[inaudible conversations] morning everybody. Let me start, if i can with a very personal note, and that is i have known her for a little more than a quartercentury which means we got together in what was another millennium and it sure feels like another millennium. She was an extraordinary friend and colleague and i, along with my colleagues here at brookings and form policy are so glad that once again she will be colleagu colleague. I think the timing of this part of the program fits very well with the panel that we have just heard from. Perhaps victoria, you were there for close to half of it and you heard a number of observations about whats going on in europe and in the eu. My sense is that there was a feeling that may be the troubles of the eu are bottoming out and the eu is getting its act together again with of course the leadership of two countries in particular and that is germany and france. How did you react to the conversation we just heard. I am so delighted to be at brookings in this next chapter of my life. Americas number one think tank for the last decade or more under the leadership. [inaudible] i also want to start on a personal note. We have been colleagues and collaborators inside and outside government for very long time and im grateful for many things including his friendship and his decency and his integrity. One of the things i am most grateful about is that im at him, he came into government having been a journalist when i was a young diplomat. I was just coming out of moscow and i was trained in the very strict conformance of ways of Foreign Service training. Along he comes with his personal relationship with the president and an enormously important moment in history as the soviet union was breaking up in russia was trying to find itself and he taught me so many things about u. S. Leadership that were different than the tight constraints we learned in the diplomatic schools, but among them, to start from u. S. Values, to start from u. S. Interest but its about people in human beings and the relationships that we form with them but its also about taking risks for the right thing, and not just doing the expected thing. That informed everything that i tried to do in government after. Thank you. In terms of the conversation today, i was glad to hear most of the big issues in the conversation, whether it is how brexit gets done, how the eu adjusts or the structural issues that are holding back, i actually think that for europe, and for the uk, it need not be, it can be an exciting and positive moment. My only regret is that the u. S. Is not playing its role as the third leg of that stool, if you will, in trying to ensure that we come out of this, now with Economic Growth on both sides of the atlantic, in a stronger place as a liberal democratic family. From the eu perspective, we touched on this in the last panel in talking about the issues of migration. I think theres a great challenge now in doing the same thing that the eu has begun with Monetary Union, mainly fixing the holes in the vote that make it leaky. When eu countries pool sovereignty around the common set of borders, but dont address the borders of a Border Security force, a shared Intelligence Service to know whats happening in that common space and collaborate, a common approach to refugees and a burden sharing, then you end up with the kind of exploitations and difficulties that weve seen but i think these problems have now been identified. The question is in the context of what it looks like, those countries can really work strongly together to make that space fair and tolerant and open to the appropriate kind of immigration with burden sharing among them can really make it a no go space for terrorists and can can collaborate. I think that is possible but it will take a lot more work. On the brexit side, obviously the United States benefited enormously from the fact that the uk was in the eu, but i dont think it needs to be an excess Center Crisis on either side of the channel that the relationship will change, but only if both sides are responsible. From the eu side, while i appreciate that the rules, that you break the relationship first and then you rebuild the, i dont understand how even in a divorce context, you would never just walk out and figure out later what happens to the children and the money and that this in the back. I think its in the interest of both sides and the interest of the United States to talk about not simply how it happens but where you want to be on both sides of the channel on the end of this and work backwards. On the uk side, the uk is making that case strongly but has not yet put forward a vision of the end state that it wants the transition. That it needs, what is willing to pay for, what aspects of the relationship he wants to keep so i think there is a positive way forward, but both sides will have to do a lot more work. I just wish the United States was playing a larger role because it matters to us. You cant make America Great again if were not getting stronger and afford not creating that threelegged stool or fourlegged if you include canada. I think you are referring to the policies of the government particularly, the executive branch but the United States is more than government. This meeting today is part of our partnership. You guys are a part of the International Double society, we are part of civil society, and we can do stuff together. You mentioned very quickly, before we came in here that you have some thoughts about digital age and cyber. You want to say little bit about that to the group. Sure, but before we do that, im not letting you off the hook, i want to turn it back on you and then we will come to digital. How about that. You see what its like for the past 25 years, and was going to be like for the next some. Of time. So throughout the time ive known you and probably for your whole life, youve been the embodiment of global integratio integration, someone who has believed that the more we work together, the more we depend on multilateral institutions the stronger we will all be. I dont want to use the governance word, but i did. I said that i was saddened to see brexit, but not existentially panicked. Do you think there is a way to go forward in the context of brexit. In the sense that this is a trend with regard to Global Governance rather than an antiquated one. I have many friends in the uk, and some by the way. [inaudible] both camps seem overwhelmingly convinced that there is no stopping brexit itself. Its probably wishful thinking, but i can also imagine practical reasons that might come to stop it before it goes all the way. We all know the paradox, youve got halfway to a goal and then halfway and halfway and halfway but you never cross the lines. I would like to think that as this extraordinarily complicated process, and dangerous process in some way goes forward that there might be a way of putting brexit as a bad idea in the pas past. they are all part but the larger question of multi speed or variable geometry within europe and interlocking sets, to meet that strikes as a way to balance the benefits of state sovereignty and the benefits of you to unity if the they pool into Monetary Union or its whatever comes next, a higher degree of Security Integration and those that want to be in the family but not sitting at every single meal table could choose a different way. Maybe when we open up to the audiences cilia and constanza, in particular, might carry a little further some of the points that they made in the course of the panel so digital and cyber. As instrumental as many of you know one of the last huge issues that we tackled in the Obama Administration at the very end was the russian state hacking of the us electoral process and its efforts to put its finger on the scale of us politics. So, that combined with my growing concern about tensions between the big us hightech companies and the eu, both the commission and member state has led me to do quite a bit of thinking about how the liberal democratic world can lead in this new era and there are so many issues here from that deterrence and protections of our free spaces, state sponsors or non state sponsors to the issue of fair taxation of these processes and services to how you maintain privacy while allowing governments and companies the ability to take bad guys and actresses in the network and theres spurned a lot of thinking and that community and ive learned about a lot about this but im increasingly convinced that if those of us in the free world dont now start collaborating on setting some for standards in these areas that those who want to abuse the internet either to control their own societies or to invade privacy or to create security threats will set the rules so the question ive been asking is whether there is a way we can gather and there have been efforts at global governments on this but they always run different interests between the liberal democracies and the autocracies on these issues. Is it time for those of us in our open and Free Community to take the lead on what i like to call a britain was in a digital sphere in which others call a Digital Geneva Convention and gather ourselves we could do this not necessarily as committee as the hall but interested governments and companies could start and others could join like we did with the proliferation security initiative. Microsoft and its ceo is starting to think about this and will be having some meetings with governments up in new york next week at the un ga im excited to also file brainpower and we can apply bookings and bosch brainpower to it as well. You mention corporations and governments. I doubt the russian government would be in the vanguard enterprise. On the contrary. There in the vanguard of making the world safe for digital autocracy so i think that we want to get ahead of that rather than have it swamped us or stood the standards. In china, of course theyre in the process of monopolizing control over their own citizens information because theres an alliance between the companies and the government that blocks out our folks but demands that citizens share as much with governments as they do with each other and that is a standard i dont think we want to set. As far as you are comfortable sharing with, not only the group but the public when you are in the government which wasnt that long ago you had a lot of contacts with russians and what is there a line, if i can put it on cyber that obviously projects what they are doing and what all the world knows that they have been doing. In terms of whether this question we should have a cyber compact the russian government has said, of course but they want to set the rules in a way that maintains kremlin control certainly over their own citizenry but, as i said, is less in keeping with the bargain that we would set between citizens and government but on the question of did they do it and what did they do and all those things the president of russia has said show us proof but, by the way some russians are very talented on the subject so, as he did in the early days in ukraine when he was admiring of the little green men but not taking responsibility for them and as he did in the early days in syria when he was admiring of certain assad strengthening without taking responsibility for them he is nicely having his cake and eating it too but that takes us to russia and the question that weve been asking each other and was asked by the russians themselves for more than a century as you look at where we are in the us russia relationship with both sides now saying its at an alltime low which i think we can take a little professional comfort and because there were times where we were accused of being responsible for an alltime low and it seems to be even lower but what do you hold responsible and what is to be done and can we now move forward is there a role for europe to play and is there a difference between what the russian government and the kremlin are proposing and where the russian people want to beat themselves. The very few people in the room who dont know russian i will translate the first two words but it means to whom and it was actually coined by stalin from a slightly longer, i would say, imperative for russian and that was who is able to prevail over whom and, of course, as any government or any leader would feel he or that government once to be the who and not the whom. They also added two other favored russian questions one is who is to blame and it is never themselves and third what is to be done. I think in all three categories russia has lost its way. Im sort of preempting another question which is who lost russia and i think nobody has ever lost russia. Russia sets its own course that has its own dynamics and it reached a point in the last two decades of the last millennium when russian leaders, reformist leaders, with significant support from much of the population themselves felt that the system that the soviet communist system was simply not getting the job done in terms of this great countrys ability to integrate with the rest of the world and to take care of its own people and we all know who started that and it was a fluke, a miraculous luke, that in march of 1985 the populars said we cant have funerals in red square every year and they took a chance on somebody who was convinced that he, with other reformers, could reform the system. He, gorbachev, failed in a number of respects but succeeded in a number of respects and that was to open up to the rest of the world and im looking at bill right now and bill and the previous conversation made two very important points. One that russia through the ages, czars and up until now again they have a unique ability to make their neighbors frightened and therefore, in a way, very vulnerable enemies which is tough on russia itself. It has often been said that russia doesnt feel completely secure unless everyone else is unsecure and that blows back into their own interest. Bill also pointed out what i think is an objective fact if there is a geopolitical threat to the russian state it is not coming from the north pole. It is not coming from the west it is coming from the south and it is coming over the decades to come from the east and in particular, china. If a wise leader of russia had a map of his giant country and had to look at it every day and say what do we really have to worry about down the road it would be the strengths in terms of people power of china and the poverty of people power in the eastern part of the soviet, Russian Federation but that is just not the mindset they are. On my own hope is that the reformist. Of the late 80s up until actually it went into the early Vladimir Putin years and it will turn out to have been the new russia and what we are going through now is a reversion, a return to a system that didnt work before and wont work now. Picking up and island with this. Picking something up that you said in the context of europe i wish the United States government had a set of policies that would from the outside create an International Context for russias continuing evolution more than it is doing right now. What would that look like . If the us were to try to improve it now what would the elements be . I think the elements would because of the atavism or the return to the past that russia is now that is the characteristic of russian policy both internally and externally it will require us to go back to the remedies and the protections of our own interest and im here talking about those of the political west. So, you know, i guess i will preempt and say and give my own answer to the question is this a new cold war yes, it is a new cold war. It has different characteristics and we will have to use two things that were critical for basically the planet for almost half a century and one is containment and deterrence and the other is engagement on those issues where there are genuinely shared interest on the part of these contesting countries. I am thinking particularly on nonproliferation and arms control. Just one of points and you know it very well but even in the dark periods of the cold war going back to the aftermath of the cuban missile crisis, the United States and the ussr made significant progress in beating back the danger of thermonuclear war. That at visit edifice and process is in very bad shape and while we have strengthened nato and i hope you come back on that having been our ambassador to nato that despite the fact that we are going to have to to beat back a lot of russian policies we also need to return to armscontrol diplomacy. I certainly wont disagree with that. I think that without getting into who is guilty and all of that question but my concern and i know you have a lot of fascination with and spent your life spent studying their culture and history and people and my concern is that in an effort to close russia down again and reestablish principles and if others are doing around us well then we must be seeking the russian people themselves are the biggest losers and that we are seeing that in the economic that partly as a result of sanctions and partly as a result of isolation and largely as a result of the lack of reform that great nest egg of sovereign wealth that had been built up is now shrunk in half and for most russians 30 higher than they used to be and general standard of living is 50 higher than it used to be while internally, no attention has been paid to improving healthcare and education so i worry that we have lots of external adventures which are really expensive and violating of the standard principles of International Law and comedy but no attention to the russian people themselves and i think it is becoming increasingly fragile in the sense that those protest in the winter in russian cities they were small but the protesters themselves were the 2035 yearolds so they were the bottom or boom generation and they were young people who grew up not from enterin remembe soviet union but expecting they were going to do better than their parents and expecting that they were going to be able to travel and go to school and they were protesting the fact that they are now denied that while they see leaders ripping off the country for personal gain. If those issues are not addressed all the rest of it in terms of whether we can get back to win wins with russia will be difficult. Let me pick up on one phrase you used those issues have to be addressed. In including the brittleness and fragility of Russian Society which is very different from the days of. [inaudible] not to mention christophe and stalin. We cant address those issues. Russia will have to or we would hope russia would in its the degree of pluralism that has been part of the last 25 years that there will be a Critical Mass including in powerful circles as well as in the population to get back on the right path. I think we as a country will base our relationship on russia on values, on the sense of the rules of the road of the International System from which russia benefits anonymously and they benefit far more than we are now from their entry into the wto et cetera in fact that we use the Security Council for every major thing and we should come to iran because thats one place before we do, on europe, russia, the current russia is making inroads into what we hoped would be part of the political west and im thinking, in particular, turkey came up in the earlier conversation. Turkey is now dinging us by buying or considering buying russian arms and hungry. Do you have any thoughts on that . So, just continuing the previous thought on linking them together this notion of the standing on the side of those russians who want a more european, open, treating russia that is a positive contributive to the growing west, i think that is something we have to do. At the same time that we stand very firmly and call it what you want, deterrence is a better word than containment against violations of the basic rules of the International System whether its the fusing of crimea or the meddling in elections or whether its the violation of the inf treaty, which is very dangerous and wake up one day with mediumrange allie missiles poit her allies. [inaudible] those issues but i think it is incumbent on us whether it is in our relationship with turkey or whether our relationship with hungry or even as poland flirts with constraining the democratic checks and balances in his system to make the case that this is not, as you said at the beginning, then good for russia. Theyre not getting richer by adopting this tighter more autocratic model by dismantling checks and balances by not having a rule of law. People dont want to invest there and people dont want and when the government is essentially afraid of its own citizens which is the net effect of closing space for free media and closing democratic competition it loses a permanent state of tension not a state where it can focus on prosperity and integration and growth and opportunity for its citizens. I think we half to be firmer with particularly i have some issue with the eu that it sets standards of admissions for countries like hungary and poland and then it needs to enforce them when you lose the democratic checks and balances and free media et cetera if they want to benefit from the club. Similarly, with turkey turkey is a hugely important country on the land mass to us as a hinge to a more stable middle east and its also a country that is deeply divided in terms of whether the support for a more open global turkey support for a tighter internal system so we have to get in there and be in that conversation with citizens and that is i hope for a more activist transatlantic policy out of the administration. You wanted to Say Something about the iran which is important. And then will open it up to the question on an audience. I think i was gratified to see that the administration today, i think, right . Or was it yesterday . Preserving the fundamental tenant and i frankly think there are plenty of places to be critical of iran and accidental issues at the Transatlantic Community needs to be working on the city i run but if we throw out we throw out more burden about those who might the nuclides and get a fresh within their sales but if the president and the Administration Want to be worried about iran they should be worried about other things focus with the Transatlantic Community on other things including this creation of a radical crescent in irans neighborhood and exporting of terror terrorists policy and effort to dominate politics and territory in iran and iraq and this takes you to why we need, not simply a military policy in cleaning ices out of rockabye to ensure that we are turning territories that we free from isis into experimental zones for a more liberal, open and tolerant syria, iraq et cetera otherwise those, like russia who dont want a liberal government chosen by the people in either place are going to rush into the breach and that effect will be that will put our own blood and treasure into creating a syria that is safe for iran and for russia et cetera rather than say for the Syrian People in stable. Over to you folks. Yes, sir. Jen with the seniors. Great to be here. Just a question with ambassador newland. You will go down as one of the more influential assistant secretaries in recent years and i was hoping that you could talk a little bit about, in hindsight, do you think you have any regrets about so openly backing the ukrainian revolutionaries and perhaps feeding the notion that this is an american backed to even if thats an unfair assumption which i think a lot of people and a lot of us would agree. Do you ever think about those moments when that came up and have any regrets at all pressure i love to hear your perspective on that. Well, we can obviously thank you for the compliment that was not a compliment [. [laughter] just to remind you where we were in december of january 2015 we had a Ukrainian Government under janik cove itch and people who had chosen to associate with the eu, not to join the eu but to have a free travel and have free trade et cetera and that was the choice of the ukrainian people and president at the time and that ukrainian group. Then you had this effort at financial blackmail because ukraine was also very fragile and had not succeeded in what we were pushing at the time as reestablishing its relationship with ins so that it could have Financial Stability and Financial Freedom of choice, even as it did this. You had russia throwing its banner in insane we dont like any of this and essentially bribing him with a 20 billiondollar gift, loan, whatever not to do it and then the ukrainian people exploded underneath the government. What the United States was doing in december and january was not backing a revolution but we were trying to mediate between him and his own people to help ukraine not have to choose between a reasonable relationship with russia rather than a rate relational of economic dependence and a european pal. We were working on whether there could be a win win for everybody and, in fact, the deal that emerged on february 201st of 2014 that he chose not to implement and chose to play some instead that the europeans midwife with the ukrainian side in the elements of that were the United States had been laying in the seat for and working on many months. You know, i do think it is important to on that famous da days images not cookies, i was in ukraine and we were working together trying to negotiate justice, whether we could get ukraine back on the path of european integration in a way that would be a win win and potentially a winwin for russia itself because if ukraine had could have been a pass through to europe for some russian products we are making a point to moscow and there was the tenth of december and weve been working with the opposition if kathy had been working there we were going to switch to see if he could bring something together and that night we were awoken at 1 00 oclock in the morning because that was the night that he took foreign advice and decided to put the militia on the street and encircled the protesters and start squeezing. It was a very scary night. In the end, the protesters were able to push back and these poor, young, 18 yearolds power troopers of ukraine who were just following orders were traumatized as well. Before i went to my meeting i went down to the square to see both sides, both of the storm troopers and the protesters to express empathy for the position that that leadership had put both of them in in the pictures are actually of me giving sandwiches to them. Russia, in a course, in their own rewriting of history made much of this and use that little symbol to declare that we had always had a secret plot that this was a Color Revolution but it is not true and its not true that the desires of the ukrainian people and it may not have been in the showdown and at the end of the day it was him was the vessel in all of this. [inaudible] absolutely. There were pictures to prove it. I do think it speaks to the power of russian propaganda and the ability to pervert narrative so that this narrative has a stock because it was all about me and i was some robe policy. Yeah. Thank you. Im from the center for transatlantic on sabbatical. I do question on hungry and you said you took issue with not doing more than one wondering what else could be done now that your commission is doing everything into the arsenal at these countries. Suing them for not openly flaunting these judgments but they come out against them and the difference to the us is despite what you read in british tabloids there is no secret army you can send in their National Guard to federalize because its in the eu and what institutions could do and yeah, what solutions are there i am not in favor of sending in a militia that wasnt was i attending. I do know that close countries continue to benefit from massive amounts of financial transfer from eu, cohesion funds and et cetera and theres been no effort to link those two democratic standards now you tell me that eu allows that perhaps they shouldnt. I would like to hear you elaborate a bit more no one wants to ask a question from bill . You mentioned technology and democracy which i also find a fascinating subject. A decade ago the internet was seen as a powerful tool to spread democracy around the world, help populations circumvent censorship of their government et cetera and yet now it seems like autocracies have used the internet for a much more effectively than the great firewall in china et cetera and this is where europe seems to be taking the policy lead. Germany and the eu have passed laws insane and thats unless facebook or other social media giants remove hate speech and other objectionable things from the internet within 24 hours they will be subject to huge fines. Do you think this is a direction in which the United States should go and imposing the owners responsibility on these social media giants, facebook, google, amazon to respect democracy and worked for a government or do you think these Companies Argue this would hinder and filing american laws and their own freedom of action. Yeah, thanks for that bill. There are two things here. The first is that one of the great powers of our democracy and you saw it in the original was that we have this very flexible to have dialogue between policymakers and government and business and industry when we are at our best. On this set of subjects whether it is on the european side or on the us side we need more of that and we need a single conversation about how you protect privacy but on the other hand allow Law Enforcement to operate and what is the responsibility of companies to police their platforms against abuse by state actors or terrorists and what kind of government do to help them and what should the Legal Standard be. We can have that conversation as compared to what is happening in russia and china where governments are setting the standard in a very liberal way and i think we need to have it. I certainly felt in watching the hacking thing mushroom in 2016 that what we needed was a us unified inter agency that was inviting all of the innovators in the industrial side to address the problem together. That is. 1 that i think we can take the leader. The second thing is without getting into putting the government down about that conversation i am very inquiring particularly of what france did to blunt neutralize and deter hacking in the context of the president ial election. They did far better than we did because they attributed, in real time and because they exposed in real time and i think germany is doing a better job, as well particularly after the garbage campaign about the young girl. We need to learn from that and part of that goes to making, again, if you have that constant conversation between industry governments and by government i mean base policy in intelligence and law and the legal regulators you can move much more quickly than we were able to move and we will have to. That takes me back to the Digital Geneva Convention. Let us set the standard within the street understand industry and let us not impose them but show that liberal democracy gets the best fabulous technologies which has put us together. I can tell from this that it is a positive while watching the worst. On that very night when they were encircling and trying to squeeze the protesters and bells were ringing in the snow was coming down in the protesters were singing to try to create moral authority to push back the police we, at the United States, at about 1 30 in the morning and secretary carries they put out a strong statement saying what was happening on the square disgusting and we had it translated into both russian and ukrainian in real time and i literally sat in my hotel room in having worked on this statement the minute we pushed the button within five minutes all across on tv you could see them holding up their phones reading the statement and gaining strength from it. Without their cell phones that wouldnt have happened. It was a direct relationship between us and the people. Last question very quickly please. Thank you. Investor, i would like to ask you first of all if you make assessment about do you recognize any mistakes that you may have standing managing the European Affairs and also what are the biggest disappointments that you had in collaboration with the europeans and what is the biggest disappointments from the europeans that you had while working with them and last question for the president what is the greatest fear and the greatest hope that you have in regards to the European Union for the next ten years . Thank you so much. I would have liked to react much more speedily to the annexation or efforts on annexing than we were able to. Recognizing what those green men were in getting more pictures out, more support out of various kinds i think we could have afforded it earlier. I think the greatest mistake we made together as a community was when we began negotiating the mentation of the missed agreements we did it in parallel rather than doing it as a single negotiating structure and we had pushed for that, as you know but for a variety of reasons and it didnt come together and not just allowed space for those who didnt want to deal to get out of the way. I think the biggest and the thing that my heart Still Believes about was syria. As you know, i was spokesperson of the States Department and the first obama turned undersecretary clinton and i had to, from that state department podium every day and 11 and 12 get up and testify what was going on and im currently on the team that thanks we should have done more and we should have done more together with europe and that we might have prevented the refugee crisis and a whole bunch of dominoes fell from that but most importantly it matters to us the Transatlantic Community that the middle east has a chance to organize itself liberally and that citizens in the middle east have a right to have a say in how they are governed and have opportunities that we have. It will be stable and good for us without that in syria is a linchpin. My biggest fear is im sure shared by many leaving the north korea issue aside i do worry about miscalculations on the part of russia as it probes and bullies and sends its military assets into the sovereign territory and particularly maritime areas in the nordic region. I can see testing the article five issue and he might do so in a way that could either really undermine nato or it could bring us to a very serious conflict. As for my hopes, i have always felt even during these troubled years to the last five or so since the recession that the European Union project, as such, which goes beyond the eu is the single most bold and successful in many, many ways an experiment if not Super National governments which i think is absolutely imperative if we are going to have a good century and i was heartened by much of what was said in the Previous Panel and i hope thats we can get to a point where there is a constituency both in the populations of these countries, as well as the leadership that the big slogan should be lets make globalization great again. I told you he was a world globalist. Thanks. Thanks to all of you. [applause] tori is coming to brookings is a great boon to us but also a great boon to other institutions that we are partnering with and i do think that your idea about a cyber project could be one that not only you find colleagues here at brookings eager to work with you but other institutions and one thing i have noticed over the last year or so is that the washington thank you take community is reaching out in many ways to get beyond the beltway but particularly in the puget sound, Silicon Valley and perhaps with we can find some partners on other parts of the atlantic. Good to see you all from the transatlantic. Thanks. [applause] [inaudible conversations] we have to be sure that we get the best value for the Health Care Dollars we currently spend and thats we do the best job we can to reform the system so that healthcare is delivered more efficiently at Higher Quality to all americans. The simple fact is that americans are spending nearly now 1 trillion a year on healthcare and we are not getting our moneys worth. For the past 30 years the Video Library has issued your free resource for politics, congress in Washington Public Affairs and whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, find it in cspans Video Library at cspan. Org. Cspan where history unfolds daily. Hillary clinton gets her personal account of the 2016 president ial campaign and election in her memoir what happened. She will talk with former eight and politics and prose bookstore coowner. That will be like today at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on her Computer Network cspan. The Senate Returns today at 3 00 p. M. Eastern to finish work on the fiscal year 2018 Defense Authorization bill. Final passage could come as early as this evening in a series of both starting at 530 eastern. Watch the senate live here on cspan2. The house is not in session this week. Members returned from a district work. On september 205th when they will take up faa reauthorization and chip. Funding for those programs expires at the end of the month. Watch the house, light on cspan. This week on the communicators if the