child. i believe and i'm grateful over the stamwart over the years and i believe we have seen a change n that philosophy and with the heartbeat bill that says, in essence, if a child has a heartbeat, they are a living person and may not be aborted. it's an interesting time in america. but it is now resulted in a lot of rhetoric that is really outrageous. here on this rs floor with all the allegations,

statements, vrble wars that have gone on across the aisle, we know that no one on the emocratic side wants to harm people, wants people hurt, we don't question their motives, d yet, as i -- i'm in my office, hearing friends across term sle, using the loosely, but use terms about how die.nt people to we have come to a sad place in our history. this story, june 30, from fox news, reporting on statements

de by some individuals, this from massachusetts senator warren, quote, these medicaid cuts are blood money, people will die. they are paying for tax cuts with american lives. bernie sanders predict thousands will die if a 23 million will lose their insurance. a drop or lose their insurance. and senator sappeders accused republic caps for tax breaks for the rich. quote, is this what america is supposed to be about. and from people with cancer in order to give tax breaks to the

billionaires, unquote. quote, let us be clear, this is not trying to be dramatic. thousands of people will die if the republicans' health care bill will become law. if the republicans' health care bill is passed, thousands of people will die. if the bill is not passed, thousands of people will die. so i guess, we can't say it's not true, thousands of people will die if it passes or not. but the implications that republicans, are going to kill people. and i would like an acknowledgement like senator sanders, that there have been

people since obamacare has and d who loss the their didn't get the treatments they d, their way of life was harmed and a lot of people have died earlier if the president's words have not been hollowed, if you like your sflurns, you can keep your insurance and not rewarded insurance like m.d. and dr son, because if they had the best health care providers for these life-ending disses ease. it created an incentive for insurance companies not to get

the best end of-treaters in their network. he credit, some have, but many haven't. so, it has been amazing. here's other rhetoric. the former senator, hillary pan on said forget death else, republicans are the death party. maybe that's one of the ropes she didn't in. at is an outrageous thing to say. this article goes on to say, they ring the alarm, the colorado governor came to washington to lobby against the measure and would lead to 100

deaths by 2026. now this' this liberal group apparently center for american progress, liberal think tank. i don't know what their tank is full of. but more social is particular thinking. but according to the center, center for american progress, if 2 million have fewer health result in ll additional deaths in 2026 and 217,000. isn't that interesting. there isn't anything they can point to a factual basis. any citing of c.b.o. whose

, c.b.o. is not a source that should be cited with a straight face. they just shouldn't be. and i agree with my friend when it comes to tax reform, we just ed to forget c.b.o. and they explain and create these models. they create models that provide us the scores. out.ge in, garbage gotten to be a sad state of affairs because people are hurting across america. they of my district,

want to like the government having so much control over their lives. and take ead and into care of them. but i do represent the best interests. and i think the 75% of my district are right about right needbe best that obamacare to be repealed. we need to get relationships back between a patient and a zock tore without an insurance company or a government in between them exeps for very fair casions as it once wasment

used to be that will government didn't have anything to say anything about that except f.d.a. but insurance companies came along. but only for catastrophic problems. but we had complete control of our health care. and i do appreciate greatly leaderate house minority ncy pelosi referencing the honoring of god. is an act ement to of worship is to dishonor the god who made us, but if the government is big enough to say, who gets health care and who doesn't, who gets treatment, who

ts the i-saving care and who doesn't, then that is to put government in the place of god and nothing dishonors god more than to have knee any person or any entity that believes it is he substitute for god. the united states' comboft is not a substitute for god. without god on blessing as our founders made repeatedly made clear, we wouldn't have even the freedom we have today. on july 5, a steer i haveic article and it is absolutely worth every republican taking

note of it. i would encourage any colleagues to take not of it. they cannot participate in the repeal of obamacare because they state the majority -- future socialism on this bill. says, in early 2016, congress passed a law that would have repealed most of january obamacare. it would be obamacare repeal act. 240 years earlier, copping declared to a candid world of the present sipping of great brit april is repeated injuries all having the establishment of tyranny of tier

hese states. they said this. he, talking about the king has erected a multitude of new offes nd swarms of officers to harrass our people and eat out tear substance, unquote. quote, we therefore, the representatives of the united states of america and germ congress assembled appealing to the speem judge of the world, that's not the government, that is appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the recktitude of our intengs and by authority of the good people of these colonies sole emily and

declare that these colonies ought to be free and independent states and in support of this declaration with a firm declaration, we mutually pledge o each others, our loives, and in july 2017, congress acknowledged the quote, swarms of officers harassing our good people under the guides of obamacare and re-enact the 2016 obamacare repeal act. e revenue-raising action keeping in mind that obamacare originated in 2009 as the quote senate health care bill and the nstitution provision shall

originate in the house of representatives. rticle 1, section 7, clause 1. and and he goes on for quite some time to cite all the different s.e.c.s in obamacare that are actually -- actually make it a revenue-raising bill. section 204 has the individual mandate. mandating people have to pay money and buy something. section 205, an employer mandate, mandating that they must pay a massive tax, like for dividual, or pay insurance. by a -- buy a product. for the first time in american history, citizenses are required to -- citizens are required to buy a product. employers are ordered to buy a product.

section 206, federal payments to the states. section 209, repeal of the tax on employee health insurance premiums and health plan benefits. section 210, repeal of the tax on the over-the-counter medicationses. -- medications. i'm sorry. these are the names of the sections in the house bill. those were not in obamacare. these are the provisions in the house bill that would repeal all these taxes, as chief justice roberts called them. so these are all good sections, is what joe smits is pointing out. individual mandate, employer mandate, getting rid of those. federal payments to states. just taking out a repeal of the tax of employee -- yeah. so there we go. it's eliminating so much of the taxes on individuals, repeal of the tax on the over-the-counter

medications. this was a democrat without a single republican vote, passed this legislation, obamacare, the a.c.a. they put a tax on over-the-counter medications. they put a tax on employee health insurance premiums. and a tax on health plan benefits. and they put a tax on health avings accounts. they'd already paid money on that that went in there. so the republican bill that president obama vetoed, it would repeal limitations on contributions to flexible spending accounts. you can put as much as you want in there. it would repeal the tax on prescription medications. on acare actually put a tax your precious prescription medications that are saving people's lives. and anybody that would have the golf ball after voting for --

gall after voting for all these taxes, put on the backs of poor people that can't even hardly afford the prescriptions as they are, and, yes, they have been skyrocketing under obamacare. and to say that republicans are trying to harm people and dishonor god. for heaven's sakes, read your own bill. ut a tax on medical devices. senior citizens that had to have help moving or walking, you have to pay a tax on that. we don't care, if you can't afford the tax and you can't move around anymore. we're the government. -obamacare e a.c.a. that put that tax in place. another health insurance tax in the bill. tanned eliminated the deduction for -- and it eliminated the deduck for expenses --

deductions for expenseses alcabble for medicare part d subsidies. it put -- applicable for medicare part d subsidies. it placed a tax called a chronic care tax, that was a medicare tax increase. there was a tanning tax. there was a net investment tax. all kinds of taxes in obamacare. they hammered the american people. we were promised -- president obama stood right there and promised, no money would pay for abortions. under his health care bill. under that health care bill. they were going to pass. that's what he said. he said, no people illegally in the united states were going to get their health care on the backs of people in america legally.

and both of those were not true. turns out joe wilson was prescient. it's time to wake up. we were sent back into the majority because obamacare was passed and we're going to be sent back in the minority appropriately if we don't repeal it. president trump has made clear in his last -- in a recent tweet, look, you guys can't pass the replacement now, at least pass the repeal. then we can start moving together on a replacement. surely the democrats will want to come and not be so obstructionists once their prescient -- their precious obamacare has been struck down. then maybe they'll actually work with us to create a better system. but it's time to wake up. it's time to repeal obamacare.

now, i want to touch on you are with other subject, mr. speaker -- on one other subject, mr. speaker. that's involving all this mess, llegations about russia. it was not donald j. trump, nor y republican, who told the russians, russian leaders, actually, -- i'll have a lot more flexibility after the election. that can only mean one thing. i'm going to give away a lot more of america's strength, helping you out in russia. as you're trying to get stronger, i'm going to give away a lot more of our strength , maybe our edge over your military, i'm willing to -- i have more ability to give that away after i'm elected to a second term.

tell vladimir. it was not a republican, certainly not anyone associated with donald trump, that went to russia with a reset, supposed reset button, couldn't get the translation right, but wanting to reset the relationship. and for those who didn't follow history well back then, the reason there was a strain in the relationship between the united states and russia was because george w. bush as president of the united states stood on principle and when the ountry of russia, under putin, attacked georgia, president bush appropriately was outraged. and he pushed for sanctions to

let russia know that the united states does not approve of russia attacking sovereign countries. so the message that president obama and hillary clinton wanted to get across to putin and the russians was, with a wink and lots of pats and happy george w. we know bush as president, we think overreacted when you attacked georgia. you know. so we want to let you know, we want to reset -- we want a resut but the -- reset button, because under president obama and me, hillary clinton, we're not going to overreact when you attack neighboring sovereign countries. we're ok with that, you see. we want things reset. we're not going to get upset like bush did when you attack a neighboring country.

that's the message that came to ss very loud and clear utin and those around him. i like to think i learned during my summer as an exchange student in the soviet union a little bit about the way a lot of russians think. i get surprised when people say, it's so hard to read putin. no it's not. man was part of the k.g.b. he wants the glory days of the old soviet union back. even though they were built on a skeleton that could never maintain the weight that such a socialist country was putting on that frame. so, then we find out here, this was back in january, january

11, 2017. an article in "politico" of all places, surprise, surprise, by kenneth p. vogel and david stern. it says, ukrainian government officials tried to help hillary clinton and undermine trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. they also disseminated documents implicating a top trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. and they helped clinton's allies research damaging information on trump and his advisors, a "politico" investigation found. a ukrainian american operative, who was consulting for the democratic national committee, met with top officials in the ukrainian embassy in washington in an effort to expose ties

between trump top campaign aide paul manafort and russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. this is "politico" reporting of the collusion between hillary clinton, her campaign, and the country of ukraine to stop and defeat trump. now, where has the "politico" reporting on this issue been since january? i appreciate them pointing this out back in january. but apparently that the point, back in january, "politico" had not yet gotten the word from their friends on the democratic side of the aisle that, hey, hey, kind of soft peddle that -- pedal that stuff where we colluded with the ukrainians to take trump out, because we're going to make that a big allegation about trump and the russians. so, kind of back off that. let's take the spotlight off

that one. but the article goes on and says, the ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race. helping to force manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that trump -- the trump campaign was deeply connected to ukraine yass vote to the east russia. but they were far less converted -- concerted or centrally connected than russia's hack of democratic emails. so they go on and try to do what they can to help salvage some respect for the democrats here. t there's a little effort -- there's little evidence of such a top-down effort by ukraine. but the fact is, ukraine did collude with hillary clinton's campaign and they were successful in helping the trump campaign.

manafort had to be fired and they still are trying to create clouds surrounding that. anyway, how about that. well, it leads to one conclusion. and that is that it's part of he evidence that we have got to have an independent counsel. and i don't mean robert mueller. i'm talking about an independent counsel. not one that's boss om buddies with -- bossom buddys with comey, and not one that can't stand trump. and not one that's going to run out and not hire any republicans for his staff that love trump, but just hire people that can't stand him, and wanted hillary elected. this is a guy that's been vindictive, who has work losely with comey in the past.

and he is in no position whatsoever to judge anything about james comey. at u go back and look hat's required under 28 c.f.r. 45.2, it provides that a department of justice attorney should not participate in investigations that may involve entities or individuals with whom the attorney has a political or personal relationship. mueller and comey are buddieses. -- buddies. they have closely consulted on so many things. fork, this story from june -- for example, this story from june 7 by josh siegel says former f.b.i. director jim comey, quote, closely coordinated with special

counsel robert mueller before his planned testimony, before the senate intelligence committee, about his interactions with president trump. fox news reported a source close to comey said that the former f.b.i. director consulted with mueller about how to approach thursday's senate intelligence committee hearing. department of justice appointed mueller special counsel to lead the investigation of russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and any possible collusion with the trump campaign. mueller and comey were long-time colleagues at the justice department and legal experts say it would not be unusual for a special counsel to be in contact with somebody who is a party to its investigation. mueller and comey were longtime colleagues at the justice department. well, anyway. there needs to be an independent

counsel who will investigate the goings on between robert mueller, james comey, with the recent revelations about comey's very apparent release, lassified information. been mueller is not in a and a n to judge him great piece of evidence that robert muller is not fit to be special counsel investigating this matter is the fact that he didn't recuse himself because of his close relationship with comey and how comey is a in what he ness accuses trump of, which doesn't seem to really be a crime. but based on comey's testimony

before the senate, it bears going back and looking at a normal f.b.i. employment will nt that says i surrender upon demand by the f.b.i. or upon my separation from the f.b.i. all materials containing f.b.i. information in my possession. also got a breach of contract case there because the f.b.i. director carries stuff with him that he prepared on his government time with his fwoth equipment and saved with his government equipment and passed on with his -- apparently with his government equipment that appears to have been classified, according to the new releases oming out now. and if you look at comey's conduct in the past when, as molly ticle from

hemingway in june pointed out, he pressured comey, pressured john ashcroft to recuse himself from the responsibility of investigating the supposed, the alleged leak of valley plame's identity. turns out the prosecutor knew on day one who it was, richard arm taj, but he wasn't honest enough to say, we know, i don't need to spend millions and millions of dollars of government tax dollars and waste thousands and thousands of hours investigating. we know the answer. no, no, no. this was comey's dear friend, patrick fitzgerald, not just a close personal friend but god father to one of his children, and comey gave the roll of special -- the role of special counsel into that leak on

valerie plame's identity, it was comey that gave that to patrick fitzgerald, his close friend. what a travesty that turned out to be. that was a fraud upon the american government by gerald -- or patrick fitzgerald. he knew on day one the answer to his investigate -- to his a estigation but he wanted scalp so he wasted a tremendous amount of time trying to get one. three-year investigation. hat did he end up doing? fitzgerald ended up prosecuting , obstruction or of justice. comey was unconcerned about the jailing of journalists and never threatened to resign over the

infringement on their first amendment freedoms. have ce mueller did not the moral sense, recuse himself when he was offered this special counsel job because of his close personal lationship with james comey, then who he's hired since then, it's very clear, the president is not going to be able to fire him. there will be such screaming about saturday night massacre and mueller knew that. and this is part of his vin dickive -- vindictiveness. when it became clear from comey's tom there was no collusion with russia by trump by president trump, then he leaks out that, oh, i'm investigating the president for obstruction of justice. why would he to that?

because by leaking out that he was now investigating the president, then if the president fired him after he leaks out he's investigating the president, then you'd have the allegations of saturday night massacre and all this kind of stuff. so the only way forward is the appointment by president donald trump of an independent counsel that is truly independent. mr. speaker, we do not need someone that has been contributing to hillary clinton or to barack obama or to any major democrat, or to any major republican. we need somebody that's going to be a fair arbiter in this pursuit of justice. so that he can investigate mueller fairly and impartially and the relationship, whether comey and mueller consulted as they did on so many things, like

his senate testimony, about some of the things, well, like the leak that comey testified to that appears potentially to have been a crime. we need to know what mueller knew. and obviously muller is not going to resign so the president couldn't very well fire him, but we have got to get to the bottom, find out what really appened, that justice is done. the projecting by one group of , ople on the republican party conduct they engaged in and projected it on the republican party as if it was they that did what this group did, it's time to have all this investigated.

we're not going to get wit mueller. dear friend of comey. it's time to have a true independent counsel. only one way we can do that appropriately. and that is if president trump finds somebody truly independent, truly not a political animal who can investigate and that's not rosen stein, that's for sure, as -- that's not rosenstein, that's for sure, as well. then we can get to the bottom, see that justice is done. here's our work. let's stay and work until we get obamacare repealed and tax reform passed and signed into law. and let's encourage the president to point -- to apoint independent counsel so we can finally see justice in this case is currently all we have what one friend referred to a big fraternity party among the

mullers and comeys and their buddies. in that fraternity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields ack.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 431, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2810 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018, for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction to prescribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill l. -- of the bill h.r.

23 to provide relief throughout the state of california and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adnourn -- adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.

between donald trump junior and other officials with the russian lawyer, a disturbing development that should be looked into carefully. his comments came during a news conference with those on the house investigation into russia and the 2016 elections. this is about 15 minutes.

trump made for the russians to hack and released hillary information. we now know the response that the president's son gave to the russians is that he would love it if they gave damaging information about hillary clinton, rather than report this overture to provide damaging information to intervene in the presidential election to help his father, neither the president's nor the campaign reported this information to the fbi. when it became obvious the emails were being dumped, when it was obvious this was being done by the russian government, when our own intelligence committee issued a statement in october of firming this was being done by the russians, did the trump campaign than disclose they had received an overture to receive damaging information. the answer is, no they did not.

significant, deeply disturbing new public information about direct contacts between the russian government and its verymediaries in the center of the trump family, campaign, organization. obviously, we need to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. and what was said in that meeting. any information that went into organizing that meeting, as well as, if that meeting was just the aginning, or if that was testing of the waters by the russians to see whether the campaign would be receptive to their engagement and involvement in the presidential election. developmentry key in terms of what the public is aware of. our work continues. we are interviewing new witnesses each week. sometimes, more than one each week.

we will be doing that until we get to the bottom of not only these additional facts, but all the others we are exploring. with of that come i would be happy to respond to your questions. mentioned they seemed to directed by the russian government. have you seen evidence this elected byyer was the kremlin to meet with of the trump campaign? secondly, have you seen any evidence that may have occurred between trump and the russians beyond? mr. schiff: i cannot go beyond the four corners of the public domain. the emails themselves, which have now been verified by the trump campaign itself, by the himselft's osn -- son make very clear that government officials within the russian government had information they thought was damaging to secretary clinton that they wanted to share with the campaign. they made arrangements to provide a channel to do that.

advocate was that channel. one thing we need to investigate is, did this just begin a conversation? did she report that information, the receptively to getting that information back to moscow? did he reported back to the family that had approached him? they would not only love to get it, but late in the summer. it was late in the summer the stolen emails began to be published. these are the kinds of questions that need to be answered. you have a quite direct evidence the russian government had damaging information, communicated that to the campaign, and all the campaign denials of whether we know it was going on or the russians had involvement, obviously now have to be viewed in a completely different context.

has a committee been in touch with trump junior or his lawyer yet, and you plan to requested documents for him? mr. schiff: we certainly want him to come before the committee. i do not want to discuss what we are saying with witnesses. we certainly want him to come in and everyone connected to this meeting to come in. we want any documents they may have. plainly, as we saw, the constantly evolving stories from the president's son, we cannot rely on any public representations from the family. we have seen a demonstrable pattern of obfuscation and dissembling about these meetings, originating with the denials, we never have these meetings. ledgment, andcknow shifting ideas about what the meetings were about. the claim was, these were about adoptions.

then it was, we brought the campaign managers. it was significant to me they invited the manager of the campaign. that it was not a campaign meeting as they originally said. what was paul manafort doing their? -- there? to want to hear from everyone connected to this. seere also going to want to whether the president's assistant received information from the russians, as well. that was another channel alluded to in those emails. >> do you think this russian lawyer -- to see if the trump campaign would engage? mr. schiff: it certainly appeals -- appears that way. it is very much consistent with the russian practices, their operating procedures, where they

will use civilians. they will use oligarchs and others, they look for relationships. here, the emails made quite clear that the russian government had possession of damaging information. they thought the way to get that to the trump campaign to test whether donald trump wanted this information was to go through people he had done business with. this is a modality russians use elsewhere. who had they done business with? they had done business with a gentleman known as the russian donald trump, who had worked on the miss universe pageant, who had business discussions with the president over having a trump tower and russia. so they go to this oligarchs, -- son of the now president. they find out there is a deep interest in this.

then, they dispatch this advocate for the kremlin. why would they choose her? they might choose her because it she gives them some deniability, as opposed to someone in more direct connection to the government. this is something we need to determine. it would be consistent with russian trade craft to do exactly this. one of your colleagues was beginning to use the word [indiscernible] d.c. violations of criminal law here? do you see violations of criminal law here? mr. schiff: it is not just a breach of the norms, but civic responsibility to the country if you get approached by a foreign government offering to interfere in a presidential election, you go to the fbi, that is what a decent citizen would do. i do not want to see us continue to lower the bar and say it is

only a question of whether this is legal. it was unethical, in violation of the oath of citizenship, to willingly solicit, receive, encourage foreign intervention in our election. this is a very serious business, whether president trump violated it or not. there are a number of laws implicated here. we see again a shifting defense from the trump administration. first, that there is no collusion, then ok, there is collusion, it is not against the law. the reality is, conspiracy is against the law. collusion is one way of conspiracy. if they were trying to violate election laws, get contribution of opposition research against --ir opponent, if there is was any kind of quid pro quo. advocate may have

taken back that the trump administration would be amenable to repealing a sanction legislation that goes after russians violating people's human rights. quo ort a quid pro simply further encouragement of russians to intervene? certainly never getting all the right signals. they were getting signals from the president quite openly and overly. ever getting signals from the covertnt's son in a fashion. it was highly sensitive, what is the best way to get you this information? it does have an go of those allegations of the mr. kushner wanting to set up a secret back channel. again, what do i think is notable here is the pattern. ofse are not a series events, denials, obfuscations, regarding china or canada or

britain or france. they all come back to russia. course, the profound question is, why? time for one last question. >> could you please give us an ,pdate on the sanctions bill and give us an idea as to whether these events today will affect the path of that bill at all? we stand ready on a bipartisan basis to pass the senate bill overwhelmingly. certainly, these events have added urgency to doing exactly that. i think it is very important to understand in the context of that sanctions legislation, what is so disturbing and concerning about these new public revelations and why congress has to get to the bottom of them. the most serious risks to the country is that the russians

possess compromising information that can influence this president's conduct of american policy. the russians know about this meeting. they were behind organizing the meeting. if there are other meetings the russians know about, any other interactions with the trump campaign the russians are aware of, that is something they can hold over the head of the president of the united states. the american people need to know we are acting on their behalf and not because he has a fear the russians could disclose things that would harm him or his family. obligation for the congress to get to the bottom of this. whether it is syria, ukraine, or nato or anything else, is only influenced by what is in the best interest of the country, and not because the russians are in possession of any material they fear would become public. thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] on wednesday, a confirmation hearing for christopher wray, president trump's nominee to be the next fbi director. he will replace james comey, who was fired earlier this year. asked abouted to be russian interference in the 2016 election and his previous experience at the justice department. live coverage of starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on a c-span3. you can follow it live on www.c-span.org, and with the c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfold daily. created as aan was public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> a discussion about the

russian-led a military exercise in and around the baltic sea, slated to begin mid-september. andeard for military government leaders from estonia, norway, and the u.s. on the mechanics and applications of the exercises, both for the nato alliance and russia's military ambitions. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to this event, implications for nato and the united states. it is getting muggy out there, we are happy to share our ac with you in here.

of initiativesor here at the atlantic council. it is great to see such a big crowd in july for this event. guest.to add a special he is the chairman of the foreign relations committee, and also the undersecretary for defense policy. as some of you may know, he served previously here at the embassy in washington. it is great to see him back in town. i am going to say a few words andre we let our experts regional representatives loose. i want to say

>> in the very near future, the focus will shift to the black sea region. this is obviously in response to a rush of the continues to be assertive in and around europe and elsewhere. it is clearly bent on altering the european order, especially with military power. there is a special interest to the broader community. he can tell us quite a bit about russian intentions and the capabilities. previous iterations of this exercise have showed us how russia can, for example, mobilize across distances. given us a window into russian thinking about the use of key capabilities during a crisis, cleaning these of listed missiles and even nuclear