al qaeda so in terms of that basic metric we went al qaeda and its bases but that's been pretty successful.

what we called counterinsurgency. it was to secure population centers, blanket the area with u.s. and afghan forces, bringing good governance. it was a basic nationbuilding strategy. has had mixed results. have to be honest. the afghan officials have not been -- it keeps people comfortable with where they are and then it begins with security. in many areas, the taliban forces have been driven out. afghans will tell people like me when we come visit that the taliban are not popular. there's some polling of afghans that says that that's true, that it's tough, tough people who made life more difficult. the question is, as u.s. forces begin to pull out of these areas, what will security be like, what the taliban strength i can? will they gain control of these

districts to the west of kandahar, where a terrible massacre took place, in helmand province. and that's what all of our commanders in washington are watching week by week and we'll have to see. >> host: our phones are all lit up so let's take a couple calls and then we'll move on to other topics. connecticut, a republican for david ignatius. >> caller: good morning. i just mostly have a comment. i wonder how mr. ignatius would feel if he were one of the last people in afghanistan? because what's going to happen there, the taliban is going to take the country over. everybody knows it. all the people, because it's a timed withdrawal, all the people there are taking their sides now, and you know that most of the people are going to be afraid of the taliban, afraid of losing their heads so they will

go with the taliban. they are scrambling for that right now. how would you like to be the last one there? you would lose your head. but we don't think anything of sending over people and leaving them in this predicament, knowing that we are going to pull out in 2014. that's all i have to say. >> guest: well, the caller raises a couple of good questions. the first that i would focus on is this question of whether the taliban will take over. my own guess is that if you're looking for a that outcome here, be a pessimist about afghanistan, it sure is easy given that country's history. will you would expect is not a takeover by the taliban or a turn to the government had in the 1990s, but a civil war and a partition. there are many non-pashtun afghans, tajiks, different ethnic groups that make up

mostly of afghanistan. who are already beginning to stockpile the weapons and prepare to defend their regions, to make sure that the taliban don't take control. so i think that's the thing to read about more is a splintering of civil war of a country that results in partition. being the last person there, one thing the u.s. is pretty good at is force protection. i'm in but who cares more about the security of soldiers than their senior officers like general allen is in command. the idea we would lead a last man standing and and, unable to protect himself from i just don't see that happening. >> host: if you're interested in more of his thinking, and we can probably fit in our conversation, welcome you to find on the "washington post" website. of his next call, david is a democrat. good morning. you are on.

>> caller: good morning. just a question for mr. ignatius appears to be very thoughtful and reflective man. just was wondering if we could consider the counterfactual, so to speak, if after 9/11 we had characterized it as a criminal act and involved the fbi, in terms of securing the country from terrorism, and also engage the cia in terms of counter, you know, gathering intelligence for terrorists that may be brewing abroad, and never gone to war. just never gone to war in afghanistan or iraq and taking it a completely different route. would we be at a better position now? transit i think it's entirely possible we would be any better position and i think you have raised one of the most important lessons of this 10 years of war that we have lived through, which is that american power, in

a funny way is more powerful when it's at our side, when the gun is in the holster. once we take it out and begin shooting, once we begin these take expeditionary wars with tens and over hundreds of thousands of u.s. troops surging into these countries, what has struck people overseas is how difficult we ghana, how hard is it forced to achieve our aims. so i've come to think, as i think the caller has, that smaller, lighter footprint forces, paramilitary forces operated by our special forces command, or perhaps by the cia, will be a better answer in dealing with the insurgencies around the world, a better way to support friends of the united states. and i think that view is widely shared in our government. we've all been through this learning experience, and you would be surprised at how the

generals have been doing the heaviest work in this fighting, they're not enthusiastic about more wars in iraq and afghanistan. they understand, just as you do, these bigfoot and fisa that because. >> host: move on. i'm going to move on to iran. once again, put your recent column, how to seek sanctions, not lost. since you're arguing for sanctions, global network expels as many as 30 of iran's banks. this is global network called swift but decided for worldwide intervention, which states expelled as many as 30 of our rain financial institutions crippling their ability to conduct international business and further isolating the country. the story notes for the first time it has taken such a drastic

step of how important is that? >> guest: this was a big story, susan, because swift, essentially the payment system for international banking, it's like the world financial central nervous system, and if swift cuts you off, your ability to transact basic business becomes much, much harder. you have to plug into other remote outlets, if you can. if you're iran, to see if you can finance transactions through the uae, through other neighbors. and that's when a time when the u.s. will be exerting strong pressure on those countries not to help. so this is one more step down the road to same to iran that their current course is unacceptable to the community, symbolize here by the world banking consortium. what i argued in the article which you mentioned is basically that i think military attack on

iran by israel or by the united states would be a mistake. it would produce the opposite of the result that we desire. it wouldn't retard nuclear program more than a year or two. it would probably rally the iranian people kind a regime that right now is really unpopular and divided against itself. and i were that it might also deflect the course of a we called it arab spring, although it's not very springy anymore. so it became more pro-iranian, more militant, more anti-western bandages. so i think sanctions, which we often just laughed out as an effective kind of policy, in this case really do see it working. the currency has lost more of its half -- has lost more than half its value. these new sanctionable increased that pressure. i would be amazed if they didn't end up having some effect, some

effect on iranian policy. >> host: we do keep hearing more and more threatening statements from western leaders and from israel about the possibility of military action. for example, with prime minister cameron's visit on wednesday the president describes the window for diplomatic approaches closing. let's listen to him if we can, and that i would like to have you talk about whether this is a strategy or whether or not the fact is it's become an inevitability. >> i have sent a message very directly to them publicly, that they need to seize this opportunity of negotiations with the p5+1 to avert even worse consequences for iran in the future. do i have a guarantee that iran will walk through this door that we are offering them? no. in the past there's been a tendency for iran in these

negotiations of p5+1 to delay, to stall, to do a lot of talking, but not actually move the ball forward. i think they should understand that because the international community has applied so many sanctions, because we have employed so many of the options that are available to us to persuade iran to take a different course, that the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking. >> host: so, what do you think is going on here is are we waving a big stick, or on the fact, the verge of military intervention? >> guest: of course you don't really know until the stick comes down. i don't think president obama wants to go to war against iran. i think president obama really

hopes that this pressure, this increasing pressure, campaign of sanctions and other unstated pressures that may be at work will convince the iranians to alter their course and allow some negotiated settlement deals, as i think some have indicated that our country is fed up with more, after 10 years of it. it does want to jump into another one. it's been very interesting to watch president obama tried to make convincing enough threats that he is prepared to use military action, to get the israelis to back off their feeling of military action may be necessary, and also against iran to commit to negotiations but it's sort of a three-way game of chicken going on here.

and you know, i've been to tehran. i've driven the street. it's amazing, every street corner and have on almost of action every time you have to turn. usually you don't. usually these two cars come rushing at each other, one of them pulls back and the first and the first and then cut it negotiates the passage. but sometimes you do. sometimes you're driving around iran and you see a lot of car accidents. so we are all involved in a game of chicken at this intersection. and i think washington will do were for real over the next few months. >> host: magazine and apple is watching us and on the air, independent, go ahead. >> caller: thanks for having me on the air. my concerns is with ideas future instance, places like afghanistan. either brother who was in the army deployed for his third time here in a couple of months.

he's expressed, some of his younger soldiers are not ready, but, you know, the senior enlisted folks are pushing deployment just so they can advance their careers, stuff like that. was in place to prevent incidents of things afghanistan from happening in the future? >> guest: well, that's a great question, and and my heart, everybody who's listening, feels for your brother going out on another deployment. we have a tired army. that's not to say that it isn't still fighting at a very high level, and generally maintaining good discipline. but we've seen incidents now in afghanistan that show that people are doing the kind of things that well disciplined soldiers shouldn't, urinating on the corpses of enemy dead, terrible incident with a staff

sergeant, 38 year old staff sergeant, pretty experience, left his base and begin shooting and burning civilians. i know the army has in place a lot of programs to deal with combat stress, and they urge people to talk about rather than keeping it to themselves. didn't like people to talk about the stresses, but that's really different now. so you your brother and all of the brave soldiers who are heading off to new deployments, can count i think on better help from the military, from the officers and in clos, in dealing with the kinds of problems that arise in these stressful combat situations. what all this reinforces for all of us, especially the people are serving is it would be great if we could get our forces back on. >> host: next is a call from albany, kansas, thomas is republicans are.

thomas, you're on. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm from albany kentucky. my name is thomas. >> host: good morning trip to what i want to comment was we're talking about afghanistan, and what i was want comment on his i see them keep committing crimes of passion instead of crimes of power. crimes of greed instead of crimes of this nature, to where we see killing going on. we see sanctions really do work. but also reward of democracy does work. and i'd like to see us come together with a plan, or a document, or some kind of outline to the standards of democracy of the world. the democracy of the world is growing. if we had some kind of outline for people to read and to understand to live by, not to kill, not to create -- we are up

against people that are crimes of passion, not crimes of greed. i think it's, we need to grow from there. that's my comic. >> host: thank you, thomas. >> guest: well, you do see a lot of greed in afghanistan as well. but what i found troubling there is that there is a yearning among the afghan people, after these three decades of war, for the rule of law, for sense of justice in their villages. when i was last in afghanistan in june of last year, i traveled to khost which is a city at the far eastern edge of the country, almost in pakistan. and i went with a brigadier general named mark martin's was running something that he called the rule of law field force. and general martin's showed me the map of the districts in

afghanistan that don't have judges or prosecutors. and then he showed me a map of the districts in afghanistan with the taliban is strong. guess what? it was the same map. in other words, places where there's no justice, the taliban comes in and provides it. because there's really a demand from the people for somebody who will arbitrate all the claims that are built a. every piece of land in this war-torn country is disputed sometimes it seems. so general martin's has been trying to recruit the good judges and prosecutors to go into these areas. that's the kind of program that i wish we been doing a long time ago. it's the kind of program that i hope we will keep doing, even as our combat forces reduce. because it gets to the problem that this caller was talking about, which is what does afghanistan we need to hold a better as a country. it's not going to be switzerland, but if you can get basic, kind of judges, tribal judges into these villages to solve disputes, you would do

better. >> host: next as a call from a indiana. this is steve, democrat, you're on with david ignatius. good morning, steve. >> caller: number one, we should've never been in afghanistan. we should've never been in iraq. and we need to tell israel to leave iran alone, because they are the ones that are causing all the problems for us. >> guest: well, first, i guess i, i come to agree that the invasion of iraq was a mistake. at the time i thought it was justified, as a lot of people did. but seeing the costs and benefits, it's hard not to come back to that conclusion. on afghanistan, when you think back to september 11, 2001, and defeating i think most americans had no had to take this fight to the people who have done that

terrible thing to our cities, it's hard to think that we wouldn't have gone into afghanistan. the question was, how hard, how long, what kind of forces? as i said earlier i think i've learned the more use of paramilitary forces and smaller footprint makes sense. in terms of finally of israel and iran, as i said before, it's clear that president obama, most u.s. officials, most military commanders would think it's a mistake if israel to attack iran and trigger another middle east war that is not as useful as it should be getting with iranian nuclear problem and has enormous unintended consequences, which could catch us up in a big complicated war all over again and. >> host: iran, help all of us watching understand, as much as you can, of what the

significance, mr. ahmadinejad being pulled before the parliament answering questions before the religious leaders and our. >> guest: what's fascinating about iran, and one reason that i think military action is particularly a mistake now is that the iranian political system is just, you know, kind of a train wreck. the different branches of government are accusing each other of occasionally sorcery and witchcraft, believe it or not. the ayatollahs are extremely unhappy with president ahmadinejad. he is a very willful, headstrong person who wants to dominate the government. he keeps running up against the them. so it's a system divided against itself. now, i think as the problem of sanctions depends, iranians are very sophisticated people, many of us no iranian americans in our personal lives, we know what

good businessman, scientist, what successful people they are. this is sort of a rich culture that could be a very modern country. i think at some point they will set enough, this divided government isn't serving our interests and are worsening the economic. it is unacceptable. when that will be and how this will play out, nobody knows. but i'm struck by how much disorder there is in tehran right now spent president ahmadinejad is the public face for iran. what is his timetable? how much longer is he in power and what are the levers to keep them there? >> guest: the presidential elections, which is alleged to have stolen took place in 2009, and so are be another presidential election and i believe 2013. one question is who ayatollah how monique, will back as his candidate because he is a powerful figure. at how open those elections will be. sadly will be seen and iran,

which after 1979 revolution really was a fairly democratic country. more and more the ayatollahs turn the screws, they won't allow many candidates to run. as we saw in 2009, a candidate is doing well. they will, it seems, take away his votes. so the democratic opportunities that iranians have our lives. but they're still there. they will have election. there will be a lot of jockeying to see who is the favored candidate trend that this is a very nice question. the strategy behind sanctions, sanctions would hurt the rank-and-file populace in iran. so is the idea to have them become so frustrated but with their daily lives with sanctions that they will rise up? is that the way this is intended to work? >> guest: it is described as a

policy for regime change but the more i thought about it, the more it seemed to me that you have to be honest. we are putting so much pressure on this country. if you cut a country off from the world's financial nervous system, swift payments transfer system, if you essentially enact an embargo so that that country cancels most important products, oil, and that's what's going to be happened in the middle of this year, you're creating a situation that almost inevitably will have political repercussions. so i hope u.s. and allies are prepared for what might happen in iran. if this just in step hurting ordinary iranians and leaves the leadership and tack, the opposite will happen. >> host: bakersfield, california, good morning. >> caller: it's a great honor to be able to ask you a question here. my question deals with afghanistan. and i feel like it's almost a

taboo subject. it's like the great lie, the great unreported story. and that is any solution must deal with opium. because it's reported that the leader is an opium addict, and it's a fact that his brother is a superrich heroin dealer. and that afghanistan is basically a failed narco state. i want to know if you agree with that, that it's a great elephant in the room and that any solution must deal with the opium trade, or that i'm all wrong about this but the other question is, i'm worried about when they're being brutalized after we go. because it's always women and children who end up being the victims in a situation. again, great admirer. i will take your response off-line. thank you. >> guest: those are powerful questions. i have flown over opium poppy

fields mile after mile in helmand province. and just watched as people harvested those poppies. sometimes a few hundred yards from nato forces. there's no question that the opium trade has been an important source of revenue for the taliban, but also for the corrupt warlords were almost as bad as the taliban. this base of narcotrafficking in afghanistan is part of why some people realize here that we have been dealing with, what is kind of a criminal state, a criminal enterprise, that is so rotten with corruption that is not going to provide good governance. is afghanistan a 15th country? i don't think so. one of the things that struck me, as poor as it is, is a country that is being

transformed, everybody has a cell phone, everybody that you see is near a tower. there are wonderful afghan television station. i sat with one my friend who runs one. he was dumping "sesame street" and was to get how cookie monster should sound in the afghan flames. they have cop shows in which they have afghan police checking the taliban and chasing the drug dealers. so, when you think about afghanistan, don't just think about the 15th century images. think about a country that in large parts wants to become modern. it has its own version of american idol called afghan star, and seeing women and men singing in a country where the taliban back in the '90s band singing, banned music. i love the. i always get a kick out of that. the rights of women, the ability of girls to go to school, the changes that have happened for the good under this regime are

wonderful. and i think anybody knows, just sick of the thought that you turn that back towards a world where women's rights are deprived, the schools would close a. i just read and wrote about a interview with a top taliban leader who i think respond to public pressures said, if we come back to more powerful positions, we will not close women schools. wednesday and the girls should have education, et cetera. so please maybe they're getting the message that people want that. >> host: next up is chris in new haven, connecticut. good morning. >> caller: hi. my interest in iran goes back a long way. i saw pictures of my mother's sister at the royal table of the shah when my cousin worked for him. we promised him, the shah, five nuclear our plans.

and i think if we just gave the five nuclear power plants that we promised the shah to the new iranians, it would take nuclear weapons off the table. and while i really opposed nuclear proliferation of any kind, i think would be better for them to have a fukushima or chernobyl over there, that for us to continue destroying waste in our nuclear plants all over here, and whatever ways we have come in from our nuclear navy as well. i just wonder what you think about all of that tragedy you raised good points. the first is that it was the u.s. really that got the ball rolling on the nuclear iran i fostering the civilian nuclear program. the shah, i think most people realize the shah hoped that as he moved down that road he would at some point be able to build

nuclear weapons of its own. iran, like many countries, does want to have nuclear power as a symbol of being a modern state. a nuclear program is extremely popular in iran. so the question for me is, is there some formula that allows iran to be a nuclear power state? you know, have its own nuclear industry as most modern countries do, without being a nuclear weapons state? it is still a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, which means that it essentially signed on for that kind of deal, and it allows inspections to its facilities to verify that it is playing by the rules to we think that there have been some real breaks from those rules. that's one of the reasons the u.n. has sanctioned event repeatedly. but if you can come up with a deal with the world could be comfortable that iran's nuclear

program was under the npt, was a proper program, a civilian power program, not a weapons program, that might satisfy iranians yearning to be modern without scaring the heck out of everybody else. >> host: our topic is on complex. only five minutes left. going to put a video on the screen of these government supported rally in syria yesterday for the regime there. you see people out on the streets, apparently encouraged by damascus to do that. and the "washington post" this morning, published with a piece can get off the sidelines. he argues that there are a range of options, including enforcing no-fly zones, launching air strikes on regime targets, setting up humanitarian corridors, et cetera. and says that if we stand on the sidelines, worst case in are such as syrian chemical weapons falling into wrong hands are more likely to result. do you agree with him?

>> guest: i don't agree with the last part. series it is a very tough problem for this administration. and for anybody like you or me who wants to do with the right policy is. the civilian loss of life is really grim when we now have well over 6000 people who have been killed. we have the insurgent stronghold that has been overrun. we have terrible humanitarian situation. i think what's happened, the regime much more unpopular at home and around the airport. the problem is that he has a very strong army and the opposition has was still a ragtag force that calls itself the free syrian army. but as if and when at the pentagon said, don't think in a statement history is syrian.

it's not a free country and is not an army. so if you talk about humanitarian corridors are safe havens, you're talking about foreign military forces have some considerable potential risks seizing those off and fighting an army that is a big air force, big tank force, and as you said, chemical weapons. i don't think the u.s. should do that. i think the u.s. expeditionary forces in muslim countries, we've had enough of that. it's conceivable we could insist regional powers like turkey, northern neighbor, syria or saudi arabia on the south, if they feel strongly that military action is appropriate in removing this regime, if they make that decision and ask us for the help, then obviously we should rethink it. but this is one of the

situations where a desire to help civilians, and reduce civilian loss of life, the tran eight with a hasty decision that isn't thought through clearly, and we're going to train these forces? out exactly? if you don't want to end up getting a lot more civilians killed. so the death toll rises from under 10,002 some large multiple. that's the thing that i'm afraid of. wars in this part of the world can take on a sectarian dimension and spread like wildfire. i covered the lebanese civil war where by some accounts 100,000 people were killed over many, many years. and i just don't want to see that happen in syria. >> host: we have time for one cause been waiting patiently. ginger, your last for david ignatius. what's your question? trip to i just want to start taking care of the u.s.a., our border, it's a mess. our people are crying out we need help.

what can we do? what are you are going to do? what can be done? >> guest: will, president obama often says we need nation-building at home, and i think the best thing that i see is the u.s. economy finally beginning to get some muscle tone. finally, investors seem to be confident enough to stop sitting on their cash, investing may be adding an extra shift at the plant are building a new plant. so, as economic activity in the u.s. begins to pick up, i think we're all going to feel a lot better about things. we begin to go back to and this terrible feeling that we are fighting wars overseas while our country is a mess at home, which the whole country has felt. a year from now if the economy keeps improving we won't feel

that so much. >> host: >> a quick note following david ignatius a businessman. the "washington post" published historically that osama bin laden plotted to kill president obama and general david petraeus. you can read his report online at c-span.org. coming up on c-span2, more from today's "washington journal" with the president and ceo of the american petroleum institute, talked about energy policy.

>> i was quite radical as a young person and i was the one that fought that we should, saying we should overcome was really not a favorite effective way of regaining civil rights. and i think that i thought that more confrontation was needed. >> economics professor columnist and substitute host for rush limbaugh, walter williams, on being a radical. >> i believe a radical is any person who believes in personal

liberty and individual freedom, and limited government. that's make you a radical. i've always been a person who believes that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing without, so long as i don't violate the rights of other people. >> more with walter williams sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern pacific on c-span's q&a. >> a discussion now on energy policy with the president and ceo of the american petroleum institute. from today's "washington journal," this is about 45 minutes. >> host: next up on this friday morning, meet jack gerard, the president and ceo of the american petroleum institute. mr. gerard, we'll talk about all the press coverage about oil prices. "usa today" front-page headlines, gas prices to top $4 before leveling. front page of the "washington post," gallon by gallon the frustration builds. will you please give us the

industry's perspective on why the price at the pump is going up right now? >> guest: there are a lot of variables that influence the price of gasoline but the number one variable that we should focus on is the cost of crude oil.mb close to 80% of the price ofo 8f gasoline is determined by theneb cost of crude oil.cost so crude oil is traded on thee d global basis, and today there are a number of factors that ard putting upward pressure on it.of not the least of which is the pi unrest in the middle east, like in the mng demand out of china and india in places like that. however, from the u.s.india and. perspective, we believe the toatest role we can place bring more supply to the marketplace to put downward pressure on that by adding additional crude oil to the marketplace. so we believe there is an answee on the part of the united states government, and that i is to get involved with more production here at home a. >> host: this week when prime minister cameron came to the wited states apparently there was a discussion.avid camer cam he spoke afterwards, between hia and the president about tappingg

the strategic petroleum reserves. do you support that as a way to lower gas prices in theterm? short-term? >> guest: it's interesting because talking about tapping the strategic between reserve ig an admission that supply does matter. because by adding additional supply to the marketplace byeum releasing stockpiles from thekng strategic petroleum reserve is recognition that if we put more supply in the marketplace it will have a downward impact.a d. we believe we stand on the strategic petroleum reserve every day of the we care in the united states where we of billions of barrels of oil thatc only kept off limits by llionsmental policy. a strategic between reserve kept originally designed forental major destruction on a global basis so that's really a political decision rather not some should be released but we think the underlying economics o remind us that more supply to the marketplace will help put downward pressure on prices dust down the prices gasoline prices. so we think we should look to

the petroleum reserve we have under our feet, produce more of america energy, by americans, for americans and to help us overall, particularly over the long haul. >> host: the present is think a lot about energy prices. here's the "baltimore sun" from fre strip e yesterday. baltimo chiding critics of alternative energy. let's listen to a little of what he is saying. >> we have more oil rig operating now than ever.more that's a fact. d've approved dozens of new had pipelines to move all across ths country. we announced our support for a new one in oklahoma that will get more oil down to refiners on the gulf coast.own o over the last three years, my administration has opened millions of acres of land in 23 different states for oil and gas erff exploration.[applause] [cheers and applause] offshore.

offshore i have directed my administration to open up more than 75% of our potential oil p resources.ot that includes an era in the gulf exicoxico we opened up a few months ago that could produce more than 400 million barrels of oil. so do not tell me that we are not drilling. we are drilling all over this country.country. [cheers and applause] >> host: and let me -- this headline based on report frometa the irorganization. oil industry slams obama's policy on energies. sees production dropped. what is your criticism of the w administration?is >> guest: essentially the president has taken initiatives as the price of gasoline has begin to rise.soli the fundamentals of the unitedts states our own production on federal lands but those areas that the president has control over, it's down in the united states. leasing, permitting, the number of wells in the united states on

federal land, that area once fe ar the presiesident has control over, it's down significantly iy the united states. so the president has a tendency tod selectively use the fact tt he thinks helps make his point that production is up in the united states. it's up only because governors on state land and on private land, but the area the president controls today, he has placed 87% of the u.s. outer he continental shelf on hold. if we want to talk about aif policy of developing our ownsour resources, clearly the c ministraration's policy has failed because they have locked up resources. they restricted our ability to produce oil and natural gas onns the nation's land a.. >> host: is a paragraph. help me understand it. the interior departmentokesmafor dementman said oil production on federal land has increased 13% since 2006, and natural gas oducuction has risen 6% in the sameti period.

>> guest: what's important here, to remember when you lookt at theo president's activity, ie takes roughly three years from the point of securing a lease on deralal lands to the point of production. uctihe first year or so of the administrationon we were livingr leases and production that was leang online as a result of the previous siadministration. but if you look year over year, just yesterday the energy information agency that is part of the current administrationpat came out and made absolutely clear, oil production on federal land in the united states is down 14% year over year.- natural gas production on federal land in the united states is down 11% year-over-year. the difference is and whether presidents statements are misleading is private land and prive land where the president doesn't have control, thete production there is upsident dna significantly. so the president is essentiallys suggesting, i want to take

credit for all of the industrys has done, i just don't want the american people to know the area i have control over i'm putting restrictions on the industry. that's what's happening. that >> host: welcome your phoneontrl calls. phone numbers are on the screen and you can also send us a tweet or send us an e-mail. we will put all suggestionsend - throughout the conversation. newt gingrich is another politician talking about gas price. he with the but of $2.50 a gas. ll you put a brand-new ad out this going to talk about gas prices.s let's listen to what he ist he saying. >> it means that anybody whoidei tells you that we can drill our way out of this problem doesn't know what you're talking about, or just isn't telling you the ey truth. if you would like to have a national energy, american energl

policy,d never again vowed to a saudi king and pay $2.50 a gallon, newt gingrich will be your candidate. .50 a gallon gas, newt gingrich is your candidate. host: what you think about that? guest: what the speaker is talking about those that we -- is those that we import oil from today. i think it is interesting that the demonstration has called on saudi arabia to increase production to put downward pressure on prices. the fundamental question is where do we get our energy from? do we want to continue to rely on other sources, or do we want to take advantage of the best resource we have in the united states? -- vast resources we have in the united states? with speaker gingrich is trying to point out is we could produce more in the united states. the president seems to suggest a

drill policy is a failed policy. it has been talked about for 30- to-sell 40 years. we should look to develop more of our resources. in north dakota we found vast resources of oil. just last week, north dakota surpassed california as the number 3 oil producer in the united states. the unemployment rate is 3.3%. the median income is $90,000 a year per job. the median income for all other jobs is $45,000 a year in the state. we have high-school graduates in north dakota making twice as much as their parents make. that is a good sign. we need to take that model in north dakota and say let's develop our own domestic resources and push them across the country. host: a number of interesting statistics in the papers today.

in "the wall street journal" and yet "the washington post." paul krugman writes about it this morning with the headline "natural born drillers." robert, maryland. a democrat. good morning. caller: i would like to ask the gentleman that if federal production of oil was a loud, who would control -- was allowed, who would control that? will you take the oil and still charges whatever you want to charges, or with the government control leases to the extent where the american people would get a break? domestic oil production in the united states, what happens to it? is it sold overseas?

is it given to the american people on a reduced rate? guest: great questions. the leasing in the united states is entirely controlled on federal lands by the federal government. in other words, the government does not know where their resources are, so they make land available, and we as industry risk our capital and try to find oil and gas in those areas. we pay millions of dollars for the right to go look. once we find something we pay the government about 18% royalty for all that is produced all -- off of that land. if today, the u.s. oil and gas industry contributes $86 billion a day to the federal treasury in the form of taxes, rose to payments, and other things. that is -- royalty payments and other things. that is controlled by the

federal government. it is a highly-regulated activity controlled by federal and, in some cases, state law. when we produce in the united states is by and large consumed in the medicis. we're still a net importer -- in the united states. we are still a net importer of crude oil. host: the next question comes from sam, ill., republican. caller: good morning, mr. gerard. i have a question no one seems able to answer. he said that guests at the pump price is reflective of the price of a barrel of oil. in 2008, it was $145 a barrel, and gas was $4. now is $105 a barrel, and guess is $4. your barrel of oil is losing out

on $40 a barrel. why would they cheat themselves? guest: if you take a look the price of crude oil and the way it moves in the global marketplace you can almost tract directly the cost of gasoline. about 80% of the cost is tied directly to the cost of crude oil. the other big component is state and federal taxes, which is equal to about 50 cents an each gallon of gasoline. put those two items together, and you are well over $3 currently before you even get to refining, marketing, transporting, distribution, etc. that is what we do as an industry. you see the impact on the cost of gasoline is driven by the price of crude oil. host: on twitter when you were

asked do you want another golf blow all with more offshore drilling? -- gulf coast blocked with more offshore drilling? together ae put center to bring in breast the best practices and third-party -- best practices and third- party auditors. in addition, fabular -- federal regulators has regulated more closely, looking at operations, practices, and our ability to protect the environment and our people. the event in the gulf was a tragic event, one we want to make sure never happens again, but let me also say we were operating in the gulf for 65 years, drilled over 42,000 wells before that tragic incident

happened. when we put into context all energy production of whatever form is a question of risk management, and we recognize that it is our responsibility to make sure that never happens again, and we are committed to achieve that. host: watching how long it took to tap the gusher, it's in the technology was not in place to deal with possible blowouts. is there more research and development money try to understand the complexity of these problems? guest: from that tragic incident, we have learned a lot of lessons. one of the things we did immediately is put together a couple groups that have already developed the containment mechanisms. those have been built and are now sitting ready to go. in historical context, through our long history of great and

safe operations, we learned lessons from this incident that we never had before, and we are committed to develop best practices and standards. we promote those all over the world. in addition to that, we're putting millions of dollars into additional research. looking at questions like the spermine -- disbursement, how we manage those questions to protect the people and the environment. host: joe in texas. caller: i would like to explain to the american people -- i kept this "houston chronicle" article. it explains how many several millions -- million barrels a

left this country, and how almost one and 60 million barrels were actual gasoline. if we are concerned about the american people, and drill, the be drilled, why are you selling the stuff out appear to keep the prices up? guest: that is a great question, and it has very little if any impact on the price. due to our state of the art refineries we have produced more product than ever. we have produced more refined products than our market can consume. today, some of that is exported because it is access. what we should not do, and sometimes politicians like to confuse these facts -- we need to remember the refined product is a finished product, but the

cost, the impact on price is driven by the price of crude oil. it is just like an automobile. if you're going to build a car, and you have $20,000 worth of steel in the car, once you produce the car, you can not change that front-end cost. in order to get the price down, you need to drop the price of the steel down. the same principle applies to gasoline. if we want to impact the price, we need to bring the cost of the crude oil down, and that is where the supply makes a big difference. so, what happens on this end of the equation in terms of the products that have been purchased, defined -- refined, and it for consumption has little impact. that is why we are pushing hard to bring more supply to the marketplace, lower the price of crude oil, and you will see an impact on the cost of gasoline. host: a twitter skeptic rights

-- guest: not at all. if you talk to the leaders of the industry our view is more stability and a global basis is the best approach. we produce a product that all consumers use. almost 62% of the energy use in the united states is oil and natural gas. our goal is to have a steady, even supply of product that we could process, refine, and make available to consumers. it is in our best interest to assist the marketplace to drive economic activity. the keystone pipeline is critically important to the united states. it was designed to bring close to 600,000 barrels of crude a day from canada to the u.s. to be refined and consumed here.

unfortunately, the president's decision has put that off and cost 20,000 new american jobs, and the ability to not only bring in oil from canada, but we have great production in north dakota and montana today, about 100,000 barrels of which would go into that pipeline take to our refineries in the houston corridor. it is important to the infrastructure of the united states to allow us to move product and bring in more supply the brings the press about -- down. host: susan, connecticut. caller: hi, mr. gerard. i have relatives in montana who had emphysema and as much from the refining techniques you do there, and i would suggest that you read "resource wars" because it will explain that your state-

of-the-art technology might have good intentions, but you can not possibly have more accidents because the oil you're trying to get is much more difficult to reach, so actually with all of this drilling the price will go up. the governor said we of new techniques that will get us gas, and that will be fracturing in new york state, which will disturb our water, almost precious resource that we will have a resource war, sir. thank you. guest: i appreciate your comments, but i strongly disagree. if you look at history, a lot of what you have said is not accurate. the comment about hydraulic fracturing -- there has been no confirmed case of contamination of groundwater as a result of

hydraulic fracturing, yet if you read public press you will see startling headlines that suggest otherwise. the modern technology of hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 65 years and we have drilled over 1 million wells. what it allows us to do is get pockets of natural gas that were previously on economical and bring this to the marketplace. that is why the price is dropping in the u.s.. let's the state of pennsylvania. in the last 18 months, we have created 83,000 great-paying jobs just in the state of pennsylvania producing natural gas. in unemployment rate is coming down. the government estimates it has saved consumers in heating and cooling costs merely because we brought the price down because

we of the allowed to bring more supply to the marketplace. what history and basic economics shows is that if we are allowed to produce our own domestic resources, the market's takeover, and the cost of the product will be driven down. just one last comment, and this is important to the broader discussion of job creation in the united states. just the day before yesterday, shell oil announced a brand new manufacturing plant they will build in the state of pennsylvania. dow chemical has talked about a new facility they are bringing home. chevron and others -- the reason a lot of that new manufacturing is coming back to the united states is because the cost of energy is coming down, specifically natural gas. those decisions to bring to the united states of those manufacturing jobs that we lost as a result of high energy

costs, are driven heavily by the cost of energy, in this case, natural gas. the more we bring to the marketplace is not only benefits us as consumers with lower prices, it brings in more jobs that we rely on and a high standard of living. host: i will turn to the paul krugman column because the other two more or less agree with your point of view. he writes "what about jobs? i have to limit what -- i started laughing when i saw the article offering north dakota as a role model. the oil boom has pushed unemployment down to 3.2%, but that is only possible because the whole state has fewer residents than metropolitan albany, so few residents that adding a few jobs in the sector is a big deal.

the vote in pennsylvania has had hardly any effect on the employment picture because in the end not that many jobs are involved. giving the oil industry are pledges not a serious plan. put it this way, in plymouth in oil and gas extraction has risen more than 50% since the middle of last decade, but that amounts to only 70,000 jobs, around 0.10% of total u.s. employment. guest: i do not know where he gets his facts or his numbers. the data he has reported is inaccurate. he suggests there has only been 70,000 jobs -- there have been over 83 sap -- 83,000 jobs in just pennsylvania alone. the world economic forum said

that 9% of all the jobs created in the u.s. during this time were all oil and natural gas jobs. if you look at the facts, the data, we are responsible for over 9.2 million american jobs. that is how many we support in our industry. economic analysis shows we can create another million jobs in just the oil and natural gas industry in the next seven years if we were given the opportunity to produce our own domestic energy for all americans. while i appreciate his views of the world, frankly, they are wrong. i am a little surprised at the simplistic analysis of that has nothing to do with reality or what the facts are. host: next call with jack gerard. bill, you are on. caller: good morning. i am enjoying the conversation so far. my friends in the oil industry tell me that they are drilling

everywhere they want to. the reason they do not any more is because the cost is up so high. also, when you talk about the environmental factors, you come down here in texas and you see where they build a -- build their oil pits in the filmeld and then sand runs down the creeks. there is a lot of environmental damage. and the other thing i wanted to say was this pipeline from oklahoma to the gulf coast, there is no guarantee that is going to stay in the u.s. the same with the keystone pipeline. you talk to people in the industry and they want to be able to recover the difference between wti and brent crude. if they can make an extra $10 a barrel by shedding the step out of there, that is where it will go. -- shipping this stuff out of there, that is where it will go. host: when people talk about the oklahoma pipeline, it is the

southern pipeline of the keystone? guest: that was going to be one portion of the keystone xl pipeline. coming from canada down to the heartland of the country, to oklahoma, where we have great storage facilities and we move that to down houston removed -- we move that down to a houston. the house -- pipeline was supposed to be keystone. let me mention the idea is interesting that the president -- let me mention it is interesting that the president has little if nothing to do with that piece of the pipeline. the real presidential decision before him surrounding the keystone xl pipeline was to determine that is in the public's best interest to allow us to cross the canadian border and bring that crude oil into the u.s. unfortunately, the keystone xl pipeline was studied

environmental analysis for over 3.5 years and the president's on state department determined by tea would have been limited environmental impact and therefore i too should have been in the public interest. -- it should have been in the public interest. we are in the shape we're in today, having lost 20,000 jobs that could have been created just on the construction of that pipeline. we think it is very unfortunate we keep encouraging the administration to allow us to build that pipeline to benefit all americans. host: he also mentioned the sand in the oil production and the environmental impact. guest: i do not know what he is talking about there. the environmental regulation in the oil and gas is very high. secretary salazar has mentioned a couple of times that we are a highly regulated industry. provisions relating to the clean water and clean air act book on

state and federal levels that are applicable to the oil and natural gas industry puts significant regulations around us to make sure we do not hurt the environment and we protect our people. i would have to look at the specific circumstance he is talking about. that is not the general practice. host: next call for jack gerard is from columbus, ohio. you are on. caller: thank you. i have a question for jack. is there is oil found on an indian reservation, what is your opinion or what is the government's policy on that? fort knox and oil came from indian land. what is the policy on keeping that because it does not make it viirs? -- theirs? guest: relationship between the indian lands and the federal

law. currently, we are working with a number of the tribes. we work with them to allow for production of their oil and gas and then there is a responsibility between the government and those indian lands or lands held in trust for them. i am not an expert in an area of the law, but i will tell you there are vast resources in those areas. the lands across the country -- just as there is the private and state, but we focus on the federal land area. that is what has -- the president put 87% of the shelf off limit. leases are being sold on federal lands onshore in the rocky mountain states and many of our western states, those are down over 44% since the president took office. clearly, the president's policies are impacting the amount of supply we can bring into the marketplace. once again, going back to the

conversation about the price of gasoline, that is what most impact price, bringing that oil to the marketplace. host: e-mail -- please ask your guest if you were given carte blanche to do everything to our lead with no regard to pollution, how soon would we get our $2.50 a guess? guest: we would never ask for carte blanche. we are highly regulated. we have a responsibility to the public to produce this safely while protecting the people. if you look at the history, when president obama took office, price of gasoline was about $1.89. today, it is pushing for dollars and around the country, he is well over $4. -- it is well over $4. the more we bring to the marketplace -- the marketplace, the better we will be. some studies say that we can

bring more oil on line, but we have to have a thoughtful policy. we have to decide, looking down that road, we are tired of high prices at the pump. we want to bring that down, put a policy together that allows us to develop our own resources. there is one key fact we should not overlook. in the middle of july, last time prices cut to about $4, president bush made public announcement and he said, i am going to lift the moratorium on the other continental shelf. over the course of two days, the price of crude oil dropped over $16 a barrel. a very significant decline. that was it merely because the president stood up and said, we will get serious about our energy policy. he sent a signal to the marketplace, help is on the way. it had an impact. we think the president today ought to do the same thing. he ought to send a signal to the marketplace. we can produce our own resources, we have to get serious about it so we do not

rely on other sources and the middle east. host: jack gerard came to washington in 1981. he has a law degree from washington university. he spent a decade on capitol hill including time with senator jim kaur, who was the chairman of the senate energy and national research committee. search ral resou committee. we have 10 more minutes left. e-mail -- it would seem something is peculiar when oil companies are making record profits quarter after quarter. >> let me answer that. -- guest: let me answer that. per dollar of sales, the oil companies make less than what the average return is for all their standard import and up churl companies.

-- import industrial companies. profits are much because the companies are large. the reason they are large as when you look at the operations on a global basis, we by and large compete with national oil companies or other governments around the world. the government in the middle east, russia , venezuela, places like that. the other aspect we should not forget is who owns the oil and natural gas industry. 98% of all shares of the oil and natural gas industry are owned by pension plans, for a 1 k plans, individual investments. we are talking about moms and pops, school teachers, firefighters and they get impacted if you take earnings from the oil and gas industry that go through to them as part of their pension plans for their 401ks. we should not forget about who owns the earnings because it is

a misconception to believe they ought are owned by management, which owns less than 2%. it is the people in investors who own the industry. when we are looking at a profit question, i know is in favor of politicians to blame the industry for what goes on in society but that is not true. when you look through that, you see the real impact. the last thing we want to do is impact those individuals that are playing for their future, try to put their children through school and plan for their retirement. that is the impact of good earnings in the oil and gas industry. it benefits of those people who own the industry. host: ohio, hello. caller: i have been looking at my own personal use, which i think we should all do, look look at our own uses and then our reliance on foreign countries. you agreed with the previous e- mailer that profits are up

and production is up even though obama has restricted drilling on federal lands but there's been an increase on state lands because of the governors. production is up as a consequence of that. if production is up, where prices up? a couple of weeks ago on the msnbc program they had two experts on and they said that speculators are banking on iran being shut down. they're protected will be shut down or affected, which drives prices up. senator brown of ohio has talked recently about hammering hard on speculators. could you address that? guest: absolutely. great question. markets are driven by

expectations. the markets today are being impacted by what we see going on in the middle east and particularly in iran, the threats in the strait of hormuz. as well as the growing demand of a global basis in places like china and india. those who are investing in oil and buying natural gas are looking at those factors to say what will the future price be? that is why many of those variables that influence the price of crude oil on a world basis, we have little control over. we cannot control what a meningitis when to do in the middle east on any given day. -- we are not going to be able to control what anyone will do in the middle east on any given day. we are frustrated with the president to attack policy because those areas of federal land that the president has direct control over has restricted access. our production of oil and natural gas in those areas is down. but for what is going on on the

private lands in our state lands, our production and would be down over all. it is up on private lands and state lands where the president has no involvement. he has no control. that is why i say it is misleading when the president says our production in the u.s. today is up over the past eight years. it is, mr. president, but only because governors and private individuals have invested and allow the development of their resources to push that production up. when you look at the expectation of what was to go on in the gulf of mexico, which is controlled by the president, we are off 30% from what was expected to be when the president first took office. that is hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil. my simple point to your broader question -- the one variable we can influence is what supply we bring to the marketplace. we call on the president to take matters into our own hands, to quit worrying about the other

variables around the world, though they are important and will have an influence on that price. to say, what can we do now? there may not be a silver bullet that addresses it today, right here right now, but we do have a lot of silver bullets that we can bring to bear to improve the strength of our own arsenal. we are standing on it in the u.s. if the president would take action and allow the production to come to market place, it would put downward pressure on prices. host: last call is from denver. your honor. caller: -- host: tony? as we close out, one other issue i wanted to talk about was the budget debate -- sequestration and the pressure for more revenue. tax breaks for oil companies have been one of those highly debated in washington. guest: this particular case, it

is another misleading factor that is thrown out by the president. what he has proposed is an increase in taxation on the oil and gas industry by close to $86 billion over 10 years. why would you want to increase the cost of energy production at the very time we need to produce more energy, not less? more importantly, the oil and natural gas industry receives no subsidies from the federal government. none. nothing at all. even though the president would like to suggest we do. the president is talking about in changes to the tax code are standard business deductions that are received by many other industries. he suggested we discriminate against the oil and natural gas industry and we deny them the basic costs of doing business, the cost of recovery for investments, capital projects, and others. all the other industries enjoy those. we think that is bad tax policy. it is bad public policy. the congressional research service, which advises the

congress, said if the president were successful in achieving the reduction -- the increase of $86 billion in taxes on the oil and gas industry, it would put upward pressures on the price of gasoline. any time we're trying to bring the price of gasoline down, the worst thing we could do right now is increase the cost of energy production. this would be just because the president would like to penalize the industry. this is unfair. it should not happen. once again, it and >> all of those individuals -- it impacts all of those industries who owned the oil and gas industry. host: you have made the case for solutions. with regard to home prices, what can americans expect? guest: gas prices? we do not predict those.

the broader economic situation and the impact it will have on prices at -- some experts suggest the price will continue to rise for a while until early spring or middle of the summer and then began to tailor off. we call on the president to believe the best thing we can do right now is send a signal to the marketplace that help is on the way. the we are going to listing -- we are going to lift the impositions, put our people back to work, generate billions of dollars

spoke monday about u.s.-russian relations. saying there's a fundamental disagreement between the two countries on syria. at the united nations monday, the u.s. and russia clashed on how to help syria, quote, pullback from the brink of a deeper catastrophe. washington and russia both call for an end to the yearlong contract and syria but on different terms creating a deadlock in the security council. russia and china have vetoed the security council resolutions, which would have condemned the violence and syria calling the resolution is unbalanced. ambassador mcfaul's remarks come after the fall flat on your putin who won the election for a third time. this is just under an hour.

>> i expect he's under every house tight times and strains during his stay here but he is carved out an hour for us and we want to bring in friends to catch up on all the recent and extremely important defense that are going on in russia at this time. i've introduced mike several times here and i will make it short. as you well know, he's an outstanding academic. he's been professor of political science at samford, senior fellow with the hoover institution, director of the federal and democracy development rule of law and a number of other things as the distinguished academic careers. i think it's fair to say he may not agree it's fair to say he's the key architect of the recent policy to meet he served for three years as the special assistant to the president and the senior director for russian and eurasian affairs at the national security council prior to becoming ambassador. he was sworn in as u.s.

ambassador to russia on january 10th, just about two months ago. he's attracted considerable attention since he arrived in moscow and we are glad investor volcker enzus today to get to retreat questions are sure our foremost in all of our mind that we will want to discuss with him. of course, number one is what the election of vladimir putin means for the future of russia as the u.s. relations. how will the administration managed the current upcoming issue between the u.s. and russia trademark tiahrt come you have studied us on that topic and we will be releasing formally in the near future and discussing widely, and we might also ask ambassador mcfaul how he and the administration view the act as it is also being

proposed in the congress and how that relates to all of the above. with no further ado, it's great to see you back. thank you for joining us. we look forward to the discussion. [applause] i wasn't sure if i was when degette introductory remarks to take those questions. it seems like we will do today and i know we don't have much time, so i really want to get to your questions as fast as we can. quite a tremendous turnout on a lovely day. i almost didn't come because i haven't seen much son recently. i'm going to take it as a sign there is interest in the panel about u.s. relations. i will be quite blunt. the main reason i'm here today is to talk about dmz are. i was here a while ago when you had a very come in my opinion a very important meeting to

discuss these things. there was before russia agreed to join the wto and before the agreement was, i remember very vividly standing up here and saying we are going to get it done and we are going to get it done this year and i heard lots of people saying you might even people who come and go, but you know, we've been doing this for 20 years and it's not going to get done. well, we got it done, and we think it's a great deal by the way for the american economy for american businesses and farmers, for american workers we think it's a great deal and maybe we will spend little time talking about it, because i think the there is a misperception that somehow russia joined the wto as a gift to russia, and there's an incredible misperception that listing jackson to be more accurate, terminating the application to russia is a gift

to russia. it's nothing of the kind. a wto accession is good for us. that's why we are getting fought so hard to get the deal we did. and lifting jackson-vanik is a good thing to our farmers, our industry and our workers. it's no gift to russia at this point. it may have been before in a different scenario where some people would argue we should lift jackson-vanik first and then do wto but we are in a different world now. item to your second question before the first. let me say two words about the first and then briefly on the next two and then let's get the questions. in terms of what the election in russia and the kirker that we are in means for the reset, i want to start very cryptically or i was going to say 140 characters as opposed to my

usual 50 minutes leggitt 40 a letcher of stanford and let me remind you with the recent and the theory behind the policy was all about and remind you where we are at when we started this policy. it was test time in u.s.-russian relations for obvious reasons. when the president first met president medvedev and london and april 2009 he used the phrase that there's been a dangerous drift in u.s.-russian relations and it's time to end that drift and it wasn't to have better relations with russia, not to have happier relations, not to, you know, the kind of mood stuff, it was rather as he looked out at the problem we were addressing as we can into office think of afghanistan and iran, think of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty ending, i think of north korea, i think of the wto.

we looked at those issues and the view was why is this not in our mutual interest? and we give them a bunch of explanations for why we haven't reached agreement on a whole set of those issues, and his idea was with more engagement of the government. first, at the highest level in quoting him personally come and sit and come across the government, and that's why we created the bilateral presidential commission. we would have a better chance of realizing when we now comes as the president used that phrase and then every now and in communicating with them. as a that was the first idea. the engagement as a means to this end, not the other way around. second part of the recent, very important. as we engage with the russian government, we were going to try to increase engagement with russian society and parallel to that. and why that we meant both engagement of the american

government officials with the society as we practiced, you know, from the very beginning and including when president obama was in moscow as well as trying to create more connectivity between our civil society and a russian civil society. we called it a dual track engagement. we devote to these things at the same time. and third, we reject it i would say in large measure approaches from the russian government that many from our site, too. i would have to think about that a little bit more but we've rejected the concept of lincoln. we've rejected the idea that in order to get a s.t.a.r.t. treaty, we are going to not cooperate with our partners in georgia. we rejected the idea the sanctions on iran 1929 the most comprehensive sanctions would have ever been passed by the u.n. security council. we rejected the notion that in order to do that we're going to check our values of the door and we are not going to talk about human rights abuses or the

problems we see in russia. and that is the reset and five minutes or less. and our view of the reset so far is to achieve real results that are good for our national security and our economy and, you know, we are proud of those achievements. the national -- the number distribution network which is just a tiny fraction of how the supply of our troops in afghanistan in 2009 well over 50% of the way we supply our troops coming and that number keeps going up, not down. that's a good thing for american national interest. the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, that's a good thing to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and most important from our point of view to continue to the inspections and transparency that goes with that. that helps keep was in stable relationship when it comes to our nuclear arsenal. third, iran has just mentioned, we started in a very creative way in a cooperative way to make

offers to iran about a way out of the said act and together with the russians and the french we did some jury creative things to try to change that dynamic. tehran rejected us. he didn't reject the overture we put together a creative overture in the research reactor. they reject it does and after that rejection, by the way, they got russia as well as the united states, and therefore, we then cooperated with russia to, again, as i mentioned, to pass the u.n. security council resolution, 1929. russia then after that canceled the s300 contract and sent tens of millions of dollars back to iran which is a down payment for that military system. the one to the agreement, north korea, wto lost tension between russia and its neighbors. i know that's controversial but i would say if you look at where we were in the beginning of the administration and where we are now, i think there is less

tension across-the-board to what extent we had anything to do with that is more complicated. but we've been involved in that whether it's about georgia or the baltic states or other countries in europe we have been engaged on that. and then if i had more time that i will just point you to our website everyday we are doing things we think are good for our national interest what it is a new visa agreement that the nuclear summit is coming up in seoul, the agreements that have been done, traders of the highest level it's ever been. last year there should be a lot more and we are going to get to that when we get to the second question to get the deal that we were just talking dhaka, fantastic cooperation between the private sector russians, russian private sector and the california government to restore an important part at fort ross california.

in other words, there is just a lot more going on as a result i think of this tragedy that we have done. not until the edges are really and i don't want to dismiss them. syria, we have a big fundamental disagreement. we have been working this for a long time. we are still not closer, and i would mention missile defense is another one coming and i would mention disagreements about pace of political change in russia. those are three big issues today that are front and center in terms of challenges in u.s.-russian relations. but, what we would argue is the way to deal with all three of those is not disengagement or the return to the containment or somehow a pivotal away from our jindal strategy. we would say that even on tough issues like syria it is better to engage the try upon space even if it means we have to adjust the is exactly what

sector clinton is doing with foreign minister lavrov today, and i should remind you not let our policy, vis-a-vis syria or other places be defined solely in terms of what we are doing cooperatively with russia. i think that is a big misconception i hear sometimes that we don't get is to the council resolution on syria then we are not doing anything else and that is just not true, we have a very comprehensive policy in syria which one of the areas we are working with is not cooperation of the international community at the u.n. security council and elsewhere. second, on p.m. tiahrt i've already made it clear i don't want to go into that but at this stage to quote senator baucus this is a no-brainer. there's the economic interests are obvious we all should read the draft reporter or seem to be released again senator bachus has read it and i hope the rest of you have i would go to the

arguments given the interest time. my colleagues brought a bunch of fact sheets that are outside fleeing their that show you the argument for why this is good for the american economy. to come up there or get to the website if they run out. i think the argument is simply overwhelming and the economic side. don't forget the consequences of holding on because if we do that, we will be in on application. we will be the ones of the house side of that everybody else within the wto cheering for the wto rules and the russian government has made it three clear to us they are not going to get us some special privileges just because we haven't worked out jackson-vanik legislation. another is much hope for that. we will still get the report. no, we want. we will still get the lower tariffs because the russians like us so much because of what we did to get them until the

wto. know. we pulled them in to do a lot of those things. it was a very difficult set of negotiations so those are some forces in russia, not all but there but some that would be really delighted to see those markets to other countries. so to me this is on the economics of the street not no-brainer. that is an argument out there that's over on capitol hill earlier this morning. our answer to that is as follows we aren't going to have an argument of the diagnostics with anybody on the hill. we are not going to plant russia's more space than you think. i will disagree. russia's problems with these issues where we disagree with the prescription. we don't believe that holding on to jackson-vanik in any way shape or form advances the cause of autocracy and human rights in

russia or rule of law for that matter. what is the cause of the relationship? there is no causal relationship. on the contrary, we believe that we should work with congress to other things and in parallel of this kind of linkage but in parallel to do things that could help to advance the rule of law to the unaccountable government and strengthen the society in russia. we had proposed the u.s. congress to create a new civil society fund for russia. we proposed $50 million in a natural way by the way in terms of new money. that's what i hear in moscow when you talk to the real human rights organizations and what they really need, they need that kind of support. the support does not exist from russian sources. it's a concrete idea being held up the congress right now. as if you want to do something destructive, that is an area we should be focusing our attention, not on this weird of linkage but somehow holding jackson-vanik is going to make

russia a more space or is going to help us with syria. there's no relationship between the two. if you don't believe me, ask, he just put out a piece today with his colleague as in fat as you could want. and i think you'll be seeing more and more organizations in russia trying to explain to us that you are not helping them by holding on to jackson-vanik and even in a more sophisticated discussion as we've had time there was a work on the block and transparency international for instance great people in moscow that work at that place they argue very forcefully that wto constrains bad behavior from their grumet and if you're interested in fighting corruption that is a good thing, not a bad thing. don't get me wrong, it's not a

silver bullet, it's not going to solve everything overnight. but our argument is we need to use everything that we can to fight corruption, to help open up society and constrain bad market behavior. we think joining the wto and being inside as a wto member that has most favored nations russia gives us more leverage to the table and to be on the outside. finally you mentioned -- let me just remind everybody we took very seriously what happened. i personally met with his mother. we met with people that work with him and met many times with bill who was working at the time, and met with senator cardin to retrieve years ago and a meeting with senator cardin i think on saturday.

we agree those -- the gross human rights offenders should not have the opportunity to travel to the united states. we agree, and we agree so much but we've already taken action. we've taken those actions for the obama administration. we first, whether it was in parallel to the affair was in a sequence we did last august the president signed an executive order to get the executive branch more authority to make those kinds of decisions about growth human rights violators, university violated because we believe this should not be just a rush a specific thing it should be universal principle. and we've taken that action. we've taken action beyond. so we agree with the diagnostics and we've taken action. in other words, we can have this

sweet and have a serious conversation about the human rights in russia. with russian government officials and russian society and the u.s., and we should, and we should continue that. i suspect we will with the questions and answers. but i dare somebody to stand up today matriculate listing and terminating whenever the right languages, jackson-vanik how that helps the cause of promoting will fall democracy and human rights we don't see it that way. so we want to use other venues and other mechanisms and other instruments again, listening to those after all on the ground in russia, not just what we think of what they think and that is an answer in that piece of legislation. i will stop there and i that that is not the last we have heard of that question. >> okay. [applause]

>> thank you all for leading also candidly addressing some of the hot-button issues. let me throw you a hard one to start off. you mention -- >> playing basketball again, just so you know. >> good for you. psychiatry injuries. >> it is too hard. you mentioned the statement put out today calling for jackson-vanik making the point that failure to do so please into the hands of those who've are antiamericans and reference to president putin. the one is as follows.

the closest analogue i'm aware of is that when the u.s. had the famous helms legislation against cuba kind of like jackson-vanik, and the congress had a study team to assess the impact on the u.s. interest of the legislation which kortright to tighten the embargo and let the economic exchanges with cuba. the congressional delegation came back and said it came to one main conclusion. the cubans from our side, the u.s. side wants castro and one wants to democratize etc, tell us that that legislation in cuba is widely called the helms burton castro legislation because it strengthens the hands of castro enormously that even

castro's opponents have to oppose helms burton sort naturally rallies more support to castro, burst tvs could interest should be abolished. t find that some kind of phenomenon in russia that the continuation of jackson-vanik actually hurts the u.s. interest in the country? >> without question, yes. and let me talk more about the russians say. the statement today was an important one because they are saying it now as opposed to intermediaries. but here's how it plays internally, right. remember what jackson-vanik was for in the first place. it linked the levels of immigration. by the way, i wrote about it at the time tremendously successful piece of legislation. i think was very important legislation at the time. but the problem of jewish emigration since 1994 every year

and the process will go through to authorize that is not a real problem so what happens to the debate in terms of the side of russia these americans so huge russia. this issue that went way 20 years ago is still there because they are out to get us and out to destroy us. so it is a burden on the human rights activists and a jewish committee by the nicoe mark leffinge is here. i just saw -- i went around to talk to many leaders of the jewish community before the trip knowing they'd be here, not a single person, it is a burden on them, it is not a useful argument for them so they just assume to get rid of it and have a more interesting modern contemporary conversation about the real issues facing people as opposed to having their opponents just rolled out the

americans are so irrational that there still withholding this for something that is no longer the problem. let me also remind every body that there used to be a different debate. i think it is a very important point. before russia had agreed to join the wto and now they're going to ratify that sometime in may or june this winter happened. before that happens there was an argument that we disagreed with, the obama administration but it at least made you could defend the russian of the which was let's hold jackson-vanik as a way to put pressure on us to get the right deal for wto and put pressure on that russia did care about wto at least some people did it is a hotly debated issue that the others know better than i, but the pro-market supported it and wanted it. i did create leverage and worked by the way. we heard this argument on poultry and pork are the ones i

remember and we went back and argued and we think we got the right kind of deal. that was the logic back then. but with russia running the wto, that has no leverage on us. we are done. the train has left the station, so it is really hard to understand and whose interest holding us on. as to make if it is clear what you just said and if you are right before certainly the study which incidentally is out for you to pick up on the way out i heard you could do so. it's on the table makes the case as mike says. but if you're right that it is a no-brainer in economic terms, which we think that you are correct, it really comes down to the linkage and people want to link the abolition of jackson-vanik with something else.

you're obviously close to what is going on. what is your prediction and what is the likely strategy for trying to avoid it the linkage of that type? it's clear you want to avoid it. do you think you can succeed? what is the strategy? >> welcome i like to say you can teach courses on the democratization and revolution stanford. that is true, and one thing i've learned from that literature is never try to predict the future about democratization world revolution but i would say predicting the u.s. conference is even more a scary proposition and i am not qualified to do that because i'm not an expert on the u.s. congress. so i don't know how to predict that. all i would say is it is the highest priority for the obama administration, it is our top trade issue for this year. the president just last week meeting with the business roundtable made that crystal clear and i encourage you to read what he said if you haven't seen that. we have a very active engagement

strategy with both sides of the house for the house to go through those, right? we are delighted to help senator lott is out in moscow the chairman of the senate finance committee which has jurisdiction on the senate side. i think he had a very successful trip, and you should ask him, but in particular, we had him meet with people on the political side. we have him meet with human rights activists and people working to fight corruption so that he could hear the argument directly from them as opposed to a cable from maine and they are we more persuasive frankly than we can be. in terms of the timetable of course we would like to get this done before russia joins the wto because we don't want our companies to be adversely affected, and i want to say one other thing about that. it's not just a onetime thing. i hear some people say, you know, busier, election year,

maybe we will get to this next year. that may be fine in the abstract, but if you lose the market, if you lose especially for our exporters, you know, that have competitors you lose it one year you are fighting for the next ten to get back to where you were the from a year before we lost it and it is a tremendous bar on very specific companies if we don't get this done. >> it seems to me the same -- >> i'm from montana comegys from montana. in particular it seems to me that the u.s. senate has such a trip to moscow on so many minister meetings but at the same time we are seeing in the media and massive anti-american campaign which for example

engages the prime minister. how would you make sense of these contractors? >> i would say you are right about senator bachus. he met with the president of russia. that doesn't happen very often for the learning language of the state department official. and across the board of their very productive meetings by the way but it wasn't just the fact of the meetings, they were serious meetings. i guess i would put to sleep. the anti-americanism, which of course has included me from time to time personally where something that we did not expect it was somewhat shocking to us frankly and especially because of the kind of relationship that we think we have been developing with the russian government over the last three years what i was

told many times of the highest levels of the russian government that they see continuity in the u.s.-russia relations and privately that was the message from every single person i met with, and by the way there's been a lot of recordings. i met with the opposition the first day i was there. the first day i was there i met with about a dozen russian government officials, again at the highest levels and everybody said the same thing. and that's been a message if communicated to us they want of differences in the excellent case not a trend thinking with his principles of our quashing. in the context of wanting that continuity they treated senator baucus the way they did. we attribute the spike in anti-americanism to the

presidential campaign, pretty obvious that somebody decided there are votes by increasing this stuff. as social science by the way i'm not so sure about see the data and we are going to try to collect some data on that, so we should each have a discussion about that. we should have that hypothesis. the election is over so we will not see it with the explanation other there is something more fundamental. islamic please identify yourself. either go to the standing microphone and a knack for the traveling microphone coming around. it would be sustained. >> right here. >> thanks, great to see you again we have another one of our meetings with the executive

branch of the congressional staffers last week as you participated last may and two things emerged out of that. the efforts to educate the hill and need to be a ramp up very significantly and very quickly. that was kind across-the-board from the mittal stuff. a lot more has to be done by the administration. a lot more. one point in supportive de hanft tiahrt applies to the u.s. brought relationship that if the united states cannot do something that is so obviously in the u.s. national interest, you know, then how can mr. putin actually trust us to do things on much more complicated issues we significantly disagree so there could be some linkage of that in the other direction that could be unpleasant for the relationship. you know i've been a huge fan of the recent you guys have accomplished a tremendous amount. the problem now it seems we have

fundamental disagreements on mentioned syria and missile defense, iran i would add to that perhaps the political system. you didn't mention iran. can you talk about what he would expect to get from the russians vis-a-vis iran? >> first on your comment, i take the point and we have an interagency team that engages with the hill on a pretty rapid pace. we've been doing this for over a year. i know others in the business community has been doing the same. i guess i would just plea to those that need to be educated and go to the u.s. t.r. website. it's all there. there's jobs but are going to be lost, there's farmers are not going to be civil to sell their stock. particularly on the agriculture if i could just take a little

time on that, this isn't just big business, there is a lot of different companies involved who literally they are going to lose a big market. so why take the point but i also want to be clear that all argumentation is out there and we have been engaged in what we think is proactive and i see my colleagues in the back. they can jump in because i'm in a different set of negotiations with the russians, not congress, but i take the point we've got to do more. and i'm glad that you've reported that and i would encourage anybody that thinks about this and has views on it to also take the time to educate the the date. with respect to iran i didn't mention it because i don't see it get as a fundamental disagreement. i see our cooperation on iran has been one of the successes. both in the first period when we were seeking a diplomatic solution, and again i think a

rather creative idea that we had that we work with the russians than in terms of the sanctions we were with russia and that was asymmetric by the way. let's remember russia has economic interest that were lost because of 1929, and politically damage to their bilateral relationship of course is much greater than the damage that we face. there was an important achievement that we did. we drifted the course because of our unilateral sanctions that the russians change by the u.s. has put in place particularly if the national defense authorization act the amendment there has created some attention and we are working on that. just last week dealing with those issues. but i'm more impressed by dragani efp five plus one and that's why i didn't deliberately mention