detailed and rigorous program high to the legalization program. most recently on the border security issues as it passed the senate just a couple of years ago you saw massive influx of border resources. let me put an asterisk by the. i don't know if that's necessary the best policy but it's only as an indication that there was a trend to get out of the senate that it needed to track towards the right. actually i think those changes as significant as they are pale in comparison to the policy development in the house of representatives on this issue. i still remember when i started up on the hill in 2005-2006 when i felt like we're just getting going on looking at these issues, and representative sensenbrenner pushed through in basically about a week they built that made every undocumented immigrant a felon for being in the united states. he said that's going to be the right sideline of this debate

is. that framed the 2006-2007 discussion. so just to cause right there again. during the debate less than a decade ago the real substantive discussion in the house of representatives was not whether they should be deported, and would assume they would all be deported from is also that they would all be found to be felons and criminals as we deported them. now you advance the debate over the summer and one, the debate was being led enemies coordinated by leadership and the house of representatives. that's a significant shift in ownership of the issue. you saw that in the first package of bills passed a bill to do with the agricultural workers come inside build to do with high skilled workers. and though we never got sort of, they never lifted the curtain on their final bill to deal with the children and undocumented, there was a complete absence from leadership and most of that party about deporting all

11 million. so to go from everyone being felons to just a question of everyone being able to stay of what's going to be the order of how am going to package these pieces, i think you just about all of it as i do know if there's that many major policy issues that have seen that much of a shift in discussion in that short of a time. that's again a very emotional debate. so if you take stock on the policy front of where we are today over the last 10 years, it's in my view that both sides, both parties and both chambers are really within striking distance on policy issues. there's always going to be specific provisions that are difficult to bridge, and it's usually because there's both a mix of emotion and policy and operational issues.

to throw an it out there relateo enforcement of issue of state and local, the goal of state and local officials in immigration enforcement scheme, there's few things that are more complicat complicated. there's a few things that have as many interest groups, the operational challenges for the agencies are tremendous. and i think that's an area where you still have more work to be done to make that a better policy discussion to bridge the divide. but i think that's becoming increasingly the exception rather than the rule. the sidelines of the debate has moved close together and it's no longer policy issues that are keeping these things are moving forward. so that then raises the question as we look this year, you know, what did we bump up against. if you're feeling so confident about the policy movement, what did you bump up against? really you bump up against some political realities in the house of representatives about the incentives that the representatives faced in taking any action on the issue.

just some hard facts, as people became more educated about the policy aspects of immigration, they also became much more educated about the political aspects of immigration. there's imam touched a lot more pollsters, a lot more information being funneled to the members as if i were whether to act on it. edges to take a few statistics that at least about to me for the house of representatives, there's only 24 districts, republican district, 24 republican districts where no more than 25% of the population is hispanic. so let's start from the premise that on an issue that is most important to the hispanic population, only 24 districts is there even more than 25%. out of the 24 districts, the key statistic, only four were carried by obama. a large part of that. i'm a native texan but a lot of those digits are in texas. what it means is when you look at the house of representatives,

there were only four districts where president obama won, and where there's more than 25 recent hispanic. so there's very few locations where on this issue there's a lot of incentive for them to take action. and one thing you see that bump up against is it doesn't absence of a strong incentive and then the people who feel strongly about this issue against taking action are very vocal, very organized, well-funded and a very passionate about. so on a political front we've seen that bump up against. so take just two quick examples oof republicans and resolve that split. europe ted poe in texas, 31% hispanic population but romney won by 27% in the district. so it is a core republican district with a lot of opponents so taking any action at all on immigration other than enforcement, and he has not been a supporter of moving forward. representative denham in

california, 40% hispanic and a district that obama actually won. he's a republican in a district where there's a lot of support and design as republicans actually bucking leadership and putting pressure on boehner to take action as republican. so both of them in districts summer percentage levels, but different political makeups. so their distance and actually shaping whether and how to take action. so stepping back, you have a very close proximity on a policy realm but there hasn't been success yet on finding the right incentives in those districts, in those republican districts, to incentivize them to take action against that small group that's very vocal about opposing any action whatsoever. and i think those forces, all the progress that we've made over they lead to a situation where everyone was pretty happy

in july than to say we want to take our action but we don't this show need a path available before we leave town. >> lynden walked us through a lot of reasons why we're in a position today where we don't have legislative activity on immigration and even though it's a topic that's been screaming out for reforms, of one form or another for many, many years. and i think a lot of those reasons suggest that we may be in a situation sometime to come and what that is like it is the space place across headlines and talk shows and so today, which is what is the reach of the executive authority to take steps on its own without additional legislative authority to tackle some of these immigration policy measures but that's the debate that's going to be i think fascinating to watch in the next few weeks. i want to just draw back for a

moment and remind yourselves that this is not a debate that is new. it's the one that the immigration agency, wherever it was housed, in the executive branch was faced and struggled with and grapple with in various ways for decades. sometimes as a result of congressional in action as is the case today. sometimes as result of congressional action and what to do in response to what congress chose to do in the immigration sphere. i think it might be instructive for us to go back and look at one key example of that, but follow was legislative enactments that james walked us through, the 1996 law. as james pointed out, the 1996 law was one focused exclusively on strengthening the ability of the united states to enforce its immigration rules. it followed a period of highly

public efforts to enter the u.s. illegally under spectacular circumstances, ones that grab a lot of news attention. there were these huge, rusty ships being brought from china loaded with folks who try to make it to the shores of the u.s. and that and similar kinds of news clips drove a debate over how to strengthen enforcement and that's largely what congress did. in some pretty for moist in 1996. -- some pretty firm ways. the combined effect of a lot of what congress did with the enactment was to enhance or expand the rules that would make a person the portable from the united states, and the group of people who could be deported even though those are lawful permanent resident for laundries of time and it expanded the kind

of offense that could cause a person to be, be portable to more and more what many would consider minor offenses, and often without regard to windows offenses were committed or conditions arranged a restricted the ability of immigration judges to basically grant clemency of a summit tuesday based on specified equitable considerations. it highly restricted that authority to immigration judges and removal process. as a result in the wake of the 1996 act, some of the news reporting begin to be taken over by instances of deportations that struck a lot of people in the public as extreme. and so one of the things that, i remember one in particular, there was an interview of a woman with a georgia accent who certainly wouldn't strike you as

a foreign national, and had been a permanent who all of a sudden he came deportable because of a bar altercation that led to an arrest and a plea, you know, back in times when that plea would've been a smart idea as a criminal law matter, and when the immigration consequences but immigration consequences arose. so these kinds of quite extreme situations grab a lot of public attention which resulted in many respects on pressure back on congress. you into 41996, and that led to pressure on the agency's in which congress said, and god, you know, you guys are using their heads about how to enforce these rules and you don't know when to lighten up. you can make decisions about when to use your enforcement authorities, like any police force who can decide when to pull over someone for going 70 miles an hour or when not to

pull someone over for going 70 miles an hour. you guys need to make, to do a better job of making responsible prosecutorial decisions. and that led to actually pretty cognitive debate within the agencies. the a lot within the agency who were sank hang on, it's you, congress, who chose to make the decision of immigration judge could no longer grant relief from these situations but it is you guys who decided that even these kinds of lesser crimes, and no matter when you're committed, and no matter when the committee commented that it was committed by someone who's not a permanent resident could result in deportation. how are we, the agency, who are supposed to follow the law, supposed is i went to north and when not to? that was a strong prevailing view in the agency. that said, i think it was correct what congress was telling us, that we weren't doing a careful enough job of collecting and understanding what the agencies prosecutorial discretion was. and exercise at it a more

systematic, organized policy driven way. and that led to an effort to try to do that. and that legal analysis took place, policy decisions to place. there was an effort to spread throughout the agency a method for making those kinds of prostitute discretions more carefully. i do want to claim by any means that that was the only time when most important time the fed exercise to boost the there was an important one in 2010. a lot of that's been going on since. you can trace back decades way before the late 1990s and see the same effort being undertaken by the agencies. i think a couple of lessons come out of it. one is it's hard to get that right but you have to keep doing it if you could do it properly in the first place. it's hard, and even if you hit on the right policy way of doing it, it's hard to get philosophical and operational

buy-in throughout the agency in such a way it can be carried out on the ground. and then another lesson is that i think the congressional and public mood about the extent to which that authority can and should be exercised can change. that was a scenario where congress was saying to the agency, you are not doing this one enough and you should use your prosecutorial discretion much more broadly. by the way congress wasn't saying that to any kind of legislative enactment. curious how that took place. there was a letter signed by huge long list of members of congress, both parties from most conservative to the most liberal. and that was an interesting example of common number one sort of the combined viewpoint, a common viewpoint on this issue of increased prosecutorial discretion between the right and left. number two, it's an example of one of those kinds of things we see happening in immigration law a lot and i think maybe more frequently than other areas of

lawmaking or policymaking through other than legislative enactment or statutory enactments or regulatory promulgation's. there's much more formal pressure driven way. it was congressional offices writing a letter, but the oversight responsibility can be very forceful to these kinds of context. but that was the prelude to the debate we are seeing today, were i think it's fair to say that the strongest voices in congress are those that are turned executive branch or lease the most forcefully expressed voices in congress are those were saying to the executive branch, you can't do this, you should go farther, we will stop you from doing this. and we see particular bills that are moving through that would curtail or limit, take away the executive for to exercise prosecutorial discretion in some of the ways that are being discussed.

it's my own to actually the president and the second homeland security have a great deal of discretion to do a lot on immigration matters with her own authority without additional legislative authority. i think that's true with as a constitutional matter and i think that's true as a matter of the statutory authorization to the second homeland security to carry out the immigration statute. but that's a debate that one way or another is blazing right now and is going to blaze even more hotly over the weeks ahead. one last point i want to make on this topic is to suggest, if you step back and look at the pattern that lynden walked us through of the reasons why we haven't been able to get immigration reform, you know, i think that pattern comes from dynamics between the parties commandant amos between the chambers, a public split in this country. some of the congressional

district issues that lynden hit upon, and from my perch, i see a possibility where that situation or the stalemate continues to exist for a pretty long period of time into the future. and so i wanted to just come in and in this section comments, by suggesting that unless congress can become a more active policymaking entity, i think there may be a strong prospect in this debate about what is the reach of executive authority? what can be president or what can the agencies do on their own without additional legislative activity to solve -- to stall the politicians arrived they did in the country is likely to be one debate that is focused not just on the immigration area, not just on homeland security area, but across the spectrum of federal policymaking for a while in the future by presidents of both parties. >> thank you, bo.

i will turn back to lynden first to see if he has any thoughts and reflections of them have a couple questions myself. >> i think, sadly, i think bo is right that i don't think we can see the dynamics any legislative body changing anytime soon. this has been a long haul and a lot of effort and a lot of resources spent to try and change that political dynamic. i think we're doing well on the policy front but the political dynamic is not going to change anytime soon. all of us absurd in the administration have a lot of sympathy and understanding to the fact that these are not the radical issues about how the executive branch should act. so whether it's dealing with the children on the border or just day-to-day issues in the removal process or legal immigration policymaking, the immigration apparatus is big and real and affect people every single day. so i don't think it's a purely

academic question about where those boundaries lie, sometimes there's bigger questions and smaller questions and try to find some of those but it is a day to the issue that the lawyers and the government must sort through. so absent that formal legislation, i think bo is correct but you see a lot of informal communications and both sides trying to shape how they go about doing what they do everyday through letters and the pressure and funding. >> and given that dynamic you both laid out, then are there key sort of points that you think when you are looking at the executive action over what congress is sorted as you say, lynden, in one aspect within striking distance on policy issues becoming more centrist, lucarelli seems it's almost created that very long stalemate possibly. does that spell then for the executive branch or other means to take action in certain areas

to sort of take that out of the purview of congress? >> that's a good question. i mean, there might be places where things are going well and so congress is going to give the agency a longer leash and the agency will find its feet and start to do things. so if you take a business immigration, for example. many of the initiatives that this administration has been working on for starters an entrepreneur's and exploring new policies and developments, you haven't really seen a lot of pushback at all, if anything. there's a chorus of support from a wide spectrum on the hill. answer think that has allowed them the space. those are areas that are part of every single piece of legislation as well. so there is a tremendous amount of overlap between the legislative and executive branch

body and yet they're still finding an easy piece to both pursue those goals simultaneously. so there are some bright lights where they will give them room. side don't think it is one thing to say, i don't think there's a uniform statement that any action on the executive branch and immigration will always receive a negative reaction from a poster to places where they will hold their guns. >> i would agree with it. i did was to suggest, but in the executive decides it can and should do, is not a question of taking it out of the purview of congress. first of all there are certain things the agency, a lot of things the agency clearly cannot be in immigration realm without congressional authority. it can get permanent residence system is not eligible under the statute. it can't by itself change in america limits that were established by congress. there are a lot of things the agency i think could do under their own authority to differently understand how those

systems work, even differently from how they have done it for decades. i think there are things the agencies can do to ameliorate some of the consequences of some of the negative consequences that result from those limits. but the bottom line is there are certain things the agencies clearly cannot do. by certain i mean lots. i don't think it's a question of taking things out of the purview of congress to i think it's a question of where there is space for the agencies to act to make what it perceives as improvements within the limits of the authority it's been given. and i think that, even now the debate is not we are going to do this and you can't stop us. i think it's clearly congress can stop the agency, it can rearrange the authority it has given out. i think it's more a question of what is the agencies are able to do and should do in the absence

of for the activity to address, and congress, to address the fact that lynden, i was trying to only two and lynden took a point on. is that these issues arise every day. their stuff happening out there, choice to maybe, issues to be dealt with. that's the question as to what extent can the executive take action today, next month, next year to address those if congress can't. >> there is at least one panel later today that will delve further into that question. speaking of questions, i know that our time, we are right at time. i know we started just a few minutes later, but would like to see, joe, if we may, in the open for questions our panelists for maybe four or five -- okay, 10 minutes. we have microphones up here, and so if anyone has a question, please come up to the mic so folks can respond.

[inaudible] >> good morning. i don't think i need to announce who i am but this is a great panel so far. in terms of what you've been able to squeeze in to the huge amount of issues into a small space. thank you very much for your presentation today. s.b. 744 has a lot in it. and i know on the outside i hear sort of a push toward maybe dividing it up as i understand and maybe passing some portions of s.b. 744 on the outside. i just wonder if you touch on some o of those parts, but there are some parts that could be passed or there could be sort of a collaborative effort between both sides of congress, perhaps even miraculously before the end of the year. so anyway, just if you touch on that i would appreciate it. thank you.

>> i mean, i think that's a great question, joe, and i think what it gets back to is the point that lynden was alluding to earlier on, that in many respects the policy differences in the integration space really are narrowing. that's not to underscore the critical ones that remain. but just to take the question of what to do with the undocumented, i think what onces seen to take shape and the dynamics between the two chambers was that it was a very, very, very broad release on the senate side, and then a far narrower willingness to do that on the house side, but movement of the discussion toward a potential result in which they would be, there would be a legalized status, supported broadly among the undocumented with certain subcategories, we

refer to as the dream act kids, for example, give it away to achieve permanent residence in the wake the senate that would've done much more broadly. there's strong feelings on both sides about what's wrong with either those two approaches. that's an area where i think you saw the beginning of what could have been a policymaking coming together in this one critical area. and again, that's an area, that was the wedge back in 2006, amnesty, and that totally changed in a row to short period of time but i think that's a good example of the way that the two sides were coming together. i think the area of what to do with importing high skilled areas, that's another area where i think that there was the beginnings of a very significant coming together and a recognition there's got to be more permanent residents allowed to those who are here

contributing, bringing, have gained education for who are bring their intellectual talents to this country but otherwise we will lose to others. that was the theme that became i think very widely accepted. the work critical debates continuing about what did and some of the non-immigrant programs and what kind of protection were necessary for u.s. workers, which ones were unproductive, which ones were needed. those bits were going on pretty strongly and will again when issues come back up. again that wasn't anywhere think it was a coming together, and you can go through the list. there are more of those but i think they bumped up against what lynden was describing, a political dynamic that stopped the show. >> i would just say, joe, i think there's one here in washington, d.c. that, one aspect of immigration bill is not going to go because others

will hold it up. and then you've got an interest group issue that's preventing any bill from going for. and i think probably a little too much is made of that in the realm of. i think one positive aspect of the debate on the policy front that i've seen over 10 years and certainly a lesson from the bills that you talk about going back to the legalization bill in the '80s and then enforcement bill in the '90s is that the provisions are inextricably connected. and there's no way to peel a part many o of the bill to a the bill to a just thing of the 60,000-foot level but if you want to press the undocumented, you really do need to improve the channel for legal immigration to come into just oath on a temperate basis and on a permanent basis. and tried to do one or the other end isolation is just going to come up with a system even more. i would say that's an area where even the voices and the strong

voices is a we need to do something first, they are saying first because of political reasons but they are not saying first from a policy front. that discussion on the i think has become better informed as the debate has gone on. and so i think in terms of the house or senate moving individual pieces, i think it's going to be a difficult issue both because of the political dynamics but also just the real substantive policy considerations that if you try and do one piece without at least the related pieces, it just won't work. and support for in a tough in front will not be there. >> great. thank you for sharing those reflections. i think we may even have time for one more question. >> i also reiterate what was said. not to in essence to discount a

policy. i want to focus on the legislative director at uscis as a moderator, and also in your new role, which is if there is no legislation in 10 days of legislative session that we have left to pass anything, there are going to be immigration going forward anyway. there's going to be issues on the ground right now. ..

>> this is an agency, it's an operation that is used to having to administer many different, if you will, product lines. i mean, they are people and benefits to those people, but as was reflected. but at the end of the day, so to speak, our folks are very geared towards that idea on a day-to-day. they are processing millions of applications. that's not just a paperwork point, that's a high level of complexity on background checks to tune of i think it's about 165,000 national security checks that we do every day. and they are used to sort of a flow of work and process and trying to adjust resources. and so, you know, anytime something's discussed on the hill or otherwise reflecting that there's going to be a change to that, i think that,

you know, you can always expect a move like for all of us is you want to be to ready for it. so that's not -- keeping it at a high level to what you're saying, but it's keeping in mind the background of the agency such that new product lines, changes to the product lines, changes to how we have to administer the benefits for these faces of immigration, we always have to be ready for that. and know that we have a current day job and other things may be added or subtracted from that. but i also would say by observation, bo in particular and lyndon, but i think uscis is in a different space than the inf days from staffing and resources and capacity, sort of handling those benefits versus the times perhaps back in the ins days when it was incorporating in some ways what lyndon mentioned, incorporated both sides of the debate or the practice and operations, law

enforcement side and also benefits that sometimes it seems that also created some, a pull inside the agency whereas i think now uscia and i.c.e. and cbp are able to focus more fully on their mission. so, hopefully, that somewhat addresses as we wait and watch for ten days or other otherwise. i think i just want to thank you both of you both for your reflections. it's always a good partnership to be with these guys whether it's in a meeting or over lunch, but really appreciate your thoughtful reflections and time today, to thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] >> here are some highlights for this coming weekend. friday, live at 10 a.m. ian on c-span -- eastern on c-span, the nebraska supreme court will hear oral argument on the keystone xl pipeline. saturday at 6:30 p.m. on "the communicators," michael copps

and robert mcdowell. with campaign 2014 gearing up, watch the latest debates on c-span. sunday at noon, incumbent democratic senator kay hagan and her republican to point, thom tillless. and from the -- tills. friday night at eight on c-span2, author john yoo shares his opinion on international and what little effect it has on the behavior of powerful nations. saturday, mike gonzalez on how he thinks republicans can make gains for the hispanic vote at 10 p.m. eastern. and sunday at noon on "in depth," your phone calls with mary frances berry, friday night on american history tv, authors and historians talk about the burning of washington during the war of 1812. saturday on "real america," the building of the hoover dam, and sunday night at eight the anniversary of gerald ford's

pardon of richard nixon. find our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. 202-626-3400, or you can e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> and we're live this afternoon at the state department where secretary of state john kerry will take part in a groundbreaking ceremony for the new united states diplomacy center. also in attendance this afternoon, former secretaries hillary clinton, madeleine albright, henry kissinger, james baker and colin powell. live coverage here on c-span2. >> the honorable -- [inaudible] [applause] the honorable james baker, the honorable madeleine albright, the honorable colin powell, the honorable hillary rodham clinton

accompanied by secretary of state john kerry, ambassador -- [inaudible] [applause] >> good afternoon. it is my great pleasure to welcome everyone here today for the groundbreakinger is mopeny for the new united states diplomacy center. we are celebrating the start of construction of the center, a state of the art museum and educational resource that will ill straight the department of state's 225-year history of supporting our nation's national security efforts. as undersecretary of state for management, my office has long supported this project. i also suspect that i was asked to officiate today because i might be the only member of secretary kerry's leadership team who has actually worked for every single secretary of state in attendance, beginning with

secretary kissinger. [applause] as a career state department employee, i have the privilege of representing the multitudes of civil and foreign service employees, americans and host nationals, who have carried out the vitally important work of diplomacy for our country. the men and women of the state department have done this essential work with skill, dedication, energy and creativity, and in many cases, uncommon bravery. two of those held in tehran during the iran hostage crisis are here with us today. bruce was the highest ranking officer, and john was a newly-ten youred one. their story will have a special place in the diplomacy center. the center's award-winning design was created by architectural firm of blyer, binder, bell. it will house the power neat

exercise a global classroom. the diplomacy center staff has already acquired over 6,000 artifacts which will be on display in the center and online. i wish to extend the department's appreciation to the board and officers for their selfless, farsighted, enthusiastic support. i am pleased that the chairman of the foundation is with us today. i would also like to particularly recognize the late bofd stephen lowe who was present at the creation of this effort and who is represented here today by his wife, sue, and his son, diego, and also to charles mac mathias of maryland, a staunch supporter of this effort. without their vision and commitment to the diplomacy center, we would not be having this ceremony today. and a very special and equally heartfelt thanks to all the private sector donors in the audience whose generosity and

support for american diplomacy has brought us here today to. finally, but certainly not least, a very special acknowledgment to ambassador elizabeth bagley who has been instrumental in bringing donors to us. without her efforts, we would still be in the long-term planning stage. in of you can personally bear witness to ore formidable powers of persuasion which she exercises with the utmost charm. laugh on behalf of all assembled here today to, thank you very much. [applause] it is now my pleasure to introduce ambassador elizabeth bagley, senior adviser to the secretary of state for special initiatives. >> thank you, pat, for that very generous and very diplomatic introduction. it is, indeed, a wonderful moment to finally put shovels in the ground to start building the u.s. diplomacy center.

you, pat, has been there from the very inception of this prompt, and your stewardship over the past 15 years has made today's groundbreaking possible, so thank you for your leadership. [applause] in commemorating this historic day, i would first like to acknowledge secretary of state john f. kerry whose boundless energy, perseverance and global statesmanship exemplifies the essence of diplomacy. [applause] despite grappling with daily international crises, your enthusiasm and steadfast support of the center has led to this very moment, and thank you. i also wish to thank former secretary of state hillary rodham clinton who, among other initiatives, championed the con especially of smart power -- concept of smart power using all

the tools in our tool box and established the office of global partnership initiatives to promote and formalize public/private partnerships. the u.s. diplomacy center is the perfect model for this visionary enterprise, and i'm proud and honored to have served on your team. [applause] secretary baker, your tremendous generosity and commitment to the center from the very beginning has been an inspiration to me and everyone else. thank you for your leadership and your unwavering support. [applause] i would also like to thank former secretaries of state henry kissinger and colin powell who have given their time and effort to promoting the center and to another former boss, madeleine albright, who first inaugurated the office of the u.s. diplomacy center in early 2000. so i thank all of you as well. [applause]

there are a number of people who have worked tirelessly to make the center possible. i know pat has mentioned them, but i will mention them again. i'd like to acknowledge the leadership of ambassador william harris on the stage and the board of the diplomacy center foundation, many of whom are here today, for your dedication to the cause and your unflagging support throughout these many years. and a special thanks to the u.s. diplomacy center staff led by kathy johnson for their ongoing advocacy -- bernstein for cochairing the ambassadors' program, and to the many individuals, foundations, corporations and foreign government partners whose generous support have brought us to this day. your donations to the center will make it possible for the american people, as well as visitors from around the world, to learn about the history, the achievements and the varied,

vibrant and often dangerous work of american diplomacy, all of which would not be possible without the men and women of the diplomatic corps who advance and defend america's national interests and promote our founding values. edward r. murrow, a renowned journalist and a former usia director, spoke of diplomacy this way, and i quote: the crucial link in international exchange is the last three feet, bridged by personal contact; one person talking to another. that is what our diplomats around the world do each and every day, engaging their adversaries as well as their friends, diffusing conflict, forging international coalitions to combat the scourge of terror toism and, finally, finding common ground and a path to peace. this is the mission of the u.s. diplomacy center, and to honor

our diplomats by telling their stories and explain why diplomacy matters to every citizen of the world. and hopefully, to inspire a new generation of diplomats and peacemakers. so thank you all for bringing us closer to bridging that last three feet, and i will look forward to celebrating with you on opening day. thank you. [applause] >> it is now my honor to introduce the honorable henry a. kissinger, the 56th secretary of state. [applause] >> the organizers are angry at this moment to see how long it will take me to lace my first --

to place my first verb. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen, a great privilege to be here with four ore secretary -- other secretaries of state. we share common experiences of the indispensable role of the united states in working for peace and progress in the world. the privilege of working with the foreign service -- the most distinguished group of public servants that i know -- and we also know that we will never do anything more channeling in our live -- challenging in our life than to serve these objectives.

i would say all of us except one have this. but let me talk about diplomacy as a relationship. in foreign policy we read about dramatic encounters between secretaries of state and diplomats, but the essence of diplomacy is to build permanent relationships. it is essential to create confidence so that when the difficult issues come up and the close decisions have to be made, that it's a basis on which the minds can meet.

it is is essential for diplomacy to deal with people before you need them so that they have faith in what you're saying when you do need them. it is imperative to outline the concept of what you, our country is trying to do so as to prevent foreign policy there -- from becoming a series of tactical issues. for all of these reasons, the diplomacy center is a great, imaginative idea. the it's a privilege to be here for this occasion, it's an honor to have been been able to serve

in this institution, to share the concerns of so many dedicated people and to realize that every great achievement was a vision before it became a reality. and it is a great privilege to see how this vision has turned into reality. thank you very much. [applause] >> it is now my honor to introduce the honorable james a. baker iii, the 61st secretary of state. mr. secretary.

[applause] >> thank you very much, pat. ladies and gentlemen, washington, of course, is blessed with museums and memorials that are dedicated to a broad array of topics that have helped shape the history of this great nation. there are museums of american art, the jewish holocaust and our news industry. there are memorials that preserve the memory of the brave men and women who fought in the two world wars, the vietnam war and other major conflicts. and, of course, there are testaments to george washington, to thomas jefferson, to abraham lincoln and to other americans who helped make this nation great. but until now there hasn't been a center dedicated to one of the most important aspects of our nation-state, and that's its diplomacy and the diplomats who have practiced it over the centuries. since the days of our found toking, the united states --

founding, the united states has really been blessed by adroit diplomacy. it was, after all, a successful diplomacy that allowed us to strike the treaty of paris be, diplomacy that made possible the louisiana purchase, diplomacy that formulatedded and implemented the marshall plan and diplomacy that made sure that the cold war ended with a whimper and not with a bang. throughout american history our nation has been strengthened and protected through strong diplomatic alliances and agreements. and so i think we should be very pleased that this diplomacy center is being built. for one reason, it will tell the amazing story of the brave men and women who have served on the front lines of american diplomacy. the stories of all of them. although too off overlooked, their tales of heroism are truly inspiring.

when i was secretary of state, i knew i could count on my state department colleagues to respond with speed and skill to any challenge, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, even as the world shifted under their feet. the diplomacy center will capture this trademark quality in an exhibit entitled "diplomacy is everywhere, 24/7." the exhibit will emphasize a simple reality: no matter what political upheaval or crisis the world faces, diplomacy never sleeps. american diplomats are and will be hard at work managing a myriad of problems. there's, of course, another big reason that this center is very important. it will explain why diplomacy matters to every american citizen. such an understanding of the purpose and practice of state

craft in a democracy like ours extremely critical because the people are the ultimate arbiters of our foreign policy. during tough times like today, as crisis brews in the ukraine, the entire middle east burns, tensions rise in the far east and terrorism grows stronger, not weaker, diplomacy is going to play an important role in peacefully resolving many of the challenges that we face. as a result, the better educated americans are about this nation's diplomacy, the more effectively our leaders can engage on the world stage to find sound solutions. and so, ladies and gentlemen, i look forward to returning to washington for the grand opening of the united states diplomacy center. it will remind us of the great

diplomats in our past, and it will remind us as well of the importance of diplomacy in our future. thank you all for supporting this very important project. [applause] >> it is now my honor to introduce the honorable madeleine k. albright, the 64th secretary of state. [applause] >> and the shortest secretary -- [laughter] thank you very much, undersecretary kennedy and ambassador bagley, and as i look out at the audience, there's so many friends and so many colleagues and so many of you that have really participated in what is america's great gift, our diplomacy. and i'm delighted to be here.

i served as secretary of state at a time when america was working to articulate a new foreign policy strategy that, after the end of the cold war, would reflect what our position was as the world's sole remaining superpower. and we all are unbelievably, as you will listen to us, very clear about how much, how honored and grateful we were to serve as secretary of state and to sit behind that sign that said "united states." and i speak for henry and myself as two immigrants who made it. and so i think there's no way to really capture what it's like to represent this amazing country. we knew at the time of the end of the cold war that it wouldn't be possible to leverage our strength and solve every international crisis, but we did have a newfound responsibility to take the lead in resolving the most pressing issues of the day, and can that's why i

prioritized the promotion of core values such as democracy and human dignity as well as the development of a robust civil society around the world. i also devote a considerable amount of energy to strengthening our humanitarian assistance efforts and to insuring the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons with the former soviet republics. america, as the world's indispensable nation, does have a duty to engage on issues essential to the peace and prosper the city of all global citizens -- prosperity of all global citizens, and i was very proud to listen to president obama today in estonia really saying how we had to defend our allies and our values. the promotion of our core american values still rings true today, and they are featured in one of the center's main exhibits entitled "diplomacy is our mission." and this exhibit will showcase the heart and soul of diplomacy, the work we to to encourage

peace and prosperity, democracy and development through examples that illustrate our tireless efforts on issues such as civilian security, good governance, energy, the environment and gender equality. in other words, the usdc will present the state department as an operational organization. our people are not stuck in offices or forts, they are out in the field every day participating in provincial reconstruction teams, meeting with activists and doing hands-on work. and so through the usdc the american public will be able to see what its government is doing around the world and how it connects with what happens here at home. the concept of the museum was originally proposed to me while i was secretary of state, and i just thought it was a no-brainer to think that we needed to do this. and we hired a museum curator to renovate an exhibit space within what we had renamed the harry s. truman building, and it was

viewable only to employees and other cleared visitors to the building. and we thought why are we keeping these amazing artifacts to ourselves? we should be sharing them with the public and using them to inform visitors about the fundamental role that the state department has played and continues to play around the world. and i immediately said that this was great, that it would be a museum and an education center that would do exactly that. and this day has been a long time in making, and i believe that what we started in 1999 was one of the best initiatives that we took. and i applaud everybody that has been involved with this, and i think that it really is time to the share what diplomacy has achieved and is achieving every day for americans. and so it's a story that deserves to be told, and the u.s. diplomacy center is the ideal place to tell it. and as a professor, i am going to get my students over here to

really watch and do the simulation. so i'm delighted and very honored to have been there when we started this project, and i will be there when it's over. thank you very much. [applause] >> it's now my honor to introduce the honorable colin l. powell, the 65th secretary of state. [applause] >> thank you, patrick, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen. it's a great pleasure to be with you this afternoon on this memorable occasion. another memorable occasion was my first day as secretary of state. i was sitting in my office, and one of the senior members of the staff came in and closed the door and said, sir, i have to ask you something. a lot of confusion in the building. i said, what's wrong?

he said, well, what do we call you? do we call you general or mr. secretary? i said, by all means, it's mr. secretary. now drop and give me ten. [laughter] he almost did, i had to stop him, you know? [laughter] another question i have always gotten for many, many years now has to do with the connection between my time as chairman and my time as secretary of state. i say, is the leadership challenge the same, was it the same? and the answer is two different organizations, two different cultures, two different histories, two different but complementary jobs that the military and the department of state do. but there's one thing they have in common, they are manned by volunteers, they're manned by people, and our foreign service and our civil service and our foreign service nationals,

people who volunteer to serve their nation both in the military and in the department of state. they want to have a vision, they want to have a purpose. why are we doing this, how does this serve the interest of the american people, how does it serve the interest of freedom and democracy armed the world? how do we help the world? they want to be taken care of. they want to make sure they get all the resources needed to get the job done. and above all, both of these -- soldiers and statesmen -- want to make sure that they are serving the country to the best of their ability. they're people of courage, people of competence, people who want to make sure the american people are safe and that we're trying to bring safety to as many people in the world as we possibly can. if you walk out the front of this building and go down the hill, first memorial you'll come to is the vietnam wall. if you continue across the mall, you'll then see the korean war

memorial, and then up the reflecting pool at the other end you'll see the world war ii memorial. and in the distance you'll see the marine memorial, you'll see the navy memorial further up the mall. you'll see all sorts of recognition to those men and women i was privileged to serve with as soldier and as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. and you can do this all over this city, but you will never see anything, until this moment, until this program, that pays tribute to the men and women of the department of state, the dip lo to mats, the foreign service officers, the political appointees, all of the others -- civil servants and foreign service nationals -- who do such a great job for this department. ..

on health, the environment. we talk to friend and adversaries, and we work with adversaries to make sure they do not become enemies. this is vital work. the in the best interests of the nation. we talk about all the ambassadors and other diplomats we have, but my favorite foreign service person is the young, first tour, cons lar office,

somewhere in the world -- consular office in the world. this is america to the rest of the world. the person at the window. when somebody comes up and asks for help, or says, i want to go to america, it is that young person in their first tour who paves the way and gives a face to the american people to the people wanting to know more about america, wanting to come here. so we should be so proud of what these men and women have done over the years. it is only fitting, proper, and timely they get this kind of recognition through the u.s. diplomacy center. where we can demonstrate all they have done and let it take its rightful place among all the other monuments and memorials and tribute that exist throughout this city. so i express my thanks to all that worked so hard on this. i express my thanks to those who have contributed, to those who

have put all their energy and devotion into this center. and i also look forward tom cog back when we open this place and i can be one of the first ones through the door. thank you very much. [applause] >> it is now my honor, to introduce the honorable hillary rodham clinton, the 67th secretary of state. madam secretary. [applause] >> well, welcome to all of you and i think on behalf of myself and all of our colleagues, we are so greatful to you,

especially those who have been carrying the mission of the center for so many years since 1999 and those of you who have supported this mission by your very generous contributions to the creation of the very first united states diplomacy center. it is wonderful to see undersecretary kennedy. i think he is a time traveler because i have never been at an event with him where he has not served with everyone there. [laughing] but his, his unflappable professionalism and counsel is something that we have all very much benefited from. i also want to thank ambassador bagley. as pat kennedy said in introducing her, many of you have experienced first-hand elizabeth's ability to set her mind to a mission.

that's why i encouraged her to take on this diplomacy center, to build on all of the good work underway since 1999 and launch this campaign to enlist the private sector and i'm very grateful to her for this extraordinary success. it's wonderful being here with all of mycolleagues and particularly secretary kerry. none of this would be possible without secretary kerry's leadership and we all thank you very much, mr. secretary, for that. now the diplomacy center is, as i think you have heard from each of my colleagues, a labor of love for all of us. how, henry kissinger has written the book on diplomacy. i'm sure he will have another book out just in time for the opening of the center. he has got one coming out this

fall, so henry get started on the next one. so that we can appreciate that. jim baker has been the real champion of this center and its realization and you know, jim, it is wonderful once again being with you and susan and thank you for the championing of this center and for your very strong words of support. as madeleine said, she was present at the creation of the diplomacy center. i was looking to see what pin she was wearing, whether it was optimistic pin or a pessimistic pin. it is an american pin. so that is particularly appropriate for this day and this dead case -- dedication, and i thank her for really conceiving of this idea. and colin powell who has been in this unique position, really only general marshall, because he served as both secretary of defense and secretary of state,

has anything comparable to colin powell's service as chairman of the joint chiefs and as secretary of state, bring as very unique perspective which we heard here just earlier. i thank all of them for their insights and their extraordinary commitment to our country. we are here in large measure to honor all those who have served, from the very beginning, even before the treaty of paris which might not have been possible without good american diplomatic efforts, keeping our friend, the french, involved on our side and staving off some of the other challenges that came our way. right now nearly 70,000 diplomats and development experts are serving around the world. you heard briefly about some of the exhibits that will shine a spotlight on the crucial work of diplomacy and development. and, it will also highlight how that work has changed, from

benjamin franklin to john kerry and beyond. that is an important part of the mission of the center. because, we want people who come to this center to understand what diplomacy is all about. what it has accomplished but how it has evolved. it is clear in today's world that we communicate differently. we have a lot of ways understanding what is happening in other parts of the world. but nothing substitutes for the professionals who are there to assist, every secretary of state, every president, in understanding what the backstory is, what's happening, sort of below the surface, to try to break through for those piece treaties or for breakthroughs in trade or human rights. for the united states that means we do have to build strong relationships, not only with

governments but also with publics. this has been one of the major changes in the last decades. i kid in my book about how it would have been so difficult for henry to sneak away from pakistan to china when everybody in the world has a cell phone. so you have to think differently about how to achieve the same goals, how to convince others to work together on behalf of a world of peace, prosperity and progress. so 21st century statecraft is harnessing new technologies, public/private partnerships, diaspora networks. we did build a digital division to amplify our messaging across a broad range of platforms from twitter to facebook, being flickr, tumblr and beyond. by 2013 more than 2.6 million twitter use easier followed 30official feeds in 11 languages and our diplomats, particularly

our ambassadors but up and down the ranks were developing their own facebook pages and their own twitter accounts. they were going on local television. they were engaging in every way they could imagine. they were meeting people civil society but community activists, volunteers, journalist, students, business leaders, labor leaders, religious leaders, and we do encourage more such contacts. in fact that will be the center's exhibit entitled, diplomacy is connecting people. i think the visitors, particularly young people, will be able to interact in real time with the department's social media feed, learning about cultural and educational exchange programs, even having the chance to stand behind a podium and engage with the media as an official department spokesperson for a few minutes. we hope that will encourage some to consider a career in diplomacy.

so today, we take a major step forward. we still need some help, and i would be remiss and elizabeth would never forgive me if i did not mention that. because we want to be able to move this exciting project forward. i think at a time when there are those who wonder about our role in the world, this center send an important, indeed an indispensable message, that diplomacy and development are at the heart of america's leadership and that that leadership remains absolutely essential for everything we hope to see happen in the world, not just for our country and for americans, but for people everywhere. thank you very much. [applause] >> it is now my honor to

introduce the 6th and current secretary of state, the honorable john f. kerry. mr. secretary. [applause] >> see, i'm only one who knew the secret there. thank you, pat kennedy. ladies and gentlemen, and, members of the diplomatic corporation, thank you so much for being with us here today. the entire state department, usdc team, many of whom have literally been working for this day for about 15 years, to the diplomacy center foundation, and the many private sector partners you know who you are and we'll recognize you a little bit later, it is your generosity that has brought us to this point and we're all unbelievably

greatful for to you for that. so that today we get to break ground on on groundbreaking american dip home sy. -- diplomacy. both colin and jim talked about the array of monuments around the city that honored those who have served and given their lives and of course wars. those who are part of the diplomatic corp. understand that there is the same kind of sacrifice and challenge for people that leave their families and pack up their kids and go away. many cases on accompanied tours. many people who work unbelievably strong hours, extraordinary risks on a daily basis, particularly more so in today's world. and so today we commit to telling the story of power that comes not from the muzzle of a

gun or the belly of a b-52 but from the force of diplomacy and it is a force. diplomacy ends wars, saves lives, resolves frozen conflict, opening markets, creates jobs, brings dignity and respect to lives all around the world. spreads freedom, lifts up millions of people who get to touch opportunity for the first time. witnessing what we witnessed in tunisia where a fruit vendor saw none of that opportunity and chose to self-i am mow late himself and ignited what for a while was called the arab spring, reminds all of us of the power of the ideas that bring us all together in which we will celebrate in this center. i'm very privileged to be here with 56, 61, 64, 67, and 65.

[laughter] and i'm extraordinary grateful to the protocal office in arranging them in chronological order so i could almost get it right. hillary clinton, my immediate predecessor, and i served in the senate together. in fact i was privileged to work in one way or another, i wasn't in the senate when henry was secretary but we worked together on a number of different issues. but hillary clinton came to the state department to rebuild the alliances and restore our place in the world at a time where people were questioning it. and to help to make an opening in burma and across so many miles breathe new life into old partnerships and gave meaning in every corner of the globe to the notion of personal diplomacy. colin powell, revered, still, by

everyone i have met in the state department and outside of it is retired. legendary stories told of a secretary who picked up the phone to the talent not just of undersecretaries and assistant secretary is but desk officers and line officers and a man who knew war so well that he valued diplomacy so much more. who's exhaustive personal engagement after the 9/11 attacks was absolutely essential uniting a coalition of allies and partners to wage war on terror. mad din albright, whose purpose and passion ending blood shed and brutality in kosovo and bosnia and working to heal old wounds in northern ireland, to this day, epitomizes moral leadership and continues to inspire american diplomats wherever they serve. james baker, a tough, texas poker player and deal-maker extraordinaire which i can

attest to because he negotiated with vernon jordan the debate rules for george w. bush and me. [laughter] we're still talking to each other. that's diplomacy. actually my campaign folks were caught in a squabble with the bush folks, which is not unusual and jim baker and vernon jordan, got together had a great lunch. perhaps had a martini, i'm not sure. took them half an hour, the rules were done and say good-bye and remain great friends. he made the lonely decision to touch the third rail of american foreign policy and plunge headlong into the peace process at a time when there was very little support for it. and his work to build a global coalition to confront saddam hussein, ahead of operation desert storm to this very day is the gold standard by which

modern coalition building is judged, which i will personally use as i go out in the next days to work on the isil issue. and henry kissinger, the man who as we've heard literally wrote the book on diplomacy, the secretary whose exploits and expertise gave us the vocabulary of modern diplomacy. the very words, shuttle diplomacy and strategic patience and whose special insight into history has been an invaluable gift to every secretary who has sat in that office on mahogany row ever since the day that henry left it. join me all of you, in thanking five of our six living former secretaries of state. [applause]

they all look so great. it makes me, i'm sort of thinking 2016, okay. so we're here obviously and i will be very brief to salute diplomacy and to break ground on the first-ever museum to tell the really remarkable story of american diplomats, who have been daring in breaking new ground themselves from the earliest days of jefferson and franklin and john jay through the secretaries that are here now that i just talked about some of their exploits. but even as we celebrate a greatest generation of diplomats, it's time to focus on what they're going to say about the next generation. will we allow our country's foreign policy debate to be stolen by a false choice between force without diplomacy or diplomacy without force?

or succumb to the easy appeals of those who promise americans that the united states can step aside or that we can afford to think of active leadership not as a strategic imperative for america but as a mere favor, that we do for other countries? we have seen these moments before. opposition to wilson's league of nations. the isolationism that followed the first world war. deep-seeded retuck lance in congress to pass the marshall plan to win the peace after so much had been given to win the war. a shortsighted rush to cash in a peace dividend after the berlin wall fell, to pull inwards, when the cold, hard, post-cold war truth was that a more complex world needed america more than ever than the bipolar world that had preceded it. we have been here before actually. and here we are today living in

a world smaller and more interconnected than ever before. in the blink of an eye we've gone from an era where power lived in hierarchies, to an era where power lives in networks and many of those networks formed and created by people under the age of 30. now we're wrestling with the fact that those hierarchies are unsettled by the new power. the world where mobile devices represent a lot more than your ability to put a picture on facebook or instagram. but, are instead powerful, powerful new instruments of change that make hierarchies uncomfortable because you can communicate with everybody all of the time. anywhere, at anytime. and we now see young people across the globe who see the opportunity that other people have, i run into this.

i know, my, former, my colleague, former secretaries of each of them commented about these changes that exist today and it's a world where a clash of ideas is as real as ever from the nilism and the destruction of isil to the opportunity and the freedom of the civilized world. that's what this center is going to be about. one thing every diplomat here today knows, that on that battleground, american leadership and engagement should not be up for debate in the first place. iraq, syria, ukraine, gaza, south sudan, north korea, just to name a few. i'm not saying that we can or should do any of it alone. that's not the proposition but the world i think most people understand will not do it without us. i can tell you for certain, most

of the world does not lie awake at night worrying about america's presence. they tell me they worry about what would happen in our absence. so as we write the next chapter of american diplomatic history, as we think about how tomorrow's diplomats will fill the exhibit halls of this museum, we have to remember engagement and leadership, not retrenchment and isolationism, are the american dna. it is doing the difficult work that makes america's values real in the world which ultimately defines us as a country. i pick up on colin's comment about the person behind the window. when i travel abroad and have the opportunity like my pretty -- predecessors did to have meet-and-greet with our personnel, i tell them they're all ambassadors, every single one of them, particularly the people behind that window because they may be the only american somebody walking into

that consulate ever meets and the impression of our country will come from that young foreign service officer. i think this center will remind us, all of us here, as it should and as each of these former secretaries do with their presence here today, that we're an exceptional nation, not because we say we are but because we do exceptional things. and today we celebrate a tradition of american diplomacy that has done those exceptional things, that has brought us to this important moment and today we will all commit to keep that tradition strong. thank you. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the secretaries will now proceed to the construction site outside for the groundbreaking. the audience is welcome. after discrete pause. to travel outside into the heat, or you can watch the shovels being turned on the screen that will appear behind me. thank you all very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated at our seats as the participants and the press depart for the groundbreaking ceremony. thank you. >> well you can see that ceremony again in its entirety in the c-span video library at c-span.org. moving on, we have more live programing coming up later today when doctors and global health officials will update with the latest on the ebola outbreak in west africa. georgetown university's institute for national and global health law will host the

event. you will be able to watch it live here on c-span2 starting at 1:20 eastern. live political coverage this evening when we bring you debate between candidates to be north carolina's next senator. incumbent democrat kay hagan debates republican thom tillis. see that 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. here are some political ads running in north carolina. >> right there, in black and white. house speaker thom tillis drew a bull's-eye on public schools, cutting nearly $500 million. tillis sliced and diced education, creating chaos in our classrooms and hurting middle class families, while giving tax breaks to yacht and jet owners. thom tillis, cutting our schools, giving breaks to the wealthy. democratic senatorial campaign committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> in the private sector, businesses are built on accountability. accountability is foreign language in washington.

obamacare is a disaster, but the president woken admit it. thet of control and neither party has stopped it. kay hagan enabled president obama's worst ideas. she refuses to clean up his mess. so you and i have to clean up hers. i'm thom tillis. i approved this message and that's why i'm running for the u.s. senate. >> some of the political ads running in north carolina for that state's senate race. we will have live coverage again today of the debate between democratic incumbent kay hagan and her republican challenger thom tillis. that gets underway at 7:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span. here are highlights for this coming weekend. friday, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, nebraska supreme court will hear oral argument on the keystone xl pipeline. saturday at 6:30:00 p.m. on "the communicators," former much fcc commissioners michael copps and robert mcdowell with campaign 2014 beering up, watch the

latest debates on c-span. sunday at noon, debates between incumbent democratic senator kay hagan and republican opponent thom tillis. from the california governor's race, democratic incumbent jerry brown and republican nominee neil kashkari. friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, author john yu shays his opinion on international law and what little effect it has on behavior of powerful nations saturday on book dv's afterwards, mike gonzalez how he thinks republicans can make gains for the hispanic vote at 10:00 p.m. eastern. sunday at noon on in depth our three-hour conversation and phone calls with the former chair of the commission on civil rights, mary francis berry. on american history tv on on c-span3 authors and historians talk about the burning of washington during the war of 1812. saturday on real america, the building of the hoover dam, sunday night at 8:00, the anniversary of president gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon. find our television schedule at

c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. . . >> washington journal continues. ost: former ambassador nicholas burns this morni the former undersecretary of state r political affairs from 2005 to 2008. welcome, sir, thank you. let's begin with the news this morning. "the guardian" tweeting this out: russia and ukraine's

permanent ceasefire appears to have unraveled already this morning. it was announced before we went on air at seven a.m. eastern time by the ukrainian government that they had reached some sort of permanent ceasefire, but it appears to have already unraveled. ambassador burns, your reaction. >> guest: well, it's somewhat predictable. president poroshenko, of ukraine, is just trying to hold his country together. the russians have invaded, the russian troops have come across the border in the last ten days, and prior to to that, for months, these pro-separatists had made the cities unlivable and violent. so the president is just trying to get a ceasefire in order to get himself some breathing space before he struggles to reunite his country. but the kremlin deny there was a ceasefire. i think that's because the kremlin still holds to this fiction that it has not

intervened, therefore, it can't agree to a ceasefire, and the ceasefire has broken down. the larger issue here, europe and the united states are considering further sanctions against russia. this was a last minute attempt, i think, by president putin to avoid those sanctions, to look like a peacemaker, to look like someone who was actually interested in a ceasefire when his real motive is to destabilize ukraine. >> host: right, so this comes ahead of president obama's news conference this morning. he talks, and then he's about to speak again at 9 a.m. eastern time. this comes, this announcement comes, it goes away, and then you've got the president meeting with his nato allies. you written for the financial -- you've written for the financial times on august 31st three critical tests for nato leaders in wales. what are those tests? >> well, the nato leaders are

meeting, president obama's in estonia today, one of our nato allies, he'll go to wales and the united kingdom tomorrow for a two-day summit of nato. this is the most successful security alliance in modern history, and it keeps the peace in europe and has done so since 1949. but these leaders are facing, i think, one of the most consequential summits in that lost 65-year history. number one is the threat of russia. president putin's actions in destabilizing year ukraine are redividing russia. so they deserve a response x. the response has to be toughminded. nato's not going to fight putin for ukraine because we have no obligation to do so and no interest to do so. but we certainly, nato can raise new sanctions against putin to drive up the economic costs to what he's doing. that's number one. number two, the issue of isis and of the islamic state, this

caliphate that has taken control of northern syria and western iraq and in the wake of this horrific, uncivilized, abysmal act yesterday, the murder of an american citizen, stephen sotloff, certainly the united states is going to continue its air campaign to contain isis. it would be certainly advantageous if the european allies at nato would perhaps even contribute to that military mission so that the united states doesn't have to shoulder this responsibility alone. and third is the issue of afghanistan. nato troops have been in afghanistan since 2003, there are over 40 countries there that have helped the united states to try to keep that country peaceful. they're scheduled all to depart by 2016, and there's an open question, is that a smart decision? we've seen what happens when you take all the troops out of iraq; chaos and violence. that may very well happen again in afghanistan, so one of the questions for the nato leaders is should they leave a very small residual force to train

the afghan army and to provide external security on the afghan/pakistan border. so those are three very important issues for president obama and his nato colleagues to discuss on thursday and friday. >> host: and those issues open for discussion with all of you this morning as we talk with the former ambassador, nicholas burns. democrats, 202-558-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881, and independents, all others, 3882. ambassador burns, let's also talk about the other news that president obama made in estonia earlier this morning at his news conference when he reacted to the beheading of the second american journalist, saying that the u.s. will not be intimidated by the islamic state and that he would build a coalition to degrade and destroy the group. your reaction to that statement. >> guest: well, i think it was the right thing for president obama to say.

this is just an abysmal act by a monstrous terrorist group, and the president, i think, spoke for everybody in our country, the sadness on the murder of an american citizen and our outrage that a terrorist group would do this kind of thing twice in two weeks. this is a, this group, isis, is a real threat to all of our friends in the middle east, and it's a threat to the united states to the extent that we know our government believes that some american citizens have joined this group, that european citizens have joined this group. we don't want those people to be trained by isis and to return to our country on american or european passports where it's easier to get into the united states. part of homeland defense -- and we all know this after 9/11 -- is you have to go out and meet the threats, you have to be smart about it. i think the president is absolutely right that we should not get into another land war in the middle east. we did that with iraq, we've done that with afghanistan. we have to be smart about this by using air power to contain

isis. but president ice right -- prime minister's right, the strongest thing we can do is include a coalition, turkey, our nato allies to try to dry up the financial support for this group, to isolate them politically and to contain them militarily. and we can do that by air power. we can't defeat them militarily. we would have to put troops on the ground. i think congress, the president, the american public aren't willing to do that, but we can contain them. i think the president has a good strategy in place. the big question is, if isis has its way in syria -- basis in syria, should the united states conduct airstrikes into syria? the president has not decided on that, but that's an open question. >> host: well, do you think he should? and what did you make of senator dianne feinstein, the chairwoman of the intelligence committee in the senate, saying that the president perhaps is being a little too cautious when it comes to the islamic state?

>> guest: well, first of all, i served in government for a long time, and i certainly sympathize with the predicament that we are in and the big issues that the president has in his inbox. and this is a very tough job that he has to figure out what the's the right way forward for the united states because i think it's clear to all of us that we, the public, don't want another big land war in the middle east. at the same time, we know we can't leave the middle east, we know we have to use our power in an intelligent way to defend america and american interests, and i think the president has done that well in iraq. my own sense is that we should conduct airstrikes, having said all that, in syria. if that's the base of the group, if that's where their headquarters is, if that's where their financial apparatus is, we've got to strike them where they are, and we certainly have the capacity to do so. >> host: this is a tweet from karen nelson who says let's take

this day by day response by our government is sickening as beheadings comet. is there an -- continue. is there an urgency here? >> guest: excuse me, is there a -- >> host: an urgency -- >> guest: i couldn't make out the question. >> host: is there an urgency here, and should there be? >> guest: well, i think the president has the obligation to defend this country. he can't protect, unfortunately, every american overseas, and what happened to steven sotloff and james foley, you know, it strikes at the heart of who we are as a nation, it saddens every american. we have to respond to it. we have to respond to it in a measured, intelligent way. and i think the president's trying to do that. as i said before, do we now expand this operation to strike into syria? do we ask some of the arab countries to join us in those attacks? one of the things that's struck me in the last couple of weeks

is the absence of outrage by arab leaders by what is happening. isis has, of course, now murdered two american journalists. they've murdered thousands of civilians in iraq and syria. and you do need the moral leadership of the arab world to confront this group, because it grew out of their own communities. it's part of their own communities. and particularly the sunni leaders, this is a sunni terrorist group. the sunni leaders in the gulf, in the united arab emirates n kuwait, in saudi arabia, in bahrain and oman and egypt, elsewhere, they need to condemn this group and lend their, the weight of their governments to isolate this group and eventually contain it and defeat it. >> host: earlier today on c-span2 we covered the prime minister's question and answer before the house of commons, and the prime minister, david cameron, reacted to the news of the second beheading. here's what he had to say. >> i'm sure that the whole house and the whole country will join with me in condemning the sickening and brutal murder of

another american hostage and share our shock and anger that it again appears to have been carried out by a british citizen. all our thoughts are with the british hostage and his family. their ordeal is unimaginable. but let me be very clear, this country will never give in to terrorism. our opposition to isil will continue at home and abroad. it is important to us that we are clear about the nature of the threat we are facing. it makes no distinction between cultures, countries and religions. there is no way to appease it. the only way to defeat it is to stand firm and to send a very straightforward message: a country like ours will not be cowed by these barbaric killers. if they think that we will weaken in the face of their threats, they are wrong. it will have the opposite effect. we will be more forthright in the defense of the values, liberty under the rule of law, freedom, democracy that we hold dear. and i'm sure a united message to

that effect will go forward from this house today. >> host: ambassador burns, a united messaging from that house will go forward today. >> guest: and, you know, you have to agree with everything that prime minister cameron said. and i think that could be said by an american leader, and it really is quite fitting that he would say that, stand shoulder to shoulder with president obama who's also in europe today. we need the support of our allies. we need all of our allies to join this fight to isolate, contain and eventually defeat isis, and britain's our greatest ally and our most loyal ally. and the irony here, as you know, is that the press is reporting that it's possible that the person who has killed both james foley and steven sotloff is a british citizen. he speaks on tape with a london accept. and so the british, of course, are very much with us in this fight, and as the prime minister said, there's also a british host am. so i think there's -- hostage.

i think there's an identity of interest between the united states and the united kingdom. one other thing i'd like to mention, some of our european allies have agreed to pay ransoms for the liberation of their host also. now -- hostages. now i have two views on this. one is, obviously, if family members will do everything they can and must do everything they can to get their loved ones back, and you can't deny that to the family members. if any of of us had a son or a daughter or a brother or a nephew taken hostage, we'd do just is about anything we could to get them back. governments have a different responsibility. it's within the policy -- it's been the policy of the united states since the beginning of my diplomatic career in the jimmy carter administration that we do not negotiate with terrorists, and we do not pay ransoms to terrorist groups. that's also the policy of the united kingdom. that's not the policy of many of our nato allies, so one of the ore issues i think president obama needs to raise at this

nato summit in the u.k. in the next two days is shouldn't we have a consistent policy. "the new york times" had a remarkable report last week that in the last five years european governments and organizations have paid $125 million in ransoms to these middle east terrorist groups to liberate hostages. and one can understand on a human basis, you know, the desire to get these people home, of course. but if you pay $125 million to terrorist groups, you're encouraging them to take more hostages. so i do think this is a very complex issue, but it's one that needs to be raised alliance-wide in nato, hopefully to have one policy that we don't make concessions to terrorists and certainly don't send money to terrorist groups. >> host: ambassador burns, that new york times piece, paying ransoms, europe bankrolls al-qaeda terror. references that new york times karl saying that -- article saying that 66 million has been

paid in the last year alone. the countries that pay ransom, france, switzerland, spain and other european nations, make payments or arrange for them to be made while claiming not to do so. this makes kidnapping a profit center, and they disagree. the "usa today" editorial board, with this saying that it's undermining the u.s.' no-ransom hostage policy. jackie in santa clara, california, democratic caller. hi, jackie. >> caller: hi, i have a comment and a question. if there are any muslims listening this morning, maybe they can call in and answer my questions. i don't really know much about the quran, islam, muslims except for what i see on tv, but i thought it's been in the news several times that the muslims have the greatest number of people in that religion across the world, and i don't understand the hierarchy such as

who the muslim leaders are. the kris chaps have priests and pastors. who represents, what kind of leaders are in the muslim faith, and i don't understand why we don't hear from system -- from some of them or some groups to get together and tell the world if they think these guys are bad or wrong. they should be on the news every day making it clear what the difference is between isis and their real religion. >> host: okay, jackie. all right, jackie. nicholas burns. >> guest: well, i agree very much with jackie, the caller from santa clara, california, that what's really needed now is for arabs and muslim leaders to come forward and condemn this group, isis, in their own communities. you've begun to see that. the king of saudi arabia has been critical, other muslim

leaders, but not enough. to eradicate a group like this, of course, requires lots of different actions. it requires military strikes of the type we're conducting, it requires political and economic isolation, but it also requires from a grassroots basis people from their own communities to reject them. unfortunately, what's playing out across the middle east right now is a war between sunni arabs, sunni muslims and shia muslims. and too many iraqi sunnis have gone to support this group, isis. so it's really the responsibility of the government in baghdad, which is a shia-dominated government, to reach out to those sunni leaders and the try to bring them back into the fold to make them part of the government in baghdad, to share power with them so that there's an alternative to isis. to put it another way, at the end of president george w. bush's time in office, he launched a surge of american forces in iraq, and part of that was to reach out to the sunni community in some of these same towns and provinces in iraq that are supporting isis and to have

those people join the united states and the iraqi army in defending iraq against terrorist groups. and that was a brilliant policy at the end of his term by president george w. bush and general david petraeus. and so that kind of thing now needs to happen, but it's really the iraqi government's responsibility in iraq. >> host: "the hill" newspaper reporting this morning, here's a tweet with that report that the house speaker, john bane or, is saying the congress is limited until obama outlines his isis strategy. ambassador burns, what do you think? >> guest: i think what we should expect from congress is a united congress, senate and house, to condemn finish and i'm sure we'll see this -- to condemn the brutal murder of steven sotloff yesterday. beyond that, when president obama gave his press conference last week and this very famous line, we don't have a strategy

yet, i think he was referring to syria and whether or not we extend this fight against isis into syria. there are consequences from that. when you cross someone else's border, when you lose force -- of course, we're not supporting the syrian government. we're opposed to president bashar al assad this, syria's in the midst of an extraordinarily brutal civil war. over nine million syrians are now homeless, 200,000 people have died in the civil war. so for us to become, in essence, an actor by using airstrikes against isis, i think we should do it. but i think it's sufficiently complex that i certainly understand why president obama needs to take a little bit of time here to assess how we do that and on what scale and who else might support us in doing it, because we don't want to be acting alone. so i would imagine when president obama returns from his trip to europe there'll be consultations between the administration and the republican and democratic leadership on capitol hill.

and i would just hope that we'd have a united washington. we rarely see that these days in a partisan washington, but here's an issue where all americans can unite, outrage against the murder of american citizens and trying to do the right thing, right thing to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. >> host: let's hear from larry in stanford, kentucky. republican. hi, larry. >> caller: hi, good morning. [laughter] i guess aye got a big problem -- i've got a big problem. it appears every time we go into a country, iraq or any other country ever since back to vietnam, all we do is back out. we don't go in and finish anything. if we're there, let's stay there until we get the job done. >> host: ambassador burns? >> guest: that's a very interesting question. you know, we still have american troops finish -- to speak to your question -- we still have american troops in japan and germany, and they arrived there in the late 1940s as we tried to rebuild those countries, those fascist countries into

democracies after the second world war. we've had the staying power of nearly 70 years now where we've kept the faith, and we have finished those missions. and i think the caller's right. you can't stay with every cause. i think there was a consensus even among republicans, even in the bush administration that we couldn't stay in iraq forever. the question was, when would you leave, on what basis would you leave some troops behind. we face the same question now in afghanistan. here's why the caller's question so important. we have been there since october 2001, a month after 9/11. that's when our special forces went in, then our army went in. we've been there ever since, we have 40 countries with us. it's been a big international effort. and now the plan is to leave, basically, lock, stock and barrel, take everybody out, all the combat troops at the end of 2016, and i just think that's precipitous, that we need to stay the course, that there's more that can be done to stabilize afghanistan. we can take most of the combat troops out, but we can certainly leave troops, american troops to

train the iraqi army and to help defend against some of the terrorist groups on the afghan/pakistan border. that should help us reduce our own casualties. we won't be as exposed. but the job isn't finished there, so i think this is a really pertinent question to ask. >> host: robert, brooklyn, new york, republican. >> caller: good morning. i've got two questions. the first one is the rebels were armed by regular citizens because -- [inaudible] over to the middle east and president obama -- [inaudible] never agreed to arm the rebels because it seems like many of these kooks are taking on new names every two or three years. why not arm the rebels? this is why the president did not want to arm them in the first place. -- [inaudible] was against the president's

position, was against the president's arm the rebels. >> host: okay, robert. we'll get nicholas burns to respond. >> guest: well, you know, a lot of people have been critical of president obama in the last few months that he's been too cautious, he's kind of pulled back on american leadership in the middle east, and i certainly believe -- and i served in both republican and democratic administrations as a u.s. foreign service officer -- you know, we can't leave the region. we have to be a strong, assertive actor. but we also have to be intelligent. and i think one of the virtues that president obama has shown in office is that he's, you know, he reflects, he assesses things before he jumps in, he looks at all the options, and sometimes the right option is to move ahead and act, and sometimes the right option is not to move ahead. this issue of whether we should have armed the syrian rebels, i was for it two and three years ago. i thought we should have armed the moderate rebels.

it was a missed opportunity. president obama, obviously, you know, thought that it was too dangerous, that if you armed some of these groups, you couldn't be sure where the arms you gave them would end up, and you couldn't also be sure if they would turn those arms back against us. so now i think we really have no choice. with the emergence of isil, isis or isil -- it has two names -- this is a brutal, vir you leapt, well financed, well organized terrorist group, we have to be engaged in the fight the stop it or else it's going to dismember the state of iraq and leave syria in permanent chaos and revolution. and that means the wars in both those countries could spread into lebanon, and it's already beginning to happen, into jordan, turkey, countries that are very important to us. i think we have no choice but to get involved now, the question is how, and that's what the president is struggling with. >> host: ambassador burns, here's a tweet: what would happen if u.s. airstrikes, if u.s. strikes syria, does

airstrikes in syria, without assad's consent? >> guest: well, i think the state department and white house have already spoken to that. we don't have a relationship with president assad, we have no embassy there. president obama's policy is that president assad should leave office. he is a human rights abuser, he's thrown that country into chaos and revolution, so we have no sympathy with him. i don't think the united states will be put off on the question of airstrikes into syria by what assad's going to think, and we certainly wouldn't ask his permission. the large e question is -- larger question is, what are the consequences if we do so? do you risk getting dragged into a bigger war? how do you prevent that? how can you conduct airstrikes that can weaken the isis group so, therefore, it won't be able to fight as aggressively in iraq and syria without assuming a commitment that we don't want to assume; ie, a commitment that would have us stay there for a long time. another question that i think

the administration is struggling with is can airstrikes alone be effective? don't you need a fighting force on the ground? in a way we have that in iraq. it's called the iraqi army and the peshmerga, the kurdish forces, they're fighting isis this iraq. in syria you don't have that. we can't work with the syrian military, we oppose them. and many of the rebel groups, excuse me, in syria are so extremist, we wouldn't want to be associated with them or give them support. so can we find moderate groups in syria to work with? i believe we can and we should, but it's complicated, and it does take time. >> host: sandy, florence, south carolina. democratic caller. hi, sandy. >> caller: hi. i'm calling, i support obama. i'm a democrat, and i support obama in everything he's done. he's fought this smartly, okay? people are not realizing he's sitting back and he's doing airstrikes, but we do need boots on the ground, i think, to

defeat these terrorists. and i don't, i've got a question. i don't understand why we can't just go in and get them to the level where they can handle it on the ground and then pull right back out. we don't need to have a long, drawn-out thing. if we don't get faster -- but obama is weighing every option, and maybe these people overseas can give him some better ideas than what the pent gone has already gave him. he doesn't like those ideas. >> host: ambassador? >> guest: well, i think the idea that the u.s. military could go in quickly, destroy isis and i what, it's just not going to work. isis has, no one really knows, maybe 10 thowks fighters, maybe more. it's supported by sunnis on the ground in syria who are opposed to the assad government which has been historically discriminatory towards the sunni

operation. it is also supported in iraq by the very large sunni population in the western part of iraq, some in the northern part of iraq was they don't -- because they don't feel their interests are being taken care of in baghdad. to there's grassroots support for this group. they've got a lot of money because they broke into the national bank in mosul, iraq's second largest city, when they took over mosul and took the money out. they have taken control of oilfields, so they're pumping oil, and they're selling oil on the international market black market, maybe, but they're selling it, and they're getting proceeds from it. so it's well financed, it's supported by tens of thousands of fighters, it's probably supported by hundreds of thousands of sunni civilians on the ground. we just can't go in there, there's not one place we can go to finish. >> we will leave this conversation here. you can see it in its entirety on or web site, go to c-span.org. we are now about to join a live conversation about the outbreak of the ebola virus in west

africa hosted by the institute for national and global health law. it's just getting underway. >> at a time of so many pressing subjects. as professor laird gods den said to me, our faculty director of the institute, this is a great global health tragedy of our time. and the ebola round table that we're starting now epitomizes the mission of the o'neill institute which uses world class scholarship to improve health in america and globally. this ebola crisis is extraordinarily important for global security, and the institute has been at the forefront of policy, ethics and law advising government and the w health care o throughout. the who throughout. the round table, we're

privileged to be able to host this round table at georgetown, and it demonstrates how georgetown university as a university can work together to convene legal, ethical and scientific experts on timely and topical issues in global health and also seek to inform the debate among not only students and faculty, but within the broader washington community and the global community. i'd like to thank some of the people who made this round table possible. first, oscar cabrera and susan kim who did so much to make this happen. so thank you very much. some of the people in the audience, keith martin who heads up the consortium of universities for global health, jeff crowley who's a form toker white house chief on aides who's now at the o'neill institute, miked the ard of -- stoddard of