorandums of understanding here to try and work out what should be standard protocol over syria gives you an indication of

our concern about russia's activities. are willingness to work with the russians when it is in our own interest. that is what is happening here. we are looking to the russians to abide by these protocols to ensure safe flight operations over syria. let me reaffirm, once again, this is a narrow understanding with the russian's dealing with a specific issue. strategy in syria -- the secretary has been quite clear, we don't agree with what they're doing. we can agree in this limited basis to try to promote the safety of our aircrews over syria. that is where things stand with russia. >> there are statements that say otherwise. you say that the russians are not striking isis, you say that they have signed agreements and there's been numerous nuclear agreements.

what makes you think they will abide by this? secretary cook: it may go back to where we were from the start, our cruise continue to fly in syria everyday. we continue to have situational awareness for our cruise. -- crews. we are doing everything we can beyond this understanding to make sure that our crews are as safe as possible. do not believe this memorandum is really thing we are doing to make sure we are safe. . am going to the back >> you indicated that you do not particularly trust russia, that is why you signed this any first place for it if that is the case, you don't trust syria or iran either, why not do the same with them? secretary cook: this is specific to flight operations over syria. at this particular moment in time, if we have a particular incident over syria, it would

most likely involve russian aircraft, because they are the ones flying over syria right now. we are doing this because of the risk right now that these aircrews could have some sort of incident over syria. we are trying to reduce that risk. >> of this cover any coalition aircraft that could be flying in syria? >> this does include coalition aircraft as well. we have been in consultation with our partner nations throughout the entire process. they are well aware of the memory of understanding of the terms within it. >> do u.s. pilots have permission to fire on russian planes if the russians do not abide by protocol? >> i will maintain what we have said from the start, our aircrews always have the right

to defend themselves. our hope is that the risk of any incident in the air over syria is reduced at a minimum, hopefully eliminated i this. -- by this. our cruise, no matter where they are flying have the ability to defend themselves if they feel threatened. >> on the defense budgeted -- budget act, as president carter specifying if he should be no -- veto? secretary cook: yes, they have support and have detailed that a capitol hill -- at capitol hill and elsewhere. >> you say it covers the coalition, does it also cover syria? secretary cook: this is specific to russian and coalition aircraft. if there is a risk of incident right now, involves russian

aircraft. no, it does not cover syrian aircraft. >> other times you said specifically threatening behavior. or some of the earlier encounters threatening on part of the russians? cook: it is a to say anything involving close proximity to an aircraft that is not a number of your coalition could be deemed a threatening. this of the kinds of incidents we look to avoid here. these protocols, if they are followed, will reduce that risk, and reduce the chance of anything like that happening. lacks in afghanistan, any progress on that investigation? secretary cook: we were waiting on her own updates from afghanistan on the initial civilian casualty component of that investigation. i do not have a specific update for you now. obviously, we are waiting for

those results ourselves. the last one. quickly it seems there is a named u.s. aircraft, do you have any details that you can share? understanding: my -- i literally got this word as i came in, there are a tens srriving in israel -- a-10 arriving in israel. this is part of a regular rotation that was planned. >> they are replacing some of the f-16s? secretary cook: that is my understanding -- i literally walked in and heard this. one more. >> one more question on the mo --have there been any improvements on the russian and u.s. aircraft through negation

-- communication? secretary cook: i am not aware of any incidents that have happened. that could be a reflection of the russians abiding by the rules already. our folks have been abiding by these rules from the start print that is standard protocol. maybe that is an indication that the russians will be abiding by this. we certainly hope so. this is in effect. we will go from there. someone you know, i will leave it at that. i will not be ugly answer this -- the answer -- be able to answer this. >> because of concerns over air defenses there, could you give us something on what they will

be doing if they fly over syria, any concerns over their defenses. secretary cook: before i way and without getting 100%, we will get that for you. bob, i will try to get the answer your question as well to make sure that i can release that publicly as to the signature. i want to make sure we don't my late the terms of our agreement by disposing it -- disclosing it. thanks everyone. announcer: the house republican leaders meet wednesday to discuss their legislative agenda and leadership elections including the race for speaker of the house. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. after that there is a meeting on global and homeland security threat. the fbi director, the homeland nicholasdirector, and from the national terrorism

center are expected to testify. we will join that in progress following the republican leadership meeting. later, a house armed services subcommittee gets an update on the f 35 joint strike program. 3:30 p.m.ve at eastern on c-span three. announcer: c-span presents landmark cases, the book, i guide to our landmark cases series. it explores 12 supreme court decisions, including marbury versus madison, brown versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona, and roe versus wade. book" is cases the written by veteran supreme court's journalist tony mauro and published by c-span in cooperation with cq press.

landmark cases is available for $8.95, plus shipping, get your copy today at c-span.org/denmark cases. -- landmark cases. announcer: now i discussion on u.s. and russian military operations in syria. it is hosted by the women's foreign policy group and new york university's center. this is one hour and 15 minutes. and 15 minutes. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for joining us for a special beyond the putin, in syria.d

securitynational correspond and associate editor the "washington post," meyers covering national security issues spent a lot of also withssia and mostad pure chief, and significantly is the author of the new book. ellis, president of the women's foreign policy group. we promote women's leadership on pressingvoices international issues of the day. timely one.ainly a so on behalf of our board here elizabeth bumiller, are sotheresa lore, we pleased you could be with us tonight for the timely event.

warmo want to extent a welcome to our diplomatic colleagues who were here. we are really pleased that you join us. a very warm welcome to our nyu-walk dc.om we appreciate your warm hospitality. partner with you and great to be back here again in the beautiful space. i begin the program, i wanted to mention we have another event on wednesday on ukraine. we hope as many of you as possible can join us. now my great pleasure to introduce our moderator for this elizabeth bumiller. washington brew row chief who previously covered the pentagon and white house,

elizabeth? [applause] elizabeth: thanks, pat. you can all hear me. thank you for coming out tonight. to my two colleagues, my competitor and colleague. and just introduce -- karen i have -- i was just adding it up. between the three of us, we have 76 years of journalism experience. it is daunting. brieflys i'm going to introduce both of them. i'm going to have steve to start first. five minutes each. then i'll ask a handful of ofstions and open it to all you. karen is a national security ed tortnd and associate "washington post." she was in lath tan america, was thewhite house, she assistant managing editor for national new, national editor, and foreign editor. we used to go on trips together. recovering the george w. bush white house. she was very daunting. everything.

she was in the filing center until the middle of the night. think what is she filing? oh, me god. fan tasting. she's also good company. steve has worked with "times" years. seven of them in russia. on putin.pert he has written about the war in he covered the wind and of the war in iraq national securities issues on the washington bureau. i'm very honored to be his -- editors.s you also author as pat told of the new czar. i believe you will have it -- it you tolable here for sign -- he will be signing it for you afterwards. started i was -- i have it. it is a wonderful read.

steven on top of everything else writer.a great very readable. absorbing book about putin. actually why don't you guys start. so we'll start. very much.u that was a kind introduction. not live. >> i'm sorry. i just do what i'm told. is that better? to speak up. >> can somebody turn it? mine is on; right? >> i can try again. is that better? >> we have to fix the mike. >> i'm sorry about that.

i have two. let's try it a bit higher. does that make any difference whatsoever. i think it needs to be on. >> i'm happy. i'm plugged in. >> should we have karen start? sure. do that. here you are going to be. okay. is on.t -- green light >> how is that? no difference. is it something i've done? do you mind just holding it? >> i don't mind holding it. that better? okay. sorry about that. there's always a little confusion. thankinging -- i was elizabeth for the introduction and for the chance to be here and talk to all of you. is incredibly timely now to

be talking about vladimir putin. i think it always is, but who could have envisioned a few weeks ago that we would be sitting here talking about an intervention in syria. is really quite extraordinary for russia today and also i confounding for a lot of people. i don't think it has to be. actually a much simpler, thath complicated equation putin is making right now. it has to do with a lot of factors. the very simple explanation is russia is doing it can.ause for a lot of years, after the union, aof the soviet period we and the united states the west -- the west being afraid i thought we would retire at some point. is back with a vengeance now. for a long time, we saw what was in russia after the

collapse of the soviet union as positive thing for the world. a period to cooperate and engage russia, the new republican out of the former soviet union. in fact, inside russia, it was seen as a period of great chaos. empire, the a great soviet empire, whether or not you liked it or not is beside the point. people like putin saw that was happening as a disaster. it is for a lot of russians. made the transition more easily than other. wealthy.me fabulously russians end most tonk it is something close catastrophe. in the period after putin came power, he thought -- i think

the primary motivation was to russia for some sort of greatness akin to the soviet union. some people think he is trying to recreate the soviet union. i don't think that's it. trying to get russia as they say up off her knees. where he the period saw the path to do that as being cooperation with the west and with the united states in certainly with europe, you know, close economic relationships with germany and other partners in europe. if you think to when he first was a mucher, he more collaborative, cooperative leader, i think. what happened in his mind was never reciprocated. the united states, again allieslly, and its nato continue to press their security felt at the cost of his own of russia's security interest. surprised thatem

assia would intervene forcefully as they have in syria. he's telegraphed the punch, if you will, since at least 2003 in iraq.pposed the war he saw the united states again. statesled out the united more than its allies. u.s.w them as the exercising a power abroad, a force abroad in a way that he saw as destabilizing outside of the context of the u.n. a you think about it, weakened russia, all they had veto.eir u.n. i'm not sure they had a great deal of confidence in their security security -- their nuclear security. i think the feeling that the agenda, pushing an exercising or exerting power that struckmething very deeply at russia. with kosovo before

putin came to power. it is not something unique to him. certainly with iraq and significantly with the orange revolution as it was called in 2004 in ukraine. theaw the west -- again u.s. he singles out -- as supporting the mass protest on and overthrowing what he considered to be a legitimate government in ukraine. with that.eeing that's very much how he sees it. rewind to all of the events that have happened since arab particularly with the spring, he saw what we took to peaceful uprisings against dictatorships or at least authoritarian governments. we saw that as a hopeful thing much as we did the collapse of the soviet union. we saw it with something close to terror. on the street being able essentially usurp power.

putin believes in power. he believes in the central authority of the state as being the only thing to stop chaos. it can stop blood shed, literally. which he had stepped down, it was not really time, dmitry, the to putingure but close and inseparable in terms of policies, but not as paranoid as a figure. was persuaded by the united states and joe biden in particular as the need to intervene in libya as what began as a peaceful uprising become eventuallynt and lead to the intervention of the libyan government towards the protesters in benghazi area.

pedestrian involve instructed to abstain. saw that medvedev was allowing the russian forces just standing by while the united states were helping overthrow governments. we saw the chaos that followed and the of mubarak restoration now. chief ofy, putin's interview.a long he's back in god power. they see this as a fundamental power. in the care of syria, it is a red line for putin.

the soviet unions -- the russians that followed has had a long-standing relationship with syria. they have a base there as everyone knows and close ties. really russia's closest ally in the middle east. thea long time again in period of chaos after the collapse of the soviet union, i that decayed. that relationship had weakened over time. russia was weak. power and having modernized the military just the lastin few years, little noticed beyond the people who watched this closely. realized that he was now at risk. yetn in his mind, of another western effort to topple a government. position he was in a partly because the obama administration, which i'm sure about, andalk more other leaders don't seem to know how to address the conflict in right now.

he sees the chaos that's unfolding as something -- again that's marching closer and will to theu kremlin himself. he saw this as part of the same plot. plot is not too strong of a word. he thinks it has been orchestrated. because of the power of the military and the uncertain the west, he'sm been able to forcefully stop what he sees ofthis continued march overthrowing governments, moving closer and closer, and he has it as i saide because russia can. toh that, i'll turn it over karen. karen: thank you. elizabeth. ofelt what i do is just sort set the scene from last summer

and how the obama administration saw it. the time they saw bashar on ropes and losing territory. the opposition getting stronger. with the distracted fight against the islamic state and thought that basically the fight against assad was succeeding. believed at the time and one can call this wishful retrospect, i think, thingsssia actually saw happening that way too. they were more amenable to starting some kind of political negotiations that would result leaving power. this was not the first time that the administration had found itself in the position. over the years, we're now in the fifth year of the civil war just year -- a little bit more than one year with the islamic state. holding large portions of syria.

but at various times, certainly various times in 2011 at the beginning and in the summer of and at other points as this civil war has gone up and down, the administration has managed to convince itself, sometimes with reason, that actually assad was on the blink that there was this pressure that was on them to intervene in some way was lessening. that's certainly how they saw the situation last summer. that that was a message obama was very receiptive to. in a lot ofrs, battles within the people,ration with some usually in the state department urging more intervention and the pentagon saying no, he had always asked the well, if we do x, do we get y? could really -- in his

view -- assure him that that was to happen. so given his promises not to war,ve the u.s. in another given has assessment that this was not a vital national the u.s.,nterest for humanitarianing crisis. i think his feeling was always american intervention beyond what they had agreed to theinor slipments to opposition, trying very hard to politicalind of negotiations organized and repeating that assad could not the solution was as far as he wanted to go. in about mid august, they started to get word from partners and friends in the that the russians had asked for new overflight rights large cargo planes, jets.ighter

this was -- as they saw it, or in retrospect how they say they saw it, a sort of expansion but expansion of what had gone on for the past several years. theressians had a base and had a naval base. they had some aircraft stations there. they were constantly sending supplies in. they didn't see it as very troubling. allies to denyr the rights. they particularly asked greece bulgaria, the -- greece didn't have to really make a the requestause went away after a while. bulgaria after a specific request to deny the overflight rights did deny them. but the administration in late august specifically asked the russians. what are you up to? what are you doing? they said quoting again to the administration, we are fortifying our interest there. we are just