so it is setting this one up and i want to hear your thoughts on how that works. it not only helps those from having the drugs come into this area, but then it helps his estates with drugs coming into the state. >> really our ability to interdict drugs is really core to the strategy as we have indicated. so the more drugs that we can intercept on the left that we have come into our local communities. so clearly having the strategy that supports the work that we are trying to do domestically is particularly important. and we have made progress in terms of the development of that. we have already convened meetings across our inner agency looking at how each of our relevant federal interagency partners can support the

priority action items of these strategies. so we continue to work with them in that strategy is in progress and we hope to have that you shortly. >> i hope so. i know we have other members as well and i just want to make a statement for the record. and that is something that i have said over and over again in my 24 years of congress. at any time drugs under the territories it has this entity in the united states and sometimes it doesn't go to florida, texas, or new mexico and it should be fought in the same way and i want to thank you for your reply. >> thank you. i would just like to note that we halfstep that will be meeting with your saffron party to update you on our progress. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, michael botticelli for your testimony

today. i want to confine my remarks initially on weed. because there's certainly been a lot of discussion about it from the medical side of the equation to the outright legalization for recreational use. and i have my own fairly hard-core philosophical objections to what is going on around her country. but my question is as far is this is concerned is, help me understand what involvement your office have had with states like colorado, those that have gone in this direction and helping educate people on what the true effects are with increased use and what happens to be. >> i think you know that the

office of national drug control policy and the administration has remained opposed to drug legalization and i think that we come at this from a public-health standpoint, particularly as it relates to what we think the impact will be on our youth. you have raised some pretty important concerns and we now have more 12th graders were using marijuana than our smoking cigarette. their perception of risk is at the lowest level since the 1970s and this is part of what the impact will be in colorado and we have been engaged following the department of justice criteria with colorado and washington as well as with our federal partners. and what the impact will be at

the legalization will have in terms of the transportation of marijuana from one state to another. are we going to be this among our youth and we have had governors offices in both colorado and washington as well as the health departments in colorado and washington to basically see how they are going to implement regulatory schemes to ensure that they are doing everything possible to mitigate the public safety and public health impact of legalization efforts as. >> okay. so you have weighed in. her office has helped to try to educate the country on this particular subject. do you anticipate there might be a more big or higher response or larger responsible weighted response towards what we see going on around the country?

>> you know, again, what we generally try to do is with our existing resources that we have within our drug-free communities and other resources, to how we continue to highlight prevention effort, particularly as it relates to things like alcohol and marijuana. the drug-free communities have been important resources that we have had. what we need to counteract some of the messages that use are getting in terms of what the perceived safety is of marijuana. >> there is no way that we can put a crystal ball in front of you to kind of look into the future. but if there was a crystal ball in front of you, do you anticipate having to reach back to, say, colorado, since i've already mentioned it, and have one of these i told you so moment's? >> with the department of justice has laid out in terms of their federal law enforcement priorities is a clear indication that they reserve the right to take subsequent action in colorado and washington haven't

demonstrated their ability to meet those criteria as it relates to public health and public safety. i think we have is public health people, we have every reason to think that we are going to see some problems in colorado and washington. usually data in science suggests that if we see something as less harmful, that there will be correlational increase in terms of their youth. i think that that is what we are is being nationally. so i do think that we have concerns both in terms of colorado and looking at the data that we have now in a row but that means going forward. >> mr. chairman. if i may, there is a subject that is near and dear to my heart and we have talked about it in previous hearings on this subject matter. i have experienced this among families and so i think i'm not a subject matter expert by any means this is a message that the

country is sending that we know with empirical data and we are now saying that's really okay and look at what is known in colorado and washington is. legalization that we are basically promoting almost in some categories and this is something that is part of the any known consequences down the road and certainly is a member of congress whose job it is to look out for the welfare of this country. it doesn't require response.

it does have my attention. i feel that my time. >> enqueue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here, sir. you are very clear about your concerns of abuse and extending the use of marijuana and i would like to mention that the mixed messages not only heard in the countries but also heard from our allies. i get it all the time when i travel abroad to latin america. those are trying to stop drug production and harassment. and why are we doing this? this is a mixed message. so your message today was very clear. so let me ask you a simple question. isn't marijuana outlawed by federal law? >> correct.

>> okay, so here's the question. have you asked the attorney general's were the president to just enforce federal law? understanding of serious concerns and your job is to protect the people from drugs, including marijuana would you have serious concerns about. have you asked the administration to enforce federal law? because if it is so problematic, what jim said that it is we all have our opinions on it, clearly you're an expert on this and you speak for the administration on this. have you asked the president to enforce federal law and have you asked the attorney general to not just the back and wait to see what happens in colorado, but to an orders the current federal law? >> i think with the department of justice has stated is that given limited federal law enforcement priorities, that they are going to reserve the federal law-enforcement actions of the most intricate crimes are seeded with marijuana and not go after people who are using it

for personal use is. but again i think that they reserve the right to go back. >> have you asked the attorney general, have you said this is a big issue, an important issue and use it as a problem. you mentioned that clearly we're spending a lot of money as we should try and make sure that kids don't smoke tobacco and yet have you asked and has that been one of your priorities? have you said to the attorney general that this is a bad idea and i think this is harmful and that we should enforce federal law? >> during the course of the development process we could talk in terms of those issues. this includes the engagement to monitor the data at the federal and local and state-level is is

part of taking the subsequent action including public health effects as it relates to colorado and washington. >> i don't want to drag odds between administration but we have you saying that this is a bad deal and it's bad for public policy and public health and then we have the attorney general and others say we are going to monitor and how goes it so it is more accurate because i was paraphrasing it. those are the mixed messages that our allies are constantly complaining about. that we are giving text messages to our allies and also giving mixed messages, i think, to the american people and i would like to know what is the policy?

is your one a legal? is it harmful and if it is, what serious could greet starts to the point where we should continue to press our allies around the world to do what they are doing in this very painful battle against it. and if not, what's the what should the policy be? i think about mixed messages and i hope you all take back and relax. they're totally for the american people is before allies. then the second part, going back to the question, and i commend the gentleman for always bringing it up and so it they have the dea out of the country in bolivia.

clearly they said that their country is better off without the dea. general kelly, who is a commander located in my congressional district that i represent, he was testifying in front of the senate armed services committee and he was are a blunt and this includes monitoring the traffic into the united states. it's an issue there of resources. as samaj ordination? you have coordination with them and as far as the budgetary aspect of it, how much ordination is there an are you consulted at all? what is the role? >> is part of our statutory authority during the drug control budget, clearly we work

with the dot in the coast guard and others in terms of part of our ongoing supply strategy. and i actually got to go to talk to general kelly and see some of the work that he has been doing and these are obviously the core reduction strategy and we consider it significantly amount in the discussion with the general as well as the interdiction community through the work to lookout available resources and operational efficiencies that we can achieve in terms of meeting our goal and so clearly we are taking this off with our partners to look odd in light of the fiscal issues and how do we continue to do this. >> that is one that we can get a big bang for a buck. >> i would agree.

as i think when we see large scale removal of drugs, we know that from a dimension's perspective that the more drugs that are available, the more likely that we are likely to use them. so clearly these are complementary strategies both in terms of our reduction and other reduction with other important goals. >> thank you for allowing this. also, director, that mixed message is really intense and it's very deep. i don't want to bust your chops, but i think that we have pretty well today. you have been clear about the effects and what your concerns are as and as well as the other side demonstration. there is a lack of willingness to enforce current federal law and if the federal law is wrong and marijuana is not a big deal, we should have that discussion and we should say let's debate

that. but right now we're getting mixed messages and i think that our allies here that and her kids are hearing that as well and that is probably the most dangerous part. >> to be fair, i think both the president and the department of justice have indicated their significant concern around the public health impact. so i think that either we have verified law-enforcement issues versus public health and public safety. but thank you for your comment. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. director for being here. thank you for what you do. i could not imagine the burden that you carry each day on your shoulders and it is a very noble cause. another we have our questions and concerns and such. and i didn't really intend to speak on this topic. but i was shocked at this statistic that you shared as that for 12th graders today

smoke marijuana than cigarettes and i think the we are so shocked to hear that. as in i heard about mixed messages and you suggesting that it's because they sense that marijuana has less consequences, fewer consequences than cigarettes. it's always just was just less than 60 days ago that the president sent some confusing messages to the youth across the country and his quote was well documented and he even said that i smoked pot as a kid and i view it as a bad habit and the vice not very different from cigarettes that i was not up to a big chunk of my adult life. and this was in the new yorker. and he said then he said i don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol. i mean, that probably bothered you, i would imagine. because i know you take your job very seriously. but does that make your job more difficult two and did you just,

with some sort of internal frustration going to the presidents office in they would be doing here? you're making my job extremely more difficult and challenging? what was your response to that? can be sure that with the committee? >> if you look at the totality of the president's comments, i think that a lot of what he was referring to some of the inequity in this barren seas that we see for marijuana particularly among people of color. which is an issue not just for office but for the attorney general's office as well. so i think the president has repeatedly done this. >> think that is how they interpret his comments? maybe that is what he was digging in suggesting. but the youth of our country, i think the they have probably heard and i don't think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol. as it's in such. it's an odd statement in such. >> you know, i go back looking at some comments that he made in terms of understanding the

significant health consequences for alcohol and marijuana and not necessarily endorsing what was happening in colorado and washington promising that we really have to be vigilant in terms of keeping this as a public health priority. >> i took it as a little flip and off the cost and maybe he was caught off guard with that question. the president of the united states. and i know that he gets difficult questions all the time and this one could not have been all that difficult. but has he said and come forward with remorse and said i made a mistake enact. >> all of us at some point have done things that we regret and has he ever expressed any regret for that allow those comments to cain and abel and everyone hoped it was about about this? >> i think you made some subsequent comments after that and this was a significant public health and public safety issue. is not unlike many who use

substances in their youth to great regret and the best thing we can do is be honest and candid about it and say we don't support that as he talked about so if you look at successful prevention strategies, we need to have those conversations and we need to be candid as parents, saying that i have done this and i need to be okay. but i don't advise it. >> i appreciate his candidness in suggesting his regret in saying that i did that and look at me when i have been able to accomplish and if i could change gears quickly, i met with our district and we're talking about methamphetamine this includes a region in northwest georgia and

they are suggesting that with all the steps we have all taken, things have changed and ingredients are changing and there is still that lingering problem is with drugs coming across the southern border is. do you sense that our border security is adequate when it comes to not only the legal immigration perspective but from the legal drug perspective crossing our borders when it is adequate and what can be done? >> i think you have raised two critical issues, one in terms of drugs coming in from mexico and domestic production as well. so i think that we have significantly enhanced the resources at the border. part of our concern has been both good and bad and

unfortunately we have seen about a 500% increase at the border and i think you're absolutely right that as mexico has changed in terms of looking at this and as the states have enacted this summer we have seen different patt@ summer we have seen different patterns emerging in terms of production internationally as well as domestically. previously where we saw this in the united states, i think some of our laws have made it much harder to get large amount of chemicals is. we are seeing the increase in terms of these small labs particularly here in the district. so it has been clear that this is a pub it has been clear thats is a public safety and public health issue that we have to look at. one of the areas that we are examining is that we have made some pretty good progress over the passing years and terms of the production of methamphetamine use and largely through drug prevention and

local law enforcement efforts. so we do have a number so we do have a number of programs through the office that helps us support reducing the distribution of trafficking largely through a component of our program as well as working with drug free communities. so it is an issue that we have to look at internationally in terms of what we see the borders and also working on domestic production and domestic trafficking as well as reducing demand for methamphetamine here in the state matter noticed outside of your scope. as but from the drug trafficking are you suggesting that if it adequate protections or is there more that can be done in any thoughts on that? because ultimately it impacts your wool and what you do. >> i think we have done a significant drop in terms of increasing our technology and information sharing as well as increasing some of our prevention of both sides and we

have actually done a really good job in terms of looking at that. as there's always more work to be done. my former bosses now the commissioner of border protection. so i'm sure that we will have a good relationship in terms of border control as relates to our southwest border. >> thank you. >> i share y >> thank you. >> i share your concern and i think everybody on this subcommittee is probably concerned about marijuana to share the things that you have mentioned. but the good news is that we can refer everyone to governor jerry brown in california who i think said it specifically when he said it hard to have a great state when you have too many people getting stoned. which surprised me to hear him say that. but that is the other side of the coin that people need to talk about and we shouldn't have too many caveats. so he's trying to spread the

message from the other side. so we have time for a couple more questions than i want to ask you on an international scale. people have talked about latin america, the caribbean, the fact that is 75% of everything comes through. on the other side of the world they grow poppies in the first time i went to afghanistan it is all the conversation about how are we going to get people to go something else besides poppies. and that kind of died down and did a lot of discussion about that. i was there about a week ago in the military was talking about all the great things that have happened in afghanistan in terms of education, women's rights, women's voting. they didn't talk much about the whole poppy situation as we prepared for this hearing, it was called to my attention that poppy production is just ever-increasing. 5% of the gdp.

so you see the impact of jobs, whether from afghanistan or when they hit the ground here and the terrible impact that they have. if you work with them in the things that are being talked about in terms of how you slow down production there and do coordinate with the department of defense at all macintouch on the whole poppy situation? >> clearly the situation in terms of poppy cultivation has been a significant concern and we arrived we have a year-to-year increase in terms of poppy cultivation. they also have significance in terms of what that could mean. we have not seen widespread heroin trafficking of afghanistan. the clearly as it relates to the instability within the country and the money that it generates in terms of the insurgency, i think that is a particular problem. we work with the department of defense as well as the

department of state in terms of looking at how we continue to aid the counter narcotics efforts in afghanistan. clearly the next three months in terms of the election there as well as what is going to be resources after the troops pullout has a particular concern in terms of looking at those issues. as well as alternative development. you know, that being said that it doesn't diminish in terms of what we are anticipating for counter narcotics efforts and we are looking to continue priorities that provide training and assistance to the counter narcotics police in afghanistan as well as other units within the afghan drug law enforcement. as well as institutional sustainability and capacity

building within the administration of counter products. to be sure efforts through the international law enforcement division. really this is an issue that is of significant concern for us both now and going forward. >> a more domestic program is that of methamphetamine trade i understand three addictive and cheap and kind of becoming the drug of choice. perhaps he can tell us what you see the trends are in terms of abuse and what you all are doing to try to counter the production and do you need anything more in terms of tools that you can use. because as i understand it it's one of the most serious things that we are facing today. >> thank you, and i appreciate the offer. as we indicated we have seen significant increases at our southern borders, as well as an

increase in domestic production. some of the programs that we have from law enforcement that we have talked about previous lady through high-intensity drug trafficking areas. we also have a national program and a pharmaceutical initiative and that provide regional support to look at how do we diminish production issues particularly for methamphetamine. so again on the prevention side we need a variety of resources and are drug free communities in doing that. i'm happy to be having subsequent conversation in terms of what additional things might we have in place beyond just the combat in terms of what could hold promise for reducing the availability of some of the precursor chemicals that go into methamphetamine production. as the congressman pointed out and as we have made with changes at both the federal and state

level, there has been evolution in chemicals and production that one additional consideration in terms of how do we continue to do everything that we can from both supply reduction and demand reduction standpoint to reduce those issues? i also think that when we look at methamphetamines, that we have some african parts of the country that are more effective than others. >> so what are -- these meth labs, to kind of come and go. where are they going? where they concentrated today? >> the biggest impact that we see, and this is not to say that we don't sit around other areas, but when you look at the regional impact, i think it's particularly in the south and the west where we see significant impact and i came from the northeast where we had a big heroin problem in very

little math problems. so we have different parts of the country that are differentially in impacted in terms of production and use. >> is a hard to set up a meth lab? ..

>> are they all functioning are just some of them? >> so in 2011, omdcp coordinated an interagency effort among our federal partners and released a plan to reduce prescription drug abuse and that has four main pillars and educating this includes prescription painkillers that has increased and so has the situation of doing that. it entails proper monitoring as you have made sure that we have good script and drug monitoring programs. it requires and focuses on safe disposal and one of the things that we see is particularly for occasional users. about 70% of people that use

those medications occasionally, how do we get those drugs out of the supply chain and we are working on safe disposal. and then the last one is good laws to make sure that we are eliminating

when we talk about prescription drug abuse, are we talking about all prescription drugs, or are we basically saying that the problem is painkillers? >> we are chiefly talking about prescription pain medication.

>> because people who are on, for instance, cholesterol medication or high blood pressure, they are on for the rest of their lives. >> and that think we want them the probably stay on that medication. you know, i think the concern is particularly that the decisions get very little training around the risks associated with these very powerful pain medications as well as training and how to identify such diffuse disorders and a population. that's why prescribing a particularly mandatory prescribing for physicians is really important to the work we do. as you indicated camino, that -- the magnitude of the drug overdose is really astounding. in 2010 we had over 16,600 prescription pain-related overdose deaths in the united states. that is 100 people a day were dying from prescription pain medication overdoses. our office has been working with federal, state, and local folks to implement the locks on

distribution programs. naloxone is a very safe, effective non-toxic substance that emergency responders the been using for decades to reverse an overdose it really been of very hard and in terms of the number that have enacted been the distribution programs throughout the country. it is remarkable. it is a really miraculous drug in terms of its ability to save lives. >> let me ask you one more question. then, mr. chairman, i think now would just submit a couple of questions for the record. reno we don't have diplomatically but in the past we have done immigration work, in fact we do immigration work ongoing. we have had transportation issues in terms of airplanes flying over or not flying certain parts of the caribbean.

to my knowledge. >> i don't think that we have any ongoing discussions or work with cuba, but we are happy to discuss with you and your staff. >> okay. i know a couple of years ago to my shock they were willing to accept the agent submitted on their turf, if you will. political pressure from this country. and i was shocked because, you know, basically saying 70 agents or any kind of agents was quite a statement been. i know it's not in their best interest to have folks coming into cuba, and is not in our best interest. i would like to tell lena later ron and if you could find out of there has been any talk about that. as pro one of the areas where

think both parties could agree and and and now would be a benefit to this country. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> your predecessor was confirmed at earlier this month. so you have been in your current capacity as acting director for two weeks. okay. is it fair to say that you did not have a lot of them but with the president face-to-face on this particular budget? >> you know, clearly we work with the administration. >> but you personally were not face-to-face with the president on this budget. >> correct. >> have you been invited into the white house, and to the oval office to talk about the growing problems with substance abuse and the effects, the cascading affects? have you had an opportunity? have you been invited, have the

opportunity? can you take me inside the white house and tell me how that's going? >> as part of the executive office will work with the president and the president's advisers. >> i'm talking about specifically the president. >> have you been invited? >> i have not. >> 311 million is the budget for the -- the president's budget for your office. and from three to 5370, 360 -- was it 55 million? was that the difference? >> correct. >> that's about a little less than 20 percent cut 17 and a half, 18 percent cut near budget. do you think that is an adequate reflection of the importance of your office given the fact they you are taking the better part of the 20 percent cut?

>> if you look at the totality, not just. >> it's a lot of money. >> if you look at the totality of the resources of the federal government has in terms of looking at this issue, we have seen that money increase. and i think what is particularly important in terms of the overall national drug control budget is that we have seen a significant increase in terms of our drug prevention and drug treatment service. again, you know, if you think about priorities we're looking at how we deal with this a public health related issue. so those dollars have continued to increase in terms of our overall federal budget. so i think congressman when you look at the entire national drug control budget you see that it

is a priority within the administration. >> i was reading in your statement that these numbers just kind of shocked me to my conscience on the fact that drug overdose deaths now number greater than motor vehicle crashes and greater than gunshot wounds. and so pertaining to the latter i have sat in a lot of meetings, including the state of the union address where the president talks about pulling out his phone or is ben to do things that congress is unwilling to do and he did spend some time talking about school shootings and large-scale casualty operations resulting from guns and this immediate desire to want to do something about gun violence. and yet we are going to cut this particular budget even know it's the office's budget by almost

20 percent. and a number of deaths were lifted track overdoses is greater than the gunshot wounds. so i want to ask again. is this a reflection of where this fits in a national priority as it concerns the administration? and what are you doing and what do you plan to do? i am going to give you a break. you have been here two weeks. in your capacity. what are you going to say to the president when you have that face-to-face meeting on the policies of this administration as it concerns something that now outnumber as drug overdoses, now of numbers gunshot victims. >> i think, again, when you look at some of the new additions and the proposed 2015 budget items that there are some additional items included in that budget that are specifically focusing on the opioid abuse.

our substance abuse and mental health services administration has an additional $15 billion to get out to states and local communities to particularly focus on patricia drug abuse issues and a pure and over those issues. contained in that budget is also an additional $10 million for the centers of disease -- center of disease control to support state level actions as it relates to overdoes prevention to read it as clearly been a priority for our office in terms of promoting overdose education. we worked with the number of federal partners and non-governmental partners in terms of continuing to raise awareness around the magnitude of the opioid overdose issue. again, i think that one of the areas that we see that leads to overdose is untreated addiction. one of the biggest causes of why people don't get treatment his lack of insurance. one of the areas, i think, that the affordable care act contains a provision to make sure

insurers have to include a benefit. and that is reflected in the president's budget. i think if you look at, again, the commitment to not only expanding access to treatment but specific vehicles to enhance state level efforts to reduce the magnitude of the burden, i think you would have some promising proposals. >> i think the gentleman. >> thank you. >> i was listening to you before. you were talking about we would be remiss without thinking the chairman. remember how he was so aggressive. florida had, frankly, i huge issue there. we have seen some good results of that. let me just try to cover another issue which i know very little about, the issue of synthetic marijuana. i saw something in the newscast recently, i guess there have been some deaths. i know that our attorney general

in the state of florida has been very aggressive. he is constantly looking at just trying to update that legislation which is obviously much quicker on the state level than the federal level. tell me about your thoughts. have been given issue is a and your thoughts on that. and then the second question -- why don't we just go with that one first. >> the issue of synthetics is a significant concern for us in terms of a number of different areas. one is, often people don't know what they're taking on what they're getting when they take these chemical substances. they are certainly not a consistency in terms of products, in terms of how they're using it. we see some significant issues around those areas. and so it is really an issue that we have been trying to focus on. clearly we have been working with our partners in the a in terms of trying to stay on top

of scheduling some of these substances, but congressman, quite honestly that is been difficult. as we continue to schedule more and more of these substances they can this always seemed to be one term in -- one step ahead of us. so we have been actually working with the dea and with the drug caucus in terms of, are there things that we can continue to do to stay ahead of some of the scheduling issues as it relates to some of the synthetic drug some? we have also seen and have been having conversations have implemented strategies to reduce the sailboard be caught playing a larger and larger role in terms of where people are getting substances from. so we've been actively engaged of payment processors. some of the large credit-card companies as well as paper altos see to what extent they can share formation with us as it

relates to some of these internet sites. to this point they have been concerned what the issue and willing to work with us in terms of some of those sites. it's been an issue look at in terms of the priorities and look at how we can continue to stay on top of some of the emerging issues. >> i'm assuming the states do have an advantage as far as these. so i'm assuming you are -- i mean, how good is your cooperation with the states? >> one of our components. they're work pretty closely with our state counterpart in terms of law enforcement and public health to look at things like model legislation and sharing best practices. we have a very good relationship with many of our state

counterparts on law-enforcement public outside. >> of the correctness. come back to the issue of monitor what start out of corals were as fresno, is that normal maturing, is there metrics? is there a system set up so that they can look at -- compare data or is it more of an informal monitor? and if it is a system that's already set up, it would be good -- how long it's torn to be, what can you tell me about that? >> so our office actually took the lead in convening some of our federal partners. we looked at each of the pardon of justice criteria as there were laid out and looked at what are our data sources. most of these are publicly available data sources that speaks to things like diversion to use and treatment admission,

things like a drunk driving arrests. so we will continue to monitor with our federal partners that dated to look at the picture of what happens with colorado and washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i have some questions that i will submit for the record. so let me just say in closing, thank you and your staff. you know, we talk about this fight against drugs. we refer to it often as a war against drugs. some people say we're winning. some people say we're not. we are certainly fighting the war. drugstore as we all know, have such a terrible impact on our country whether it's destroying lives, breaking of communities and families. so we want to work with you and your staff to try said when this war to keep america safe, to keep it healthy. thank you again for being here today, and we look forward to

working with you. this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. to of. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> coming up tonight here on c-span2 h book tv in prime-time with the focus on abc else. first, his book trident k-9 warriors.

>> tonight on c-span2 we will bring you speeches and discussions from the fifth annual women in the world summit including a pop singer leading protests in the ukraine, a conversation with hillary clinton, and firsthand stories of bombings and chemical attacks in syria. you can watch our coverage tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. and on c-span three american history td with a focus on reconstruction after the civil war. president ulysses s. grant during reconstruction and a history professor on rebuilding the south after the war. also, the session on the 14th

amendment which granted full constitutional rights to all u.s. citizens. american history tv tonight on c-span three. >> there is an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan. i would not be surprised if the information with regard to their recent activities. >> we were just talking about the fact that the interrogation last week of the stennis committee, senator goldwater ask some questions about the use of the carrier aircraft with their markings painted out. we figured that somebody over there has told them about that thing on wednesday morning. going to spring it. they will try to bring it in such a way that it looks like there was a u.s. air carrier and you were wrong and i was wrong in saying there wasn't. >> historic audio from the aftermath of the u.s. attempt to

overthrow cuban premier fidel castro saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio in washington d.c. at 90. one fm, online at c-span.org, and nationwide on ex-im satellite radio channel 120. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and keep public policy evidence and every weekend book tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable-tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable satellite provider. watch as in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> and each week in this segment of the washington journal we put a spotlight on of recent magazine piece. this week we are joined by keith johnson of foreign policy to talk about his recent report. his energy weapon. and mr. johnson, the energy

weapon here, the natural gas flowing from russia across europe. what has russia been doing with its natural gas supply since the start of this crisis. we continue to hear about it in ukraine. >> in terms of supply russia has not done anything yet. what they have done in the past since the fall of the soviet union russia has used a gas weapon on about 50 occasions. this is sort of straight out of the playbook of the post-soviet russian state, to use the fact that there is a huge supply of natural gas as a weapon to end funds what other states to. since the start of this crisis they have not shut off supply. they have threatened to, but the main thing they have done is jacked up the prices severely that the cash strapped detainee -- ukrainian government has to pay. that is as to the stress. >> why does this matter to the greater you? >> first of all, europe gets a

big portion of its gas from russia. you know, there are other suppliers, but the biggest single supplier for the european union is russia. and then about half of that goes across the ukraine. so depending on what happens in the dynamics between russia and ukraine, you could physically disrupt the amount of gas that gets into europe which matters for heating, electricity. it matters a little bit less now that we are in the springtime. in the past economic come in the winter. it's a little bit more acute. in april and may it's not such a big deal. this is something that everyone in europe is definitely on ten sucks about. >> less talk supply and demand. the first is the charge from the energy implementation, the largest proven natural gas reserve. russian gas reserves followed by iran, guitar, and the united states on down.

the russian gas supply, how bake is that on the world market? >> well, they are the player. they are the ones to supply your. small quantities that should be going east to china. that is one of the things that is under discussion this week and next month. they are one of the major gas suppliers. the u.s. in recent years you all probably heard about the natural gas boom, the u.s. is now producing as much gas as russia. that's true, but right now that is all for domestic consumption. to u.s. may start exporting gas to other markets. other than mexico. it's not really a big exporter. >> and talk us through the energy administration. they share of natural gas big singledestinationguest: gee yer.the

>> right. and you can see that germany is the big single buyer. many are 100 percent dependent on russian gas. you know, you look at the case of the baltic states, belarus b. the further west you get, the u.k., spain, france have all alternatives like north africa and norway. as you move from east to west, the dependence lessons a bit. host: explain how russia controls its gas supplies. guest: it is a state dominated gas giant. they have a very close relationship between the company and the kremlin. while being treated as a public company, it is very much used to support russian state policy. gastimes, the kremlin and company are in conflict. there will be times when vladimir putin has to say to

officials, i prefer you to do this or that. let's try to make a deal with the chinese and get some other markets so that we are not so dependent on a single set of customers. host: they have a board membership that letter has to go to? the dynamicst know over there exactly. it is definitely a situation unlike exxon mobil in the u.s. which works on its interest and the interest of its shareholders.

>> the question of this evening's debate. the mccain institute, we have a mission to pursue vigorous foreign policy debate about the choice of -- the choices facing our country and try to eliminate those for our public so that you all can choose what you think about what our country needs to do in the world. we have a mission of advancing character driven as a core element. it is one that is pursued by her our next generation leaders and leaders programs, some of whom are here tonight, which is a way of identifying emerging leaders around the world who have strong character and commitment to value and can bring about change in their own societies.

we support them and help them develop and do more in the world the mccain institute. this event is being broadcast on c-span, it is being live web cast, being seen by people in arizona, and there will be an opportunity for the audience to have questions. i urge you to think through what you would like to ask. let's make it very interactive. we hope to have a very dynamic program. i want to introduce our moderator, a repeat performance for her. she moderate the very first debate the we held over a year ago here in this very auditorium . [applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you for joining us tonight. what of lively and timely topic that we have tonight.

you would have thought that when we scheduled this debate we would be really in the thick of such a brewing crisis. under president vladimir prudent russia has clamped on democracy at home while exerting influence increasingly abroad. in 2008 we saw russia and a georgia. earlier this year russia invaded and occupied, and then next crimea and ukraine with barely a shot fired. he did this in the name of protecting russian-speaking ukrainians, and he is now encircling eastern ukraine and appears to be poised to do the same. in a recent speech to president's stated that other territories and russian-speaking peoples that are separate from the russian homeland, no one seems to know exactly what the president's ultimate ambitions are. are they to wreak havoc on his neighbors to make them an attractive to the west as a partner, are they to create the glory days of the soviet era with the new russia?

russia is an oil driven gas economy. yet many in the west, particularly the europeans and knowledge sanctions against russia will also hurt world markets with the president able to enact sufficient economic revenge. we must also keep in mind that the u.s. and its allies also need russian cooperation on many key international issues and crises from the civil war and syria to curbing the iranian nuclear ambitious international arms control. how do we manage this crisis and deal with the president? it is his russia on the wrong side of history off. a weak power that will eventually succumb to the greater forces of the 21st century, or is he making history , to continue to do so unless he is stops? is it time, again, to contain russia? that is our topic for tonight. my debaters tonight.

release some of the foremost thinkers on russia and ukraine and eastern europe. senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics since 2006. he has also worked as an economic adviser to russian, ukrainian, and other transition government's and is the author of 13 books. david kramer is president of freedom house which joined in 2010. prior to joining that he is senior fellow at the german marshall fund and also was served as undersecretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor. they will be will we will call the containers for the evening. those who feel what is -- feel that we need to relieve policy toward russia. thomas gramm is a managing editor -- editor in kissinger associates. he was also assistant on the

national security council and serving as the nsc. >> vice-president of the carnegie endowment where he oversees research in washington and moscow. pirated joining he was director of the rand corporation center. on the national security council staff so clearly a lot of knowledge here on this stage tonight. each side will have a five minute presentation on their argument. each side will have the three men never bottle. that i'm going to ask some questions, and then are going to open it up to you. hopefully we will be able to get

an engaging in lively discussion . so i think you'll kick this off. >> thank you very much. thanks you. thank you for inviting me to be a part of this panel with people of known for a long time. i was in kiev last week and had an opportunity to go down to a my son and see what is still an unbelievable and moving sight, barricades', tense still set up of people still sleeping their overnight. but also the memorials to the many people who tragically lost their lives shot down by snipers. it was a reminder to be a what those people from november-on were fighting for. they were fighting for aspirations to live in a free country, a democratic country, a ukraine and respect human rights and dignity, rule of law and an

end to corruption which has been such a cancer for the ukraine for so many years. essentially everything that vladimir proven is opposed to perry's use all of those things as a threat not only to his own rule but as they spreading countries along russia's borders as a threat to is interest there. people say the best way we can respond to russia is by helping the ukraine. that's true, financially, economically. i would like to see the provisions of military assistance, and tells cheering, but it's really hard for ukraine to focus on fixing its own problem when part of this country has already been annexed by russia, the parts are being destabilized by russian forces and have tens of thousands of troops along the russian ukrainian border. we have to accompany our efforts to assist ukraine with strong push back against what i would argue is the most serious threat to the international community.

in the face of naked russian aggression the west cannot simply sit by and engage in the business as usual kind of approach. we have said give meaning to the word unacceptable. if we say russian actions are unacceptable, what are we going to do so as not to accept them? that is why i argue and i think there's a very tough, hard-hitting sanction policy to push back on. the two rows of sanctions have done some further steps. it is past time for the west, the eu. canada as well. imposing additional hard-hitting tough sanctions. if we don't act decisively now our enemies will no longer fear us and our allies will no longer trust this. we have to red shift from a policy of reacting to events on the ground, waiting we will have

to preempt and try to prevent further actions. we also need, by the way, to continue implementation. the sanctions i have just been talking about would be for what russia is doing. the legislation which was passed 2012 imposes sanctions for abusive human rights. we have to do both at the same time. the proven regime in my view is a thoroughly corrupt and authoritarian regime that will do anything to stay in power. that's what we're seeing play out. this is an extension of domestic politics. the paranoia of which was heightened almost a decade ago with the evolution peaked again with events starting in november of last year when he saw hundreds of thousands of people turn out in the streets of ukraine. the crackdown that we are seeing inside ukraine is also being played out inside russia.

the worst crackdown against human rights is the breakup of the soviet union and possibly even further back. we are seeing his mind thinking he is winning. this is a dangerous mind set for us to be faced with. ukraine now, could be moldova very soon. could be la villa and estonia. sizable russian populations. not necessarily send troops across the border but would still try to destabilize the situation. how we and the wet dry as to the challenge so -- says as much about us as it says about russia. that is why we need to respond. we going to place business interest and principal, ahead of what we stand for in the west? against the false hope of further engagement or efforts for a strategic partnership. what kind of relationship can we expect with a regime that does not give a damn about the human rights of its own citizens but

then pursues under the patina of legitimacy and pursuing interests in russians or ethnic russians or russian speakers, whenever phrase you want to use in other countries because it is politically expedient and furthers its domestic interest. he has fabricated death threats to our russians in ukraine. so it is time to state the truth and let people know what's going on. to wrap up, now is no longer the time for wait and see. is the time for action, resolve, strong leaders, solidarity with ukraine, moldova, georgia. the leader of modern a authoritarianism which freedom house is focused on for a number of years. we need to see containment of his efforts. we need to push back against what he is trying to do. the end of the day this is about a fight of freedom. >> thank you. andrew will go now and talk

about our time is not to engage russia. >> thank you to the mccain institute and senator mccain for making that possible that we are all here. the talk about some of these issues. they are very important. no one in this room, i think, will want to sugar coat or excuse what russia is doing. there is no excuse for its aggression. so i don't think there's anyone in this room who is angry about what's happening. very worried that we may see these two very important countries in the heart of europe nosediving in the war. there may in fact be armed conflict between ukraine and russia over the course of the day. no one in this room wants to see the russian president had his vision of a more nationalistic

foreign policy with a national identity drives, you know, the goals of all statecraft and a national identity of russia. we have of long history in the 20th-century. the crane people have made. no one wants to see them not be the ones to decide their destiny of think anyone in this room was to see russia pay his price pfalz. that question is what the do. i hope we can talk about the options and the policy choices. if you go back to the early days of the cold war, 1947, president truman faced a really difficult situation with the possibility

of greece and turkey slipping into the russian ambassador. seeing huge devastation. so at that time they created the term in doctrine and put us on a course to build the institutions in the security mechanisms that followed through the cold war and help defend western europe against soviet encroachment. that was not -- that was a very difficult time in history. but get no one-size-fits-all portion. the tools and techniques will work today. they probably need to think about was different. so if you look what's going on right now, as divided as they were in the late 1940's very much in dynamic. understand the scale of what they're up against. there is real achievement between the u.s. and they're european partners and

understanding the scale of what we are dealing with, but the world is very different. russia is clearly more competitive. we are not -- in the 1940's to dictate the terms of russia's role in the international system to heat a similar view about defeating radical extremism, concerns about china's lives. so far as to assume across the board that our interests are inherently conceptual competitive may be a bit of an overstatement. there is no global, ideological competition in the wake. many portray that competition, western values and biculturalism . there is not a 2-camp world that is emerging.

use i tolerated in broad numbers. so for me the question is why does it work? why does it work in the cold war and why might not work today? containment worked in the cold war because we had a credible military threat to use force to defend our trading partners in europe, asia, and elsewhere. today i am not sure if anyone in this room believes we make a threat to use our military and will be a will to defend each and every country that russia is causing trouble for. it is a large scale a open ended commitment that we're talking about. containment also worse because we have strong allies support and partners around the world. you look at the way the europeans are responding to this crisis, china and others are responding, you have to ask yourself, where are the partners for the united states? can we succeeded we do it? i have my doubts. finally, a container work because of the strong domestic

support. the u.s. people were willing to defeat soviet expansion is at great personal cost in terms of our defense in support around the world for economic development. and not sure after 13 years of war with the american people, we look at the situation are willing to make countless sacrifices. with that at like four to this discussion. >> thank you very much, andrew. now the rebuttal. each team will have three minutes. >> thank you very much. thank-you to the institute's. yes. this is a debate we need to have . first of all what kind of power is russia today? you seem to suggest that we don't know what russia wants. it is very clear that russia

today is a vision test our. president to and has said and repeated that the end of the soviets union was the end of the great geopolitical catastrophe in the last century. and this wonderful article two weeks ago, one of the many propagandists saying that hitler was goodbye until 1939 when he gathered austria peacefully. and this is the most official newspaper. so what has happened is that he himself made the grant beach,

the importance of our russian-speaking people. so the question is one, how can we stop? essentially there are two answers to this question. one is that we stop them with war. because so little that the elaborate on. all we really throw in everything in terms of sanctions in order to stop. can be stopped unless sanctions? and not sure. but i would certainly try to do something rather than talking about the possibility of sanctions. let me take out how strong is russia. russia is much week. russia shares of global gdp today is less than 3%. and if you begin gdp 6% less

than 110. even one-third of the eu expenditure. is it tolerable? you bet. if you have pressure from the international system or if you simply sanctioned the big state of russia, this will hit russia very hard. already the market fluctuation during march, 2% of russia's gdp this year. russia can easily begin to match more. where does the relevant russian technology come from? the united states. how can rush to develop its oil and gas in the future? through cooperation.

most important. and with u.s. service companies and u.s. oil technologies. russia is much more vulnerable when we think. and one-third of the russian military equipment is dependent. so register is -- president puente is heavily overplaying his hand. only the foolish would not stand up to have. >> thanks. tom will bring us out men and we will open it up. >> we are home already. let me thank you as well for moderating this event, inviting us. it really is an important topic. the past 40 years, but it's nice to see that it is an important topic once again and we can

gather such an audience to talk about this. i think the important question that we need to ask right up front is what we try to achieve. what we want for the future? what do we want for ukraine? we are all very passionate about the investment of democracy in the world. one is the ukraine. have a chance to develop a full blooded democracy in their own country. the to develop a national consensus about where their country is going. and they need to be able to put together the foundation of of prosperous economy going forward russia to a certain extent to this point poses a threat to all of those, but also if you look at where ukraine is located, it is also a country that is going to be important to ukraine's ability to build a prosperous economy going forward. reno the dependency.

i'll and gas. gas in particular. the question you have to ask is how you going to build this prosperous economy unless russia is part of the solution? how do we get russia to be a part of the solution? a thing that is the question that we need to focus on now. had we get to be a part of the solution? the second question that we have to ask ourselves is whether we have prepared to do and in particular was sacrifices we are prepared to make in order to achieve this vision? my colleagues have argued for tougher sanctions. they have argued that it is going to be easy because the american economy is weak because russia is corrupt. i would argue that the sanctions will only buy time. that's a question that we all have to ask ourselves.

where does this rank in our priorities? what sacrifices are we prepared to make as a country in order to see these goals achieved in the ukraine? or our leaders prepared to ask us to do in order to advance the cause of democracy and freedom in ukraine. and then finally, we need to take a hard look at the question of ukraine. where is ukraine at this point? well, it has been strengthening of the past few weeks. how quickly the government in ukraine disappeared. the lack of authority. a country that we thought was unified is beginning to break down into its constituent parts. the debate over what ukraine is is one that the ukrainians need to have and have not had the answer to yet. will we need to do with russia, i think, is to take the space in which the ukrainians and have that debate in a productive way. in order to do that the united

states needs to combine not only resistance to what the russians of up to the spot. to some extent find a way to accommodate there interests of that the ukrainians themselves will have a more peaceful environment in which to work out the differences. >> thanks. all right. i'm going to start with a few questions as moderator's prerogative. a reminder that we are on twitter. -tag is in i. you have any questions, if you are watching online, please leave them to us and we will see if we can get on as many as we can. now going to start with david and anders. as you said, russia is a much weaker power. the military purchases much less than. economically not as strong, but it does seem to be that russia is still holding a lot of cards year. economic sanctions, although right now fairly weak. don't seem to be deterring him. he has economical displayed

whether with ukraine, island gas to europe in trade. at the same time as weak as you say he is he is keeping the west of balance, and the initiative seems to be with the rest -- west scrambling to catch up. does not seem to care that he is not in it al qaeda. always thought it was a bit of a club for dilettantes, if you will. and it is cozying up to the bridge countries. it is still in bed g20, a permanent member of the un security council. so who is holding the cards your ? >> well, it is easy to confuse. this is what i would argue the, the foolishness and, of course, the vacuum in the west it can act.

saddam hussein, an ex kuwait. annexation. the voice of the west will come up. the russian troops moving into eastern ukraine. this is totally unacceptable. he has violated all kinds of international agreements. everything that has been for the last 20 years an agreement with an. at think it was she mentioned the non-proliferation regime. ukraine was the main sector, the

non-proliferation regime. agreed to give us nuclear arms. it was the third strongest in clear power in the world. and what happened then, well, brought up the agreement which was only a memorandum, not a treaty. the u.s., u.k., and russia a sure ukraine that it would have the security, the national integrity. we know that they were absolutely nothing. if i were wrong and i would say the nuclear arms as quickly as possible after the important lesson that we have learned from the ukraine. at think they're thinking the same thing. they also gave up their nuclear arms. ..

>> as you look at the west, what you don't have is unity. biting sanctions, talking to the germans about biting nations, talking to the english about london. the reason that we don't have sanctions and that we have gone after individual as well. they have very few assets and those who don't travel to the united states all that often. but we can agree that what is happening in the ukraine demand sacrifices and equal sacrifices and we are dealing with the problems and there is a leader in the western world who has yet stood up and made a forceful campaign as to why the population should make a

sacrifice. >> since you have finished, in 30 seconds what you think the endgame of president vladimir putin is? is a kind of to sow discontent before the election? or does he want to annex the territory? >> i think that is probably one of the cardinal problems

>> in the case of this, andrew is right. there are most of us that don't know what he had in has in mind and that is why i don't want to be in a reactive mode. i want us to be proactive and to preempt and prevent what vladimir putin is trying to do and tom is also right that there isn't unity among western allies. but that is why u.s. leadership is so critical. let's remember that in the first quarter of this year was a little bit more and the stock market is declining and the russian economy is that knitting and predictions are actually turning into predictions of the crime and that's why he wants to deflect attention and the reason

it is so possible is that it is so easy and it was baldness. if they were going back to russia, i bet you that it would have been 70% support. the few people that are speaking out, they are getting fired from universities, news agencies are getting shut down. they are being threatened and ousted, if you will. it takes an incredibly courageous role these days in moscow to criticize what vladimir putin is doing and that is reflective of the ugly environment that he has created in the 14 years that he's been in power. and so it is part of the west to stem of those people in the van with others and i never said sanctions would be easy. but i don't see an alternative to hit the sanctions right now. >> do think that some of these options besides sanctions, what nato is considering good they

further antagonize their? >> i am proudly part of this out here. we don't know what vladimir putin my plan. but it is part of what this vision is for russians. as if he hasn't talked in the past two years about what his vision is for the former soviet space and he has talked about the creation of eurasian union's and read gathering of all of the former soviet to some end, that is owing to be dominated by russia and it is an entity that doesn't make sense. and so the ultimate goal of for vladimir putin is to bring the ukraine and russia's orbit as part of this eurasian unit. i also believe that he understands that this is something that he is incapable of doing at this point and the

goal in the immediate term is to always create some leverage over the formation of the government so that the government that ultimately forms at a minimum neutral and not hostile directions. so the game here is where the ukraine over the long-term and we are in the initial phases of that. and the second point i would make is that there is a genuine pride in russia today and it's not because of crimea but because i have been in moscow over the past couple of months a couple of times and what really disturbs him across the political spectrum is the unrelenting criticism of russians up to the olympics. and the it was followed by spectacular olympics show and we

have this operation in crimea. they're on a roll company fielded, and they feel that they have been treated over the least couple of months in this way. it's not only vladimir putin but russians that feel pride once again. >> picking up on that comment i know that you guys want to respond. we are looking forward to this. do we have ourselves, a little bit in the west to blame a little bit for this russian insecurity? if you look at the years after the soviet collapse, there is outside powers, the united states, nato expansion. then you saw islamic groups moving in. and you don't have to be a quasi- dictator like he is still nervous about what happened in p.m. democratically elected leader ousted by a mob. it's a bad precedent the matter

how you slice it. especially when the u.s. cheering on the protesters it was cookies. but i thought it was nicholas. if you look at the region, it is a little bit legitimate. >> russia's most stable secure borders are with those countries that are members of the u.n. and nato and it has not posted a thread that bolstered security and it was cited in the 2010 military doctrine is the gravest danger to russia. which is utter nonsense. and that we have actually and

the issue about extremism, let's remember that russia's attack again in 96 and 1999 and they are the ones that created the extremist threat the bombs that were dropped and they have no one else to blame but themselves. and then vladimir putin took it over and that is how he came to power. lets not forget. so the point about ukrainian neutral situation, i really hope the days when russia and the united states decide the orientation and memberships in organizations or other countries are over. the ukraine decide if it wants to be neutral.

the u.s. actively participated. >> i would say that the u.s. was asleep. >> but after those protest started, you bet. so they represent our interests and we don't want the ukraine to join the west and orient itself to the exclusion of good relations with russia. geography alone dictates that the ukraine has to have good help with russia. but if they are led to believe that they are a democratically elected president who is not permanently endowed with legitimacy, he forfeited this for many reasons that we can get into. but what the protesters have represented reflected the u.s.

interest. so we did wake up belatedly unsupported what they called and then they ordered the use of force on december 30. that is when we should have had it with top hard-hitting sanctions which i think would've brought the machine down like a house of cards and may have saved over 100 lives in february we had acted more firmly than and perhaps wouldn't have this whole crisis that we have right now. >> can i jump in here? >> yes. thank you very much. because one of the questions that we have to ask ourselves is that we the people represent and these include the people that have died in the last few days, all the way through eastern ukraine and central and western ukraine.

and it has been last 25 years is not longer. so why are the easterners in the ukrainians resisting on this point and we have something that we are really looking at that is supportive and the whole european orientation, for example. but if you look at the example of this before the latest events, they were split on whether they wanted to be part of the eu order this and we asked about nato between them. it includes eastern ukraine and western ukraine. and when you look at the composition of the government,

as interim government that we supported, it is dominated by people in the west. there are very few easterners involved. so the question we have to ask ourselves is how do we create a situation in which the legitimate voice of the ukrainian people is part of this is a sort out this. >> we are re-legitimizing through democratic process the people doublespeak for the ukrainian people as a whole. >> yes, it is very easy. what you said is straightforward

and the problem is with the ukraine from his point of view is exactly what you say. the ukraine had a big democratic rate through they wanted to find the corruption and putin represents much of this with the corruption and he acted out of desperation. >> is about the right? i mean, there are many ukrainians and russians speaking ukrainians do that feel that they are treated in these regions. >> there's a lot of emotions about this. >> is it advocated?

>> is that we must not have this full state and it is where we have a dominant russian population and so it is not a significant discrimination and you can compare with how national minorities are treated in russia. >> the international republican institute shows 74% of the russian speaking population in east and south ukraine said they were not under pressure of threat because of their language and identity. underscores that latimer could have fabricated this and it is baloney.

and we should put ourselves in their shoes. so why is it that those who went to the theater instead of the city government? because they didn't live there. they were not from their. >> let's move on. >> okay, we are moving on. >> andrew, i think we have exhausted this. but i want to get to the audience. one more question. we talked about how we need russian cooperation on international issues. issue is russia a credible partner? because if you look at what is happening in the kind of double game with supporting a political

solution and that the same time continuing to arm the bashar al-assad regime, there other areas on the world stage and can president vladimir putin be trusted and are we getting such great operation that it is worth kind of not giving them a pass, certainly, but treating them a little bit more in this way? >> i think the short answer is no. what we need to do it that back and say what is the u.s. russian relationship about. so is one of my colleagues and friends likes to say, it's a lot like the tv show seinfeld and relationship about nothing. and it's been that way for quite some time. we saw some low hanging fruit and important achievements in the first couple of years years of the obama administration they ran out of gas in part because there was an a clear agenda for u.s. russian relations. so it really has been a

relationship where we have disengaged and we have basically said that we are not interested in we don't see much value in this. but that can be an unwise copulation. the danger from that policy is that now we are in a crisis and it would be nice to have access to a russian counterparts to try to de- escalate and we don't have the ability to. so all of these specific issues on counterterrorism and it is spotted. so you can't point to particular issues and we will come closest to that and it's on the so-called process and that potential is there. so there is talk and there are issues that are out there in the discussion about a barter deal where russia could end up marketing about half of these to the tune of about $500,000 per day. things like that could be very damaging it's a question were

russia will be an enabler and the facilitator and it's not the driver of success. >> is a part of this operation because of our lack of engagement? or is it because at the end of the day the russian interests don't always align with the u.s. interests? >> since the cold war ended we have seen the ups and downs and it has rained incredibly volatile. we have all served in government and in both ends of that dynamic where the highs are high and low skill really low. this is the lowest that it has been or is this basic question of what is latimer putin doing. they took this step and it created a whole set of serious questions about the idea that this is part of addition with all of these things are incredibly destabilizing in

western europe and embracing some of these ideological points by the far right. and this is a genie that is being let out of the box or. >> until latimer putin bailed us out on chemical weapons issue, russia's role on syria was nothing but negative and destructive and it wasn't just talking u.n. security council resolutions that selling and providing arms and weapons for bashar al-assad to slaughter syrians. russia was guilty and 80 and abetting that slaughter in that massacre. and so russia has been, in my view, counter to our interests in syria and the chemical weapons issue isn't even going while because the weapons haven't even been turned over on schedule the way that they were. so i think the problem there, russia is also talking about holding more nuclear reactors, which also is used to run counter to the united spirit.

5% reliance on more northern distribution network and it's still going to keep going down and down is withdraw from afghanistan. it is increasingly irrelevant. entry use the phrase we are running out of gas and the reason is they are in an authoritarian corrupt regime and we are a democratic society. so by definition we are going to run out of gas in our interests are just going to no longer coincide. so it shouldn't be a surprise but the weight of the regime treats its own people is indicative of how it's going to be and they trample their own rights and they pretend to profess to care about human rights of ethnic russians in the ukraine and elsewhere when all they are doing is using it as a pretext to cover to destabilize in the neighboring countries territory. >> okay, we are going to open it up to questions. i'm going to ask you if you would keep your questions concise. if you have an affiliation, please acknowledge it and keep

your question to just a question and not a comment. i will start with a question from twitter if you think about your questions. so from this hash tag -- [applause] >> are we supposed to define what that means? [applause] >> is open to interpretation. it plays into what you were just hang. so can nato undermine vladimir putin domestically? and this person means the crimean invasion, it hasn't solved the human rights crisis in russia. so should nato be taking steps committee's destabilize the russian regime or to work towards better human rights in russia? it goes to the question about whether they should become an anti-russian alliance. >> is that for me? >> when we start with tom.

>> okay, anna will disagree with me you can take two minutes each. >> we can take one minute each. >> question is were we trying to achieve and how do you get that. we would all like to see russia be a full-blooded democratic society that has western values and it isn't. but the question is what can outsiders do that is positive and constructive in that process, which we all know at the end of the day has to be something that the russians do themselves. we can position ourselves in a way that narrows this for the types of development that we like to see inside russia, or we can position ourselves to kind of open it. and my sense is that there's a lot of pressure that we have put, explicitly putting pressure when in fact plan to the fears

of the kremlin has and create a much more repressed society inside and it would also not necessarily a few people that are courageous but the broad mass of people that you actually need to create a democratic society who don't want to be seen as traitors to their own country and as agents of an influence. so there is a delicate question here that we have to answer. how we go about treating this country and how we position ourselves so that the people who aren't heroes and the people who actually make societies work well in the long run, that they have the courage in order to pursue the types of policies and democratic types of practices. it's a generational type of thing and it's not something that we are going to affect dramatic we in the space of a few years.

>> until we also need to remember is that people have a monolithic view of what russia's transmission is and it's about the disappointment that started in 1991 user and these are in cities are more than a million like ma tao. the state is basically the deciding force in the economic vitality largely through the defense industry and we need to remember that russia is ultimately and we are creating a mythologize version of black-and-white from all of that that has really served us in this way.

>> i am interested in going after those that abuse antidemocratic behavior. there are people responsible for killing warriors in jail. let's remember under article five and it is absolutely essential in these countries are fearful and they should be. because in part we don't know where this is going next. and i think nato has an obligation to prepare and beef up and solidify the defenses of these countries. but what is also engaging with

russia and look at what it has gotten us. what good has it done? and i don't expect russian to be like a western value country. but it doesn't live up to abide by these issues and it comes back to the corner have tried to raise and so what are we going to do about