If confirmed, Richardson will succeed current Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert.

Check out our playlist for soundbites from the hearing, and feel free to download, repost or embed them to help you with your own national-security coverage, whether you’re reporting on the current batch of DoD leadership nominations, more specific issues discussed in the clips or a more general Navy beat.

“I want to be sensitive to those conversations and … not overstep my own boundaries, but I know that these talks are not – because this deal is done and agreed to by the P5+1 – the pressure has not let up on making sure that we do everything that we can as the United States to bring them home,” Gabbard told a standing-room-only audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Gabbard made the remarks during a talk entitled “Opportunities and Challenges: Emerging Threats and U.S. Foreign Policy” hosted by the Washington defense and foreign-policy think tank.

Gabbard hesitated to go into specifics so as not to jeopardize negotiations.

“It’s unimaginable to think about what they continue to go through,” she said. “I don’t know how much I can say other than I think every, every day there continues to be pressure and talks with Iran to bring them home.”

At a Tuesday House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Iran deal, Secretary of State John Kerry’s prepared testimony said that the State Department “will continue to press Iran for information about the missing and for the immediate release of Americans who have been unjustly detained” due to its deep concern about those nonnuclear issues.

A week earlier, on July 21 — the one-year anniversary of Rezaian’s imprisonment — State Department spokesman John Kirby defended Kerry’s dedication to the imprisoned Americans’ welfare, saying that he “never missed a chance on the sidelines of the nuclear talks to raise Jason’s detention with Iranian officials as well as the detention of Amir Hekmati and Saeed Abedini and of course, never missed a chance to continue to ask for Iran’s help in locating Robert Levinson.”

“We’ve been very clear that until they’re home, we’re not going to stop in our efforts and pursuit to see that outcome,” Kirby said.

Neller testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing to consider his potential confirmation as commandant. His reinforcement of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff nominee (and current USMC commandant) Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr.’s view of Russia as a preeminent threat to U.S. national security also came under fire during the committee’s deliberations.

Here is a collection of downloadable and embeddable video clips of Neller’s testimony for use in your coverage of the pre-confirmation proceedings from outside of the Beltway:

Highlights from U.S. Marine Corps commandant nominee Lt. Gen. Robert B. Neller’s Senate Armed Services Committee appearance

U.S. Marine Corps commandant nominee Lt. Gen. Robert B. Neller on force protection in the wake of the Chattanooga shooting

U.S. Marine Corps commandant nominee Lt. Gen. Robert B. Neller on the question of MOS availability for female Marines

(Note: All videos may be reposted or republished with credit to “Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory/Medill National Security Journalism Initiative.”)

The Senate Armed Services Committee is deliberating his nomination to succeed Gen. Raymond T. Odierno.

Here are video clips from the hearing, all of which are freely downloadable and embeddable, to help you to cover this installment of DoD-related Senate confirmation proceedings from outside the Beltway:

GEN. MILLEY ON MILITARY-RECRUITER PROTECTION IN THE WAKE OF THE CHATTANOOGA SHOOTING:

HEARING HIGHLIGHT REEL:

MORE CLIPS TO COME

WASHINGTON — On Monday, the Cuban Embassy reopened at 2603 16th Street NW in Washington’s Columbia Heights neighborhood after closing in January 1961. Here are some sights and sounds from the scene, where reporters waited for sources at the front gate, broadcasters camped out on the risers across the street and people paid witness to a historic moment in American diplomatic history.

VOICES FROM THE SCENE

Nalda Vigezzi

Nalda Vigezzi stands outside of the Cuban Embassy in Washington on July 20, 2015. (Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory/MEDILL NSJI)

Nalda Vigezzi was invited to the embassy’s opening because of her decades-long experience working as part of the Cuban solidarity movement.

Oswald Cameron

Oswald Cameron holds up a Puerto Rican flag outside of the Cuban Embassy in Washington on July 20, 2015. (Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory/MEDILL NSJI)

Oswald Cameron came out to the embassy in support of its reopening.

Selva was the second Joint Chiefs nominee to testify before the committee in less than a week, as Marine Corps. Commandant Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. on Thursday fielded questions about everything from the ISIL threat to the national security risk posed by Russia in a hearing called to consider his nomination to succeed Gen. Martin Dempsey as the next CJCS.

The Medill National Security Journalism Initiative was on hand to capture video highlights of Selva’s testimony. Check out footage and documents from the hearing, all of which are freely downloadable and embeddable for use in your own reporting (so long as you credit us), below:

Gen. Selva Testimony Highlight Reel

Audio Highlights from Gen. McDew’s Testimony:

ADDITIONAL CLIPS TO COME

“Are the American people to believe that the increased operations by ISIS or al-Qaida or Khorasan or Boko Haram are due to hot weather or a shortage of water?” he questioned.

Holding up two publications side by side – one, allegedly, a bulky report on climate change, and, the other, allegedly, a thinner publication on the ISIS threat – Perry accused DHS of having mixed-up priorities.

He said that, considering the wide range of threats being faced by the U.S., from polities and players such as ISIS, Iran and Russia, he is “shocked that the Department of Homeland Security continues to make climate change a top, top priority.”

Though he said he wasn’t anti-FEMA in terms of emergency response, he questioned the propriety of DHS’ involvement in climate concerns when more weather-centric federal agencies like NASA and NOAA already address them.

“The question really is: ‘Is it a core mission of the Department when there are so many other agencies that do this as their mission?’” he said.

Perry, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, also called the amount of DHS’ 2016 budget request earmarked for combating climate change excessive.

“In Fiscal Year 2016, DHS requested over $16 million on critical infrastructure analysis and FEMA workshops related to climate change – more than the Secret Service requested to improve its training facilities following the high-profile breach of the White House last September,” he said.

DEMS FIGHT BACK

The subcommittee’s top Democrat, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey, and the senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, were quick to criticize this anti-climate attitude.

“We cannot afford to be penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to disaster migration,” Watson Coleman wrote in her prepared statement. “Events from New Jersey to the Gulf Coast have required the deployment of DHS capabilities ranging from search-and-rescue, to humanitarian relief, to law-enforcement assistance.”

She urged her Republican colleagues to set global-warming-related semantics aside in order to combat what she saw as the actual national-security risks posed by climate change.

In his prepared statement, Thompson said his experience with the aftermath of natural disaster — namely “the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast” and “recent flooding in Texas and Oklahoma” — made the hearing’s inherent doubt as to the worthiness of investing in climate-disaster preparation and recover puzzling.

Though their respective home states have been pummeled by climate-related catastrophes – Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina, respectively – the critique levied against Perry’s hearing premise was rooted in more than just personal experience with natural disasters.

By addressing climate change, they argued, the DHS would be responsibly responding to national security intelligence.

According to Watson Coleman’s statement, “social-scientists— including some within the U.S. intelligence community— have indicated that weather changes across the glove play a role in dislocating populations, intensifying violent conflict and crime, promoting disease transmission, and aggravating economic and social stresses that destabilize governments.”

She wrote that these conditions “leave populations more vulnerable to incitement by extremist elements,” thus placing them smack-dab in the center of DHS’ wheelhouse.

Thompson agreed, calling “an even-handed treatment of DHS responses to climate change” an acknowledgement of “assessments produced by and for the U.S. Intelligence Community over the past decade.”

“These studies have provided ample evidence that trends in global climate act as what the 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review describes as ‘threat multipliers… aggravat[ing] stressors abroad that can enable terrorist activity and violence, such as poverty, environmental degradation, and social tensions,’” he wrote.

EXPERTS WEIGH IN

Witnesses responded to Perry’s allegations of negligence by reminding the subcommittee that its multifaceted approach to protecting the U.S. means that addressing climate is only part of the homeland-security formula.

In his written testimony, Thomas Smith, an acting assistant secretary in the DHS’ Office of Policy, reiterated that terrorism prevention and security enhancement were ranked first among DHS’ “five enduring missions.”

Noticeably absent from this list? Climate change.

Still, he wrote, “natural disasters, pandemics, and climate change and associated trends continue to present a major area of homeland security risk, and may indirectly act as ‘threat multipliers’” by intensifying “stressors abroad that can enable terrorist activity and violence, such as poverty, food insecurity, environmental degradation and social tensions.”

Examples of potential ramifications cited by Smith include weather-induced forced migrations, altered disease patterns induced by rising temperatures, and telecommunications troubles caused by intensifying storms and warmer weather.

FEMA Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation Roy Wright agreed.

“It is important to note that climate change is just one of many future risks we plan for, but one that could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting communities and the emergency management professionals serving them,” his prepared testimony reads.

He said FEMA works with “state, local, and tribal governments” in a supportive capacity, helping them to combat climate change’s impact through adaptive planning as part of its “focus on enabling disaster risk reduction nationally.”

And Robert Kolasky, deputy assistant secretary of the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection’s National Protection and Programs Directorate, called climate-related concerns “just a small component” of the NPPD’s “overall mission,” but added that “shifts in climate patterns increase the range and intensity of potential risks to our critical infrastructure.”

He wrote that understanding climate change’s potential impact on infrastructure is key to building things that “will withstand the hazards of the future,” especially since the majority of contemporary infrastructure “is expected to last for 50 years or longer.”

According to Kolasky, this process demands a combination of risk- and uncertainty-minded “forward planning,” consideration of modeling based on past occurrences and “building awareness of how depletion or alteration of natural resources may impact infrastructure operations.”

And he said that climate-related hazards show no sign of stopping.

“Unfortunately, we do not anticipate this trend abating,” he wrote. “The analysis of infrastructure exposure to extreme weather events we have conducted shows that rising sea levels, more severe storms, extreme and prolonged drought conditions, and severe flooding combine to threaten the infrastructure that provides essential services to the American public.”

The sole scientist testifying before the subcommittee backed them up.

Marc A. Levy, deputy director of the Columbia University Earth Institute’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network, called the hearing’s entire premise “backwards.”

“The Department of Homeland Security is not doing enough to prepare the country for security threats from climate change,” his prepared testimony reads.

He called climate change a danger to Americans and an economic disruptor that “threatens to destabilize regions of high national interest.”

“This logic justifies all the high-level statements about climate as a national security threat,” Levy wrote. “The same logic renders inexcusable the slow pace of meaningful action.”

Questions posed by members of the committee ranged from the slightly silly (such as Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton’s question as to the origin of a story behind Dunford’s nickname “Fighting Joe”) to the serious (such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain’s inquiry as to the impact of the sequester on the future of the American fighting force and New York Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly’s questions about suicide prevention for troops).

Here are some soundbites (in video form) to help you cover his confirmation process from outside of the Beltway:

1. Dunford’s verbal testimony (pre-Q&A):

2. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Arizona, questions Dunford on U.S. military training of Syrian rebels

3. Dunford on the issue of limiting U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to U.S. embassies

4. Dunford on the question of whether or not the U.S. should arm the Ukrainians

ADDITIONAL CLIPS TO COME!

(Note: All videos are freely downloadable and embeddable, so feel free to share, embed or repost so long as they are credited to Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory and the MEDILL NSJI.)