is it higher then? >> yes. yes, it definitely is according to our study and other research. it definitely increases the risk of a homicide, especially in the immediate three months and full first year after she leaves an abusive relationship. so it does heighten the danger which says to us that that's a time period when we need to be particularly vigilant as communities, that we need to -- in order to prevent those homicides. and the onus of responsibility should not be on her, we need to bring the full bear of the law and implement those laws around the country. ..

>> in this effort to solve the problem which we will do. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i turn outward a sandwich ranking miniter, senator grassley. >> before the talk starts i like to apologize for particularly mr. daniel for missing his testimony and say that sorry for the loss that you talked about. also to apologize to everybody here because this is an apology i've done for the third time in the last half hour. first of all to news conference with senator gillibrand and then to a group of people that i work with very closely on foster care.

it's kind of a rude way to treat all you folks that come here when we have to have two votes and then to intervene things, what i appreciate to, hopefully your understand that. my first question is going to be two professor malcolm. a kentucky law took effect this month that allows people to receive an emergency protective order to pass a background check to obtain a provisional concealed carry permit in one day. i view this as a law that enables victims to protect themselves even when the police are not around and when they're of users information not show up in a background check. so my question, professor malcolm, do you support the ability of people who can introduce you protective order to quickly obtain a provisional concealed carry permit? >> yesterday. i think that's the perfect way to really help women who feel endangered. we've heard a lot of stories today about people who had

temporary restraining orders or permanent restraining orders, and nonetheless were harmed i the person who was to be restrained. you mentioned a list of states that haven't submitted the records for the background checks that sony people are depending on so it makes it much easier for someone who shouldn't get a gun to get it. i think the ultimate protection has to be the individual, no police department can protect everyone all the time. to allow women to have a firearm, just as a deterrent or alternately to absolutely protect herself. >> we're going to leave this take hearing for a nato news conference. you can watch the rest of hearing online at c-span.org and we return to it after live news conference in wales with remarks by the secretary-general of nato and the president of ukraine. >> on the great crisis in ukraine. russia is now fighting against

ukraine in ukraine. russian troops and russian tanks are attacking the ukrainian forces. and while talking about peace, russia has not made one single step to make peace instead of the escalating the crisis, russia has only deepened it. what is happening in ukraine has serious implications for the security and stability of the whole euro atlantic area. we stand united in our support of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity with internationally recognized bos. violations of international law. russia must stop its aggressive actions against ukraine,

withdraw its thousands of troops from ukraine in the border regions. and stop supporting the separatists in reverse its illegal and illegitimate self-declared annexation of crimea, which we do not and will not recognize. this is the first time since the end of world war ii that one to grab another's territory by force. europe must not turn away from the rule of law to the rule of the strongest. this is vital for peace and security in the world. ukraine has been an important and distinctive nato partner for many years.

we highly value of ukraine's contribution to our operations and the nato response force. ukraine have stood by nato, now in these difficult times nato stands i ukraine. our support is concrete and tangent. we have established a comprehensive and tailored practice of messages to ukraine can better provide for its own security. we will focus on cyber defense, logistics, and command control and communications. we will also help with rehabilitation for troops in the country. we will provide advice to help ukraine with defense reforms. and allies will assist ukraine

with around 15 million euro through nato, and in addition to that we have heard several announcements of bilateral assistance, financially and in other ways. and independent, sovereign and stable ukraine firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law is key to euro atlantic security. that is nato's goal, and i know that that is your goal, to. >> thank you very much indeed. secretary-general, your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, i'm really glad to let you know that we have opened a very substantial discussion in a summit today. i never feel such a strong, enormous support, but all the leaders of the countries, head of the government's, and the

representatives of the people of the nato member states have demonstrated today for ukraine. it is definitely a market event at the highest level during the 20 years history of the partnership between ukraine and nato. this partnership has always been a central factor for the international and regional security and stability. the security and stability we shall brutally undermine by russian aggression, and every single head of state and head of the government's stress the importance of unity and solidarity in ukraine, the nato should demonstrate today. from the very beginning, alliance has been standing by ukraine, supporting its political and practical to the maximum extent possible. this was referenced today by

heads of states and governments of the nato, member states today. we also are grateful to nato and individual of light for the practical help and assistance provided to ukraine in the recent months. humanitarian assistance of the civilian population affected by the armed conflict, advisory support which is already worked. medical treatment of the injured ukrainians, servicemen and et cetera. at the meeting many declared additional practical support to ukraine to be provided o on a bilateral basis, including commitment to contribute new the established defense stability to our fund, and also which is very important, to rehabilitate the injured ukrainians servicemen, bilateral military, technical

cooperation on non-lethal and lethal ways. a friend in need is a friend indeed, and that was a very strong demonstration of the solidarity of ukraine. completely new security situation created by this aggression calls for our joint action to counter the challenges including the warfare -- new strategic framework of the nato ukraine cooperation. we held a frank -- future relation in this new security environment. we agreed that our cooperation will be focused on achieving full interoperability between ukraine and nato, and developing capabilities in military, defense and security sectors. we will strengthen our intensive cooperation with the nato in

defense of secure the sector through the development and capacity building programs focusing on reform of ukrainian armed forces, and other security structures. the second important element of the new cooperation framework is ukraine participation in partnership interoperability initiative. this will allow us maintain a high level of their interoperability between the ukraine and nato forces, achieved through the continuous participation of our national contingents in the nato-led mission, joint military exercises. last but not least element of our new framework further deepening of nato ukraine distinct partnership. we can see that this partnership to be an integral part of ukraine european course. the main commitment will be

implementing wide-ranging eu integration related to reform. ukraine will further pursue the goal of -- cooperation, along with other existing tools and mechanisms. second approach will create necessary synergy between the ukraine, european integration and euro slot but cooperation. thank you very much for your attention. spent we will start with -- >> i have a question for both. for ukrainian president, how do, what is your vision for ukrainian way to become nato members? do you have any time frame? for secretary-general, how nato can help ukraine to become member state? thank you. >> a few are looking for the

annual problem for cooperation with nato, so most significant part of this reform dedicated not only to the security sector, but to the economy, rule of law, anticorruption, and different others. and i think this is keep important factor for ukraine to demonstrate the great achievement in this default. and that's what i said that the war on the east of the country is not excuse for not providing the reform in the country. and that's why the next week we will present it, the program of the reform which will develop in the strong corporation with the european union and nato. and i think that the new parliamentary elections will help us, will accelerate the reform. and when the country would be adequate to the critique your for the membership of ukraine

people will decide. when and how it happens. >> and let me take off that because it is exactly for the ukrainian people to decide, and the ukrainian political leadership to decide how to develop further future relationship with nato. but whatever this issue, it is of utmost importance to improve our ability to work and operate together, and this is exactly the reason why we're focusing on reforming and modernizing the ukrainian armed forces, developed the security sector, raise standards to nato level. and that will be a focal point within the nato ukraine commission and the annual national program and the crosspoint we decided to establish.

>> my question to secretary-general. secretary-general, what do you think is military option, i mean the supply of military -- [inaudible] it is russian aggression. how can russian forces carryback or put back to border of russia and crimea can jump back, how can be result of military option? [inaudible] thank you. >> annecy speaking, i don't think anyone would like war or armed conflicts -- honestly speaking. -- to solve this issue. we do believe that the best way forward would be to find a political solution, and to

facilitate such political solution. i firmly believe that the international community must respond the terminally if russia were to intervene further. in ukraine, respond to deeper, broader, tougher economic sanctions that would definitely hurt russian economy and isolate russia further. >> question for ukrainian president. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: allies about supply for ukraine of weapons. are we talking nonlethal

weapons, high precision weapons or lethal assets? are there any agreements to that fact? and can you specify what you said about 15 million euros, which was supposed to come to ukraine? and what they're going to be spent on? [speakin [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: first of all i want to thank all the countries that participate in today's meeting for the very strong support and help, including the financial support for the for trust funds which primarily deal with important areas of ukraine's security. this is about improvement of logistics, the improvement of command and control system, the improvement of communications, and cyber attacks. there are individual countries who undertook coordination and

decided to be the lead nations within those, and all the countries made their commitment to support financially. apart from that, basically each country spoke about the result of our bilateral consultations in the way of assisting ukraine. this primarily is related to military technical operations, both in the edit of nonlethal and lethal weapons, including high precision weapons. individual countries undertook to help ukraine rehabilitate the wounded servicemen. some countries undertook to supply medical equipment and medication. and as you can see, the scope of our cooperation on the bilateral level with individual allies is extremely broad. i would like to emphasize once again that in the final resolution there will be words

about encouraging bilateral cooperation from including in the military and technical field. thanks. >> jim newkirk from bloomberg. i'm ready. first, a question for president poroshenko about the minsk talks tomorrow. how do you see the prospects for an actual cease-fire? and why are you entering this process now? don't you fear this will lead to a for the conflict? and if i could ask the secretary-general to assess mr. putin's peace initiative, is it genuine or a smokescreen? >> look, ukraine is fighting for peace. ukraine was not initiator of war. ukraine our object of the

aggression and we tried to do our best to immediate stop the aggression and to stop the fire. why? because it is exactly ukraine who pays the highest price every single day. losing the lives of their soldiers, innocent civilians, and the as the president of ukraine are ready to do my best to stop the war. and why i have, i can take care for optimism for tomorrow meeting of the trilateral group in minsk, because beforehand it was the statement of the russian authorities and the russian president, and it was in response, the statement of their leaders of so-called -- people,

that they are ready for immediate cease-fire. and that it is very important to have support of the oed, for the mission, and to immediate release the hostages which is kept by the terrorists. and get the situation under control on the ukrainian russian border and withdraw all the russian troops. i think this is a very tough challenge before the very important political negotiation, take into account that the question of the ukrainian sovereignty, ukrainian territory integrity and ukrainian independence is not a question for negotiations. >> if recent statements from president putin represents a

genuine effort to find a political solution, i would welcome it. because that's exactly what we need, a constructive political process. however, what counts is what is actually happening on the ground. so it remains to be seen. and i have to say that previously we have seen similar statements and initiatives, and they've actually just been a smokescreen for continued russian destabilization of the situation in ukraine. so based on experience, we have to be cautious in our assessment, but again, let me say that if we are witnessing a genuine efforts to find a political solution, i would

welcome it. >> thank you very much. good evening. >> and as the native press conference on ukraine wraps up, we return to the gun violence hearing in progress. >> clearly from the data they have gone down in part, in great part because of the gun restrictions that were put on no domestic violence offenders and that have been upheld by the supreme court. that's clear that that's where those reductions have come from. and yes, we need to do more to reduce the domestic violence homicides by other means, to be proactive, to be preventive. but we can continue to reduce

the domestic violence homicides with the guns if we continue to expand the legislation that allows us -- >> that issued defining the law as we see when things changed and you have a lot of people that still get involved in domestic violence. and also when i hear these because i know as a former prosecutor he would always want to get out there, hey, we reduced crime. it's a great. but effect when you're a victim of crime, as mr. daniel knows, those don't mean anything to. when it's your sister was killed or when it's your child who was killed. and so the way i look at this is its a way to build on some of the work that's been done in the domestic violence field and to understand that we see a changing situation with the population and laws can't be stacked the right to be sophisticated who are breaking them. that's what this is really about. i just wondered if you could maybe share a comment on that?

>> well, when you look at them a first of all, let me ask you, what is your question with respect to -- >> the question is about how the situations have changed with dating partners, they need to update and secondly in part because of the you know, does some great things but has emphasis, more and more stalking and more and more ways for people to track people down were made in the past they could just kind of hide and get an address or a new phone number. why we would need to have a bill like this past. >> certainly. i can do from what i've seen and i testified about this earlier, that we are seeing more dating partner situations as opposed to spouses involved in domestic violence cases. we heard the stats, more women are killed either abusive boyfriends than their abusive spouses, abusive husbands, rather. we talked about stalking and that relates and i shared the steps we've had in wisconsin.

in 2005-13, 29 domestic violence homicides and all were precipitated by a history of stalking behavior. that behavior, technology is great. i am glued to that smart phone these days. >> appreciate you haven't done it while i was talking. pretty good. >> so yes, we're glued to these devices today and they can be used to facilitate criminal behavior as well. we see more and more of the. i just don't know how we go about regulating that sort of behavior when it comes to technology. >> what i was meaning was the stalking, the reason we have the stalking bill in there is that we've seen i think there was some recent estimate of, what, 12,000 convicted stalkers in 20 states right now who could get a gun. so we have seen because of this new technology, there are just new ways to find people who wish that maybe they couldn't find. spent it is certainly getting much easier. >> thank you. >> senator blumenthal.

>> thank you very much. let me ask judge mccaffery. you said earlier that judges have to find a level playing field when an abuse victim requests a tro. do you believe that judges to provide that level playing field, or do they hand out tros casually and willy-nilly? >> one, alters i'm aware of take this very strictly. especially when it comes to victims. we have been on the leading edge, the cutting edge of protecting women that have gone through these types of traumatizing events. and again as i said earlier, to us it is far, far more than just handguns, long guns. to us it is all domestic

violence or and yes, judges do take it seriously. we have a police department now that we call directive 90 that make sure that our police officers fill out a specific form, fill out, not only fill out the fall of one all domestic abuse allegations. and the bottom line is, it is one of our most, other than child abuse, special victims abuse, it's one of our most important criminal investigations. so yes. the short answer is a taken very seriously. >> dr. malcolm, do you dispute that? >> whether they take it seriously or not? know. i -- >> well, they take it seriously and they require a showing of fact indicating dangerousness and threat. >> i'm sure that, i'm sure that's what they do now. it's just that you need to people. you need a person who' who is bg accused able to present the

facts and not just one person who comes in and is frightened or pretending to be frightened or whatever, or just when you wt to that of the list as we heard earlier. >> we heard the testimony about, when you say pretending to be frightened. how much courage it takes, how much strength and resoluteness it takes for a woman to even seek a temporary restraining order, not to mention -- >> i think that's true, but -- >> sometimes embarrassing facts to a complete stranger. >> but we also heard from the judge that there are people who game the system. i mean, i know it must take a tremendous amount of courage. i think that's why women should be able to protect themselves. they can't really even with restraining orders depend on the police to protect them. they are was an important case in the district of columbia in 1981 with three roommates, women --

>> why would a woman game the system to protect herself from a dire and dangerous, physical -- >> well, we heard from the judge just this morning that there were all of these long lists of the custody cases, and if she says that she's worried about an abuser, it gets hers to the top of the list. that's something i wouldn't have known. >> and art their proceedings without the other side to -- >> and are there not proceedings without the other side ex parte proceedings and many other circumstances where equally important decisions are made, such as searching houses, surveilling telephones, putting liens on property, both civil and -- >> i think that's the case that we don't need to add another one. i don't think that people's homes should be searched for weapons on the mere allegation of some other person who they

have had no opportunity, that they've had -- >> we are not talking -- >> it's dangerous for the place to go into without this person even having noticed that this happened. so you know i think that, you know, it doesn't provide the opportunity for evidence from both parties. i think that's necessary. i realize it's very difficult for women, frightening, to make allegations and many never do because they are so frightened and there's a whole support network to help these people. but i think all that being said from the evidence that i've seen, half of the accused persons when, after the hearing are found not to be guilty. they need an opportunity be heard. >> and opportunity be heard, greg? >> there is right now, correct. >> and if there is a temporary

restraining order and if the proposal i have made became law, it would be an opportunity to be heard within two weeks? >> within two weeks. so immediately against it taken away, or any other evidence of -- [inaudible] >> to me you are guilty do you prove yourself innocent now. your property gets taken away immediately. your home gets invaded. police are sent with all the danger that that implies, specially if this person with no notion, that this is even happening, and later on he gets a chance to say something. i don't find that due process. >> you are opposed to any kind of temporary restraining order? >> i'm not if there is a hearing at the time for the temporary restraining order. order. only if there is two weeks, three weeks, some other time later. >> what if the assailant, the abuser, is unavailable? >> well, if you provide the opportunity for that person to

come to the hearing, if you notify the person that there's this hearing and they don't show up, then that's their fault but alicia providing the opportunity. >> how much notice and time would you give that person? >> i don't know. >> these are practical realities of trying to protect people, dr. malcolm. >> i will tell you a practical reality to the police come out -- >> represents a threat and a judge has to protect a person, man or a woman. >> there are other ways. >> from an assailant who has a gun and is indicated that he wants to harm her. >> you are not -- >> i don't know whether you've ever been in that responsibility of them in a law enforcement responsibility, but these are more than theoretical or abstract ideas. they are practical threatening realities. >> they are but you don't know for sure what the story is unless both people, it's our

constitution demands, has an opportunity to be heard. that's called due process of law. a person has an opportunity before something is done against him and not two, three weeks, several months later. >> so just to be clear, you don't think that the police should be allowed to execute a lawful search warrant for a firearm? >> i think that they can be allowed to, but they need to have a temporary restraining order. there ought to be a hearing before that happens. >> for a search when there is not a hearing. so if you will apply to a temporary restraining order, the central would apply to research board which means to quote, what i think you said earlier, police should not be allowed to go into someone's house looking for a firearm, which is exactly what they do and execute a search warrants. you don't think that should be does? >> but they have to have evidence. they can't be willy-nilly going

to someone's house and the police, when often go in, more and more violence takes place. >> do you think there's a higher evidentiary standard for research warned tha than there s for a temporary restraining order? >> i think that for a temporary restraining order under these conditions where you have one person coming in and making allegations that you need to the other person heard before the property is taken away. >> is about what happens in a search word? a complaint comes into the police, makes an allegation, the police taken before a judge. if the evidence is credible to execute the church war. that happens everyday in law enforcement. all you really suggesting police should not be authorized to do that? >> i'm not suggesting that police should not be authorized. but i think -- >> a temporary restraining order? >> a temporary restraining order to protect somebody where only that one person has been heard

by the judge. >> exactly the circumstance in a search will. it also must apply to search warrants and that put you in a position of saying a search warrant should be executed by the police. i pretty don't think that makes a lot of sense. >> i don't think it makes a lot of sense to invade someone's house and take their property without their having had the chance to be heard about it. >> which is precisely search word does. so obviously you don't think search warrants on appropriate, and if that's your position, then that's your position. everybody is entitled to have -- >> i think the way now the law works, you're changing the way the law now works in cases. there is an opportunity for people to be heard. you've asked me what they don't show up. well then, that's their problem at least as an opportunity to be heard before they're sort of put under a temporary restraining order and i think that is the issue. i also, if i could just make one

other comment, i also think that with temporary restraining orders, permanent restraining orders, all these issues, the potential victims have to depend on the police being able to be there in time. and i think that that is a real concern. this case that i was going to mention, warren versus digital and where there were women abused and the police called and never can come and they sued the police, the judge said that the fundamental principle of american law, government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services such as police protection to any individual citizen. so i think in that case there isn't -- people can depend on the police come and the police can't be everywhere. they need to be able to be armed to protect themselves. >> mr. schmaling come into less towards? >> yes, i agree we cannot be everywhere as law-enforcement. i'm sure the judge could comment

on that in these days of boots on the ground policing. we certainly can't be everywhere, but we do count on our citizens to call us and we iligence. i certainly don't, i certainly would never tell someone they shouldn't on themselves if they are a law-abiding citizen, exercise their second amended. there's nothing wrong with it. the issue we have is those who shouldn't have weapons, those who are convicted domestic violence abusers, those who are stalkers, those represent a public safety threat to not only the victims but to law enforcement. that's what this is about, is commonsense legislation. >> perfect words to close on. i will recognize -- >> if i may just add one quick note and i will supplement it for the record, but the notion that after by the government in law enforcement requires both sides to be heard before it can be a wiretap or surveillance or search warrant, search and

seizure, put aside domestic violence, would not only undercut but crippled the protection of innocent citizens as the chairman well knows from his experience in the intelligence area. surveillance is done when one side, unrepresented perhaps, not only weeks, months, and for longer traits of time when there is sufficient threat, or a constitutional system depends on a balance of the exigencies of threats to individual safety or our national security as against those constitutional rights that may be temporarily infringed upon. >> as attorney general i actually had to go in and get some of those warrants myself. that's one of the restrictions that violate law puts on that exercise of power that the attorney general shall of your

imprisoned for the presiding judge in superior court. so we are well for me with it. every prosecutor the hearing will remain open for an additional week. if anybody wishes to add, i should set a record of their will remain open for an additional week -- >> anybody want to remain -- >> an additional week. but i have to say how big a grateful i am to senator klobuchar and to senator blumenthal for their leadership in this area. how extraordinary grateful i am to the witnesses for being here, particularly for those who brought personal stories that have had such a dramatic effect on their lives. and to those of you who are in the audience, thank you for your advocacy. and for those of you have suffered losses in this area, we are with you. we will not forget, we appreciate it very much what you are doing. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> later this afternoon, former cia acting director mike murrell is among the speakers talking about the war on terrorism, a discussion hosted by the making institute for international leadership, lie the fourth -- at 5:45 p.m. on c-span. taking a look at prime time here on c-span2 here tonight more booktv with a focus on book fairs and festivals with visits a number of literary events including the harlem book fair. that gets underway at eight eastern. on c-span3 tonight it's more american history tv. we continue our weeklong look at the war of 1812 with a program on the burning of washington in 1814. that also starts at eight.

>> with congress returning monday, here's a message to congress from one of this years c-span studentcam competition winners. >> the nsa, what is it? what does it do? it was hard to answer these questions. before edward snowden leaked thousands of detailed classified documents to the public. these documents showed the folks in of the nsa surveillance on americans. >> the nsa is doing both data collection and americans in a. it is not limited in scope to terrorists, despise, to people that they have probable cause to believe that they are creating some type of crime. it is a bold collection of data of americans e-mails. >> the nsa is very controversial and the only way to resolve that is if congress puts this as a number one issue in 2014. >> join us next wednesday during "washington journal."

>> and now a look at the nato summit taking place in wales from today's "washington journal" this runs just over 40 minutes. c-spa >> host: and we are back with robert levinson, senior defense analyst at bloomberg government here to talk about this nato gathering that is already taking place right now today in wales and will continue tomorrow. friday. what are the goals? what with the original goals of this nato gathering treasure i think the original goals were to tell prior tof the na the events in ukraine but everybody was saying what's on the agenda? original goals are going to talk about? i think to go to talk about now, of course, there's a new goal because there's a new threveat in ukraine's i think the first the goal was to get sort of a very coherent response to what's going onat in ukraine and thes press tal talk about more sanct, military action, shoring up thei alliance is the rapid reaction force they are talking about but i think he want to send a clear message if they can't at present sort of a united front.

>> host: who is calling for what? what country, what leader is calling for what kind of action? >> guest: it's not quite clear. they both talked about this rapid reaction force, and the big thing the united states is calling for is a really greater contributions from native, this whole issue of who is sort of ponying up for the alliance and there's this goal of 2% of gdp and there's only four countries including the united states that are actually country getting that amount of money. but there's still that don't agree with all those all recently france announced they will not sell the two missile ships to russia so that's a positive thing the united states and other members are pushing for the. seems like the europeans and the u.s. are moving closer sort of unified front. >> host: what about germany? what role will sheeplike? >> guest: germany is in a tough spot because economically they will have a lot of ties to russia. but she is a strong voice, the biggest wealthiest country in

europe. she's going to want to sort of balance things. just be careful about hurting the economy too much back home. but then again trying to still making this impression of unity of the alliance. >> host: what is every rapid response team? have you been successful in the past? >> guest: they haven't been successful in the past. a half a unit but is it takes 30 days to mobilize which doesn't seem very rapid. they want about a 4000 men and women forced they could deploy mostly to other eastern european countries, not to ukraine but countries like poland or estonia or latvia on sort of short notice and put forces in if there was a russian incursion into one of these countries. send a signal they're ready to push back if they need to. >> host: would, how would russia do that? >> guest: russia has already responded to this idea single have to revisit their own strategy. they recognize that ukraine is in a different spot. estonia with the president was i think it's yesterday is a nato member.

as a nato member there's article v which is everybody is pledged to defend everybody else. mr. putin would have to be very careful about some sort of an incursion into an actual nato member that's a horse of a different caller. >> host: what about military exercises treasury there was an announcement. i saw the u.s. is going to send forces in for peacekeeping exercise in ukraine in september i just read about that. there are other military moves. we are deploying additional aircraft. the president announced additional aircraft deployment to estonia. in the countries other than ukraine but eastern european countries were trying to show a. we had an intimate at the end of the cold war that we wouldn't permanently based forces into eastern european former warsaw pact countries. that was an agreement with russia. we are saying they will not be program but they will be persistent i think is the word is being used. they will be on a rotating presence that looks like we are stepping up and signaling to the

eastern european allies that nato is downtown. >> host: this is part of the billion dollars president obama proposed agenda congress needs to approve transferred some of the funds are for part of that. some of that billion dollars is for some of these efforts. >> host: what does this current situation with russia and i said because nato will be talking about that as well, what does it say about the relevancy of nato today? >> guest: nato is really the most successful military alliance in history but it's pretty incredible what it's done but it's kept the peace in europe, the main in is designed to fight the soviet union sort of one way not with a bang but with a whimper. it faded away. it was in the midst of an identity crisis. what does it do now because the soviet threat went away? with russia it reaffirmed the relevancy of the alliance and had to get we're still important but again there's this issue after chipping to make sure outside of use there are real military teeth behind the alliance. >> host: tell us what's going on with contributions.

>> guest: the way it works right now is the kolobnev is a but he contributes 2.2% of gdp. the u.s. is about 4.4%. the uk, estonia and greece are the only countries that at or above 2% to everybody else's below that number. i did the math and the flecha what it would take to get up to the two presents a level by the other 27 countries of nato, the ones not there now, you're talking a $108 billion above what you're spending on defense in 2013. seems like a lot of money, about 34% increase over current spending but in terms of overall gdp if you add up these countries they over $19 trillion in gdp, through talking maybe a point or six or 7% of bump as a percentage of the collective gdp. it's really not that much but it's difficult. european countries, they are all recovering from the financial crisis and things like that. they have an aging population to have huge social safety nets. sort of like we do.

it's a tough sell to europe right now to say we've got to spend a bunch more money on defense. >> host: at the same time tell them you need to sanction russia. >> guest: right which will cause economic pain but it doesn't cost that much pain in the united states because we don't have those trade relationship with russia, but for countries like germany and others that have substantial trade with russia, the sanctions, they will hurt the russians would hurt them as well post but is that a possibility nato agrees? >> guest: i think so but they will be very careful. i don't think that's the top of the new agenda because that's an economic thing. but there will be some discussion and i think you're seeing it ratchet up a cabinet french green not to sell these ships, that's a tough call for the french. does a lot of jobs. the french economy is in tough times. i'm not sure if france will be compensated for the ships somehow or some other nato country will buy them. i haven't seen the details on that agreement but again, people

are realizing this russia ukraine think this series and they do need to send a message back to mr. putin. >> host: front page of the finest times says -- to france for canceling, it hasn't said they have canceled it. they halted it. but it could hurt them economically to do so. >> guest: absolutely. this is a huge blow. friends, like a sick up there in tough economic times right now. >> host: what about this idea of arming the ukrainian fighters? >> guest: that's sort of the rub of the real debate. any people are calling for more arms for the ukrainians, more training, perhaps u.s. or other advisors going in. that's the point a debate. it's not clear whether u.s. can write nevius is reluctant to do that. we sent some nonlethal aid and we were probably provide a certain amount of intelligence

to the ukrainians but i think there's a fear of escalation another russians might react to that. one of the things went to be very careful of is the stakes in some sense are higher for mr. putin and it offers. this is in his backyard. a lot of historical and cultural reasons why things russia should have the right to control ukraine. we have to be very careful but it is a very contentious point and there are some calling for a. if things don't call that i think we made move in that direction of providing more lethal eight and perhaps some training. but there's always this risk of escalation that nobody really wants. >> host: we're talking with robert levinson of bloomberg government senior defense analyst about this data gathering taking place today in wales as well as tomorrow. russia, isis, afghanistan also on the agenda agenda as we wantt your questions and your thoughts on this.

robert levinson, what about isis? president obama enbridge prime minister david cameron pinning an op-ed today in "the times of london" saying that they will not be cowed by this group and they would build a coalition to what would that take? >> guest: it takes a lot because there's so many players in this game. there's all the sunni arab state ally, countries like saudi arabia and others. is a complicated situation but we've got on the when isis and iraq but also isis in syria that is fighting president assad and we don't like president assad. president obama has called for his ouster. aside is backed by the iranian. iranian's also backed the government in iraq who are fighting isis. it's a really obligated situation. the enemy of my enemy, is that still my enemy or my friend? these are difficult problems. trying to form sorted original response and try to get consensus will be very, very tough.

i think that's one of the reasons the president said he doesn't have a strategy it because he still couldn't figure these but in the region want to do and how much help they're willing to offer. >> host: what would it take to blobilly coalition and who needo be a part of it? >> guest: how long it would take i don't know. there is a sort of sense of urgency. certainly some of the bordering states like turkey and to be part of it, saudi arabia, the wealthiest most powerful arab country definitely needs to be part of it. and, of course, our nato allies but we always want them anytime ago to fight anywhere we want as many of them on board. jordan is a key piece of the they're also on the board and very concerned. i think those are some of the key members. >> host: front page of "the wall street journal" has a headline that turkey is targeting jihadists highway. officials saying they're cracking down on islamist fighters that are trying to return to turkey or get their way, make their way through turkey to these other countries. preston is the first in campus

illinois independent caller. go ahead. good morning to you. >> caller: want to say i think we should, the financial state anything going on right now iraq, isis, we can do. idyllic we shouldn't get too involved with iso. we could kind of go with nato. go with our allies and, you know, put pressure but i don't think we should make it to where it escalates. >> host: is there a chance it could escalate to all-out war quick someone said if you armed ukrainians, that could be a step towards all-out war. >> guest: that's the fear is the escalation but i think the president and other members of nato made it pretty clear. they are really not willing to risk more for ukraine. ukraine again is not a nato member and i think the russians know that as well. the u.s. is not going to go that far, we're not going to risk the kind of confrontation.

this year is we take a step and the russians take a step and get sucked into something like this which has happened before in history. this is a 100th anniversary of the world war i which nobody expected over a small assassination in the balkans. so everybody is pretty sure that they don't want this to escalate that way and i think they will be careful but the risk is not zero. >> host: portland, oregon, democratic caller. >> caller: hello. i just want to say that i approve of what the president is doing as far as the ukraine and russia is doing. i think that diplomatic solution should be sought there. however, as far as isis goes, i really believe that once the target has been identified, they need to go in full force and eliminate it. because i don't want to see another vietnam, which my generation of men went through and they lost a huge percentage of my generations of men. i just don't want to see another

vietnam happening and i'm afraid that's what will happen. you know, truman i believe it was went in and dropped the bomb on japan and it, i know it was horrific and i don't want to see that happen again, but on the other hand, it to save millions of lives and ended the war. and i think that that's the only thing those people in the middle east are going to respond to. i mean, they are brittle and if you're going to fight with somebody got to fight to win. i agree with the man who spoke earlier. >> guest: well, i think the column brings up a very interesting point. we are flying reconnaissance flights over syria right now try to identify targets of isis. reasonably we will have a decision to bomb those targets but the question is how much you can do with air power alone. there's a real reluctance to the so-called boots on the ground. the president campaigned on and is very proud of getting out of iraq and all of a sudden we're sending forces back to granting

the president just announced 350 more forces to go our -- protector embassy. there's a reluctance to put boots on the ground with the question is how far can you go with air power? could've they can do damage. we can identify targets and things like that, but wiping out isis with air power alone, that's really tough. but then you get into this tough spot putting boots on ground which i think this president is extremely reluctant to do. >> host: we will go to robert next in new london, connecticut, independent caller. >> caller: good morning. ides want to ask your guest because he sounds pretty gung ho, and i was one of 18, no longer, i just want to know where he gets this information? because information about really what's going on because from what i understand, i go to conferences in the northeast here, in washington and i'm hearing different stuff.

i'm hearing stuff in my country that i have been listening to for a long time from neocons, william kristol and all these people, that have a negative impact and don't really give me any information where i can go and i can, i can see. you are talking facts. facts. i think these false flags going on in ukraine and all over the world, to really focus on what's really happening to our country and what we do around the world. we are not like because we back people in the middle east that i consider apartheid and so did my president carter, and i just think these people have way too much influence on our congress and lobby. i just want to know the answer, i just want to know the answer to my question, where can i go to have a little bit of proof of what you're saying is true?

>> guest: well, there's lots of sources of information out there, but clearly everybody is sort of filtering it through their own biases and their own predilections but there's a lot of media out there. you can get videos of some of the stuff that's going on. i think isis is promoting the views of some of the activities that they're doing but, of course, the russian media is portraying a be ukraine. it's tough. with access to a lot of information that is going through a lot of different filters. i will put in a personal plug, "bloomberg news" is a terrific source of information, but you've got to look at all of it and sort of make your own judgments about the. >> host: you also members of congress that serve on the intelligence committee like diane feinstein and adam schiff saying this is a real threat, isis is a real threat, and diane feinstein saying the president may be a bit too cautious. you have busy be on twitter wondering isis has been in in existence since 2004. why weren't they do with back

then as would've been easier to fix? do we know the history of isis? >> guest: i'm not sure it goes quite back that far, but this grew out of al-qaeda and iraq and things like this. .. and a lot of unpredictable things can have been. so you know, there's criticism of the president for being cautious and i suppose some of

that is fair and he probably would argue differently, seen in the past maybe we haven't been cautious enough. it is a very difficult problem and i'm not sure what the right answer is. postville lets listen to what president obama had to say yesterday in estonia about russia and the message you would like nato to send. here is the message from estonia. >> we must send an unmistakable message in support of ukraine as well. our lives have a partnership for more than 20 years. was there with distinction in nato operations in the balkans and afghanistan. so in wales, we will meet as an alliance with president porchenko with sovereignty and right to defend its territory. ukraine is more than words. nader needs to make concrete commitments to ukraine modernize and strengthen security forces.

and by the way, we have to do more to help other nato partners including georgette edward o. but to strengthen their defenses as well. [applause] and we must reaffirm the principles that have always guided our alliance. the countries that meet our standards and that can make meaningful contributions to ally security, the door to nato membership will remain open. >> host: robert levinson, what each year for the president? >> guest: there, he is talking about arming other countries, are named the ukraine so he may be moving a little more in that direction. talk about certain commitments to ukraine, trying to send a strong signal they are. i am not sure they're several consensus in the united states or europe about arming ukrainians, but it seems to be the president lehman in that

direction. >> host: and you've also got the money issue today with also. as he talked about earlier, according to nato figures in 2013 u.s. spent 735 billion on defense while the other 27a donations spent 280 billion combined, a 72% to 28% split. the context spent 4.4% of gdp on defense while the rest of nato's members average 1.3%. >> guest: this is a very critical issue. if you want to be relevant, you countries, most forcefully put by. he went to nato described as a two boy for over the head talking about their lackey new and military capabilities and the operations in libya started running out of the missions. they had to give the nato countries bombed so they could have something to participate. he was worried about a two-tier alliance. that is a huge question.

if you want to be relevant and help influence decisions in nato, you got to pony up and thus far the nato country, a lot of them have it they do not. >> host: republican caller. hi, james. >> caller: hi, i wanted to say the same way obama and david cameron say they won't be counted, i hope the other leaders meeting will be cowed by our president who isn't able to, you know, call this what it really is it really isn't it really is and that is radical islam, wanting to exterminate everybody else. and you know, i just hope those other leaders standup, you know, like david cameron -- when i heard david cameron's comments the other day, i was the third time i had heard real leadership in six years. that's all you have to say. thank you. >> guest: yeah, there's been a

question about forcefulness or lack of forcefulness of the language the president uses an ukraine and of electors to use the word innovation in ukraine. sometimes this rhetoric is a very strong teams can get you into a certain amount of travel. the president make comments about a red line in syria when it came to chemical weapons and he regretted that later because it seemed to draw the line and commit the united states a certain action and then appeared were willing to take. this president again caution is overriding on their spin criticism that little too cautious in some of that is probably fair. >> host: california, steve come independent collar. what is your question or comment for levinson of bloomberg government? >> caller: there's 110 countries or 250 countries recognized by nato in regard -- not regards, but there's over 5000 media out there already.

we are denoted as many languages as nato recognizes. >> host: how many countries nato recognizes or how many countries are current members of nato? i guess we don't have steve. >> guest: i don't know about nato officially recognizing countries. i do know there's 20 members of nato including the united states. >> host: you've got aspiring nato members your job, macedonia , some others as well. does ukraine want to be a nato state? >> guest: ukraine wants to be a nato state, but nato is reluctant particularly now to have ukraine joining nato because it is article v, a real commitment to defend the country appeared other countries are starting to talk about this. finland and sweden have conversations in most countries about perhaps waning in the defense. they are to similar situation. that is taken on a little more of a serious discussion mayor. but again, they were talking

about prior to the ukraine events about nato expansion been on the agenda for the summit. i think that is kind of put on the back earner. nato has enough on its plate right now and i don't think even though we are still open to this, georgia or more nova for macedonia will move into. >> caller: good morning, good morning. this problem in my opinion is not complicated. it's not complex. what is so complicated is the fact that we have a problem been on ice. we have a problem being educated about our enemy. in terms of saudi arabia or the president of turkey, which makes comments like anti-fanatic nazi. when it comes to saudi arabia, they are not part of the

problem. just one example, the atlanta journal-constitution ran an article is seven years ago, a full-page article about a imam from arabia and one of the largest amount in the united states in 14 to atlanta georgia. he sounded like a member of isis. it was unbelievable. i won't even repeat the things he said. the graphic nature was astounding. and this is common amongst these philosophers, wahhabi, clerics being funded and spreading this ideology. >> host: what do you want to be done about it? >> caller: number one, if the best disinfectant. if we gave this truth the attention it deserves, the so-called leaders had the

courage, the honesty and education to give it the attention it deserves, may be the civilized world might rise up and help the transformation of this ideology and demand that it be ended. >> host: okay, all right. robert, your thoughts. tesco the caller raises an excellent point. countries like saudi arabia clearly saudi arabia clearly does it share our values. there is his extremist islam that runs rampant in saudi arabia. their views on the role of women are certainly anathema to most of what we as americans believe is a very complicated situation. we saw in the air of spring there was a suffered in many countries is sort of rise up and try and bring similar form of democratic governance and i think were largely supportive of that. we started with him and president mubarak of egypt after it became clear he was going to fall and hoping for a more progressive government in setting egypt we got the islamic

motherhood who are one of the soul office groups that the caller mentioned. so some transformation in that part of the world i'm certainly all for it. if the question of how you do that and away most of of these countries, these may arab uprisings haven't been all that successful in bringing more to these regions.ive government >> host: underline for dependents, mike is watching in jacksonville beach, florida. hi, mike. >> caller: good morning, mr. levinson. with all of our supposed allies, why can't we say if you don't stand a can help your foreign aid stop, do you think we can get allies then? call >> guest: the question about foreign aid, saudi arabia and the gold states don't get foreign aid from the united states. we do sell them weapons, but they are paying for these things out about the money they get basically from the oil revenues. israel and turkey we do get

made, jordan regis and aid as well. foreign aid is sometimes a lover that can be useful when we can do some of those things, but it is often a two-edged sword because when you pull it you have no restraints. we've been were elected to pull foreign aid to reject even under the muslim brotherhood government. we didn't pull the aid they are and then there is a crew. our law says that there is a coup you have to pull foreign aid so we didn't call it a coup because they're reluctant to do that. all of these things are a two-edged sword so we don't know how you so that might be. >> host: california, joy, democratic caller. >> caller: hi, good morning. i want to bounce back a little bit to iraq. i remember when you were starting to go into that conflict and i remember john mccain saying it was on c-span and he said don't worry about iraq. we will be out in six to eight

months. you know, 10 years later we are still there. we are out now, but not too long ago. and i think that we have done more damage than good. we were lied into that war and i think -- i just think that it is time for us -- i am all for foreign aid and everything, but it is time for us to stop policing the world. if we were having a revolution or a leadership in our country, how many other countries would come in and try to fix their? you know, my last comment is there's only one reason we are over in the middle east and it is oil. the code word is protect our

interests. we all know what those interests are. and it's time to take care of our own people and i appreciate c-span and thank you all for listening. >> guest: well, i think the caller has an interesting point. a lot of people expected or racked to go much differently than it did. i think if president bush had believed they would be taken a decade in iraq in 150,000 troops and for 5000 american soldiers dead, he might've thought differently about that. it was premised on the basis that we thought they had weapons of mass destruction. turns out they didn't. that is what is motivating about him as president. we have to remember he was one to oppose the iraq war and he's very proud like the fact he says he got us out of there and now he is sort of being drunk back into it, which is clearly not enthusiastic about. what the caller point out is this region is so confiscated

and we think we might be doing the right in and trying to get a good outcome. there's so many variables, things get really unpredictable. >> host: boca raton, florida. hi, larry. democratic caller, good morning. >> caller: mr. levinson, iraq is a predominantly shia state. and syria is also predominantly a shia state. what is wrong with putting these two together and not be not isis? >> guest: well, that is an interesting perspective. again, the regime in syria as part of a minority sect called alloway. i don't know that much them, but there is a shiite population in iraq that is the majority, but it is the sunni population that is a very large minority and may have been backing isis. the shiites are in someway

aligned with the random we have a lot of difficulty with the rand. again, i keep coming back to this word of complexity and difficulty. there was no black and white here. it's a difficult situation. >> host: on the agenda is the issue of afghanistan. what will the nato countries be talking about? >> guest: well, the first thing if they had a reason election in afghanistan. they had a cow. they are trying to settle the political environment and quickly negotiate an agreement with the new president has to an ongoing presence of those men who are buying for the presidency and are willing to find something that is sort of have to sort out the political difference in nato will discuss how they can get that finalized, get an agreement and look at what the commitments are. the u.s. talked about 9000 u.s. troops. based on that, the nato countries will then be we are willing to commit x number of troops for training in counterterrorism missions going forward in afghanistan.

>> host: does that calculation of how many troops remain and what countries take into consideration for lessons learned from what's going on in iraq right now. >> guest: a lot of people look at iraq and it is difficult negotiations to maintain an ongoing presence. those negotiations fell apart. we don't have a non-growing presence in iraq and has descended into chaos. everybody including our president and the other countries say look, we don't want the same thing to happen in afghanistan. we have to work to keep some large enough presence to make a difference, keep a lid on and can hold afghanistan to progress to take care of itself. with iraq might be what do that. i wasn't able to do that and i think there's a lot of second guessing after pulling out of iraq as quickly as we did. postal george, lafayette, louisiana, independent caller. go ahead, george. go ahead with your question or comment for robert levinson. >> caller: okay, one, eastern

europe. first, u.s. promised gorbachev that they would dismantle the soviet union and become part of nato and would be one superpower. second, that didn't happen in. third, george bush promised putin that the u.s. would not be in eastern europe. second, james baker promised putin that the u.s. would not go when one engine to eastern europe and that happened in malta and now here we are inducing a revolution in the ukraine, the majority of the people do not want to join nato and the country is split. and we have $17.5 trillion deficit due to the iraqi lawyer and how we are going to resolve

our problems instead of having to support the revolution and other countries simply because of our interest and oil interests. no one in the world, i don't mean no one. 5% of the world and we have europe, which is another 10% of the world may agree with us. the rest of the road, especially the support to israel do not agree with us and no matter what we do over there, whoever comes into power, they are not going to agree with us. >> host: robert levinson. >> guest: the caller talks about certain promises made at the end of the cold war. there were a lot of tacit promises. one was made about ukraine. ukraine had nuclear weapons at the end of the cold war. ukraine agreed to give the not then there was agreement, the budapest agreement in 1994 that

both russia and the united states agreed to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons and he gave up nuclear weapons. well, it is safe to argue russia is not really respecting the territorial integrity anymore of ukraine. so lameness blame on the united states for making this promise is not living up to them is a bit of a stretch. what is happening in ukraine has been fermented. a lot by the russians. they have troops in the country and provide arms to the separatists. i'm not sure what the majority of ukrainian people feel, but they want to be an independent ukraine inmates are decision rather than be sold at the russians that parts of their country are no longer dares. >> host: ross, columbus, ohio. democratic caller. what is your question or comment? >> guest: >> caller: thank you for having me. i would like to dovetail on a

couple of the last colors, especially the last one. how do we expect the american people expect to respect congress, to respect not only president obama, the former president when they keep telling us we have a large data set and were not going to leave any money for her kids. every time a conflict breaks out we are willing to spend billions of dollars in weapons and machinery for yet we can't take your education and simple basic needs of our country. how can we trust politicians who may make comments like that? like i said, we can put out every fire in the world. we have to realize that sooner or later. thank you. >> guest: the caller raises an excellent point. all this costs a lot of money. right now we have is we have a father bennett's defense spending is cut for the budget control act of 2012 and many people say if were going to get involved in ukraine are back, maybe we need to revisit some of that.

right now we have entitlement spending getting out of control with social security and medicare and medicaid. these are tough questions. i think there's a lot of voices in the country to say after a decade of war in afghanistan and iraq it's time to pull back. those voices are out there and finance is a big part of that. >> host: david sanger had a piece this morning rain as the president to issue which costs a lot of money resources takes on isis in iraq, possibly syria and attacks syria and then talks about gardening or doing something more against russia, that there is a cost to all of this, raising the point your big unit to pentagon have budget constraints and the price tag for airstrikes in iraq, $225 million a month. >> guest: yeah, this is an issue. all of these things cost money. a lot of people talk about do this or do that. and you say what programs are going to cut to pay for this? your mom's social security check

or medicare or higher taxes? the last words we thought we lower taxes. we've never done that before in american history. the question is this one thing to have these ambitions and play the role the world, but that costs a lot of money and you've got to cut other programs or deficit spending, which is what we've been doing or agree to raise taxes, which i don't hear anybody say not, let's raise taxes to pay for the new efforts overseas. i don't hear that voice at all, but the money has to come from somewhere. >> host: was here from dan, our last, a republican caller. >> caller: yes, i heard joh kerry on tv talking about this new muslim envoy and his words were revision means some didn't. this is what he said. just a few months ago, the administration when they did want to hear the concerns of christians and jewish concerning

the aca at told us that religion didn't mean anything. so it does mean that this president often times sides of the muslims. he's afraid to call the islamic extremist terrorism. you know, this is that they are before you rant here and i didn't pay much attention to it good if you look at what he does write down the line. >> host: dan, what do you want him to do? tesco well, what i want to send to respect the religion of this country, his own constituency just as much as he respects around the world. >> host: all right. robert levinson, the issue of religion, how is that negotiated and talked about at a summit to like the one they are having today and wales tomorrow as well with the nato allies. i mean, is religion a fact are there?

>> guest: i don't know how much of a fact are. it's a difficult problem. secretary of defense rumsfeld said something once. are we killing these people who the islamic extremist faster than the madrassas are producing them? be up there basically is no, we are not. we recognize in order to drain the swamp you have to fight the extremists and perhaps kill them and take military action, but in order to drain the swamp for the young muslim men is there has to be a different voice in islam. there's a million in the world and most of them don't support this kind of activity and you got to reach out to them. you want to label the bad guys for what they are. at the same time come you don't want to alienate the muslim populations. we have a muslim population in our country, but we are worried about people going over and been partners. there's reports hundreds of americans and europeans have gone over to fight with isis.

it's a tough thing for western leaders to talk about because we want to respect everybody's religion. there is a strain of islam that can do this sort of extremist activity and we have to be against that, but not alienate the majority of muslims will be our allies in ultimately winning this way. >> host: robert levinson, thank you for your time this morning. >> guest: thank you very much.

>> of course kids like non-whole grains. yes, that is what they prefer. they like sugary than more. if you give kids a choice would you like to have sugar or fruit and vegetables, they will pick sugar. it's what they like. their taste buds love it. but we have to be the adults in the room. we don't give kids the food they want. you have to teach them how to eat well for their whole lives. and that takes leadership. it takes determination. it takes creativity. i love the fact you told her school district at three colors everyday. my children when i was teaching about nutrition and when they were four, five and six, that's how we did it. how many colors can you put on your plate? he loved that. because my children ate steamed

vegetables as children, they'll be like steamed vegetables. they don't want butter. they don't want cream. they've been eating fruit of every meal since they were babies. so my kids as a consequence because they are introduced healthy foods at every mail, they prefer healthy foods. so for a lot of these kids, they are not getting help the foods at home. they are getting refined carbohydrates at every meal. a typical meal would be a burger and fries. of course they prefer burger and fries. that's what they've been fed since they were little. we have to do more. i feel that yes, it is easy to have flexibility. people like them since they've had as a kid. it's not serve refined food. it's actually push them to eat something healthy that makes them help the them reach their full potential. when a kid is obese, he does it reach its full potential. he can concentrate in class. he's often made fun of. he has low self-esteem.

he doesn't reach us all potential. she doesn't reach her full potential. so i i'm grateful that all of you have thought outside the box figuring out how to solve these problems and meet nutrition standards. so i do not want to back up these nutrition vendors. let's figure it out. we can figure it out. >> a portion of her recent and agriculture hearing on school lunches. watch that event in its entirety tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, sees beyond. -- c-span.

>> the federal partners and bullying prevention hosted a daylong summit recently aiming to build upon the goal of creating a national strategy and private and public organizations to ensure student safety. in these next four should you hear from representatives from the education, justice and health and human services departments. also a discussion on trends in bullying. >> [inaudible conversations] >> hi, everyone. we will go ahead and get started so everyone can please take your

seats. hello and welcome to the fourth federal bullying prevention summit. my name is sarah and i work at the u.s. department of education and i'm a member of the summit planning committee, subcommittee of the larger federal partners in bullying prevention. we are pleased to have you here with us today as i now have the pleasure to introduce assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education here at the is department of education. >> thank you so much and thank you again for being here. first forgetting to our security system so it's great when you're always able to make a but even more importantly we ordered this weather for you. if you've ever been to d.c. in august you know this is not typical at all. we wanted to be sure you had a great experience if you're coming from out of town but if you're in town we wanted to make more special to think we may

have some work with the weather going on. i want to welcome you to this fourth bullying prevention summit and were so excited to have so many partners engaged in this work and it's an issue for me that's really so vital, having spent the bulk of my crew in education and having seen what occurs with students on a regular basis and all kinds of settings. i will talk more about that in a few minutes but it's such a great honor for me to introduce our next guest who's at the white house, and it is been an honor for me to get to know him. one of the things i want to share with you is i have never met a person in government who has more focus, more commitment to kids but even more so who iss more hard and again. every time i speak with roberto rodriguez i'm reminded why anyone of us wants to work with kids every day. because it's the passion that fuels his thinking all the time

about policies. thank you, roberto, and we welcome you to the stage to give opening remarks. roberto rodriguez from the white house, the department -- we will have you over here. [applause] >> hi, good morning, everyone. it's wonderful to see. thank you first, for the very kind introduction but also just for your outstanding leadership to strengthen and support our schools across the country that could not have a better advocate and better voice in washington than yours and our secretary of education, arne duncan you at the department of education. it's really my pleasure to be here today to bring greetings from the white house, to welcome you to the fourth annual now federal partners in bullying prevention summit. i'd like to start today's conference i giving a very warm and special thanks to all of our partners that are gathered here today from the department of

education, from the department of justice, from the department of health and human services, and from all other federal partners from across our agencies. this is really a collective and hands on, all hands on deck effort across our federal agencies to support this work. so want to thank them for all the work they've done to make this fourth annual summit are on really. let's give him a big round of applause. [applause] >> we've come together here this morning and will discuss and talk throughout the day, because we know that bullying is not only unacceptable, but because we know that we have to take action. to examine what we can do to help those youth who are bullied, to work with those that do bully, to create positive school climate, and to make sure that all of our young people are

supported and are safe in communities across our country. nearly one-third of all of our young people in school report being bullied. our federal agencies are still gathering the latest round of data for this latest year, but it appears that figure has remained unchanged over the past several years. bullying is still a major problem in our schools and in our communities. so we need to move the needle on that number. and collective action around this challenge is what this summit and what today's convening is all about. we are here because we believe we can make a difference in keeping our children safe and bully free. we can re-create what school feels like for children. not a place of fear but a place of healthy development, a safe place to learn, to grow and to make new friends.

and as the president has said time and time again, bullying is not a right of passage or a homeless part of growing up. it's wrong, it's destructive, and we can all prevent it. three years ago our president and our first lady prepare to host the first ever white house conference on bullying prevention. it was clear to me than and it remains so today that as our first family and as our parents in chief, he and our first lady are the strongest advocates against bullying. they really led the charge, and they have pushed us forward as an administration to make important strides in this effort. as parents of two beautiful school aged girls, i think the president and the first lady know how challenging it is as parents to make sure children feel safe, well-equipped to navigate the journey to adulthood with all of its highs

and all at its lows. and it's a time that's filled with hopes and disappointments, when we are forming our own conceptions of who we are and who we want to be. and for most the transition to young adulthood is also a time of insecurity and vulnerability. especially in relationships with peers. so that is why more than ever it is a time when we as a collective community should foster a culture and a climate of acceptance for all of our young people to be able to grow and develop. we need to create a safe place for them to learn, to grow, to feel comfortable in their own skin. and when the child is bullied, we know that we have failed in that duty. it's important to acknowledge we can't place the blame on any one individual for why that bullying came to be, but at the same time we must acknowledge that we all have a role in preventing it from happening.

we only to be proactive to make sure that bullying stopped before it starts. all of us whether we are parents, educators, students, neighbors, all of us have a collective charge to care for our children and to ensure that they don't feel the fear of being bullied or harassed. so when i joined you at this convening just two years ago i said we needed to take a stand, we needed to take action to stop bullying now. today we must continue to take that stand. but we also need to come together to explore what's working, what other behaviors contribute to bullying the young people might be negatively influenced by. we need to understand how we can leverage the success of all children to keep them safe. we also need to look at what isn't working and what lessons we can learn from those efforts to be able to move forward effectively.

so over the past two years our administration along with the external public and private stakeholders has continued our collective progress in this effort around bullying prevention. we created earlier this year a uniform definition of bullying that we released to improve public health surveillance of bullying and to inform efforts to address bullying. that was a long endeavor, but it was a very important never to build and get on a, page of the country about this challenge. we have commissioned a new project of u.s. department of health and human services at our institutes of medicine on reducing bullying among youth to invest models that are proven effective in decreasing bullying as well as methods to mitigate the negative health impact of bullying. we've launched a program of research of the department of justice to focus on children's exposed to violence with a particular focus on internet harassment or cyberbullying and

we've undertaken important work you of the department of education to address bullying with students of disability. these are just a few of the efforts that are underway. we also know that too often bullying is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to deeper challenges in our schools. it should be a warning sign of the need to promote positive school climate across the board. we know we need to promote a shared vision of respect and engagement in our schools, and within the communities that surround them. respect engenders that sense of safety, those strong relationships, that caring that our young people can feel in their communities and among the adults around them. this is also why our administration is making efforts to partner with schools to improve school climate. our department of education models this important into

relationship between student engagement, safety and environment. there are many more accomplishments that we will talk about today that will be launched today, but i want to just again convey our administrations thanks to each and every one of you for everything you've done to partner with our administration to prevent and stop bullying. i hope this summit will inspire continued effort on this critical issue for our children. i'm looking forward to the day that we no longer have to deal with bullying at the level that we have. hopefully one day we will not have to have this conference. we still have a lot of work to do across the country, but i hope that all of you who have joined us today, all of you for watching online with us we'll walk away from today's convenience with new ideas, with solutions you can take back home and apply directly in your schools and in your communities.

i hope you leave here with the renewed sense of energy, a renewed clarity of our common objectives, of our common purpose in keeping our communities safe and bully free. and i hope that all of us will step up and do our part to keep our young people safe, to give them everything they need to learn, to grow, to be successful and to fulfill their dreams. thank you all so much. [applause] >> thank you so much for those heartfelt words. you can get a sense of why i enjoy working with roberto so much because i know he always keeps kids at heart. once again welcome to the summit. not only did i want to thank roberto comment, and soon you'lr from to outstanding colleagues of mine, karol mason and pam hyde. they've been incredible partners.

people usually think of d.c. is being a place of isolation or silos. this is a really wonderful example of our being able to reach across federal agencies and to know that their other individuals who have the same energies and passion about a particular area such as this. i would want to publicly thank them. i also want to recognize in our department david. he usually is always hiding in the back somewhere and i don't know that i don't see them. is he hiding? david, you're hiding in the courtroom okay. i want to thank david. he leads up our office of safe and -- safe and healthy soon. it's been very dedicated to his work as is his team so thank you david and to your staff for being such great partners and always being readily of able to reach out to districts and most especially the state agencies that help them with this work. we know this is a big month for kids, as our students heading back to school this month. we are all aware of kind of the passion and energy and just the excitement they have about going

to school. we also recognize that there are too many kids who will be scared to step foot into that school building. maybe because the situations they face lash and they don't know what's going to happen to them this year, or too many kids were plagued by bullying over the summer, particularly cyberbullying. as roberto mentioned, bullying is a daily problem faced by too many kids. according to the 2013 indicators of school crime and safety, in 2011 about 28% of 12 to 18-year-olds reported being bullied at school. in 2011 as well, approximately 9% of students aged 12-18 reported being cyber bully. anywhere during the school year. and so if you grew up like i did, i sometimes feel like a first step into school when the earth was still cooling, it's been a long time, cyberbullying was not an issue for us back them. we just had to worry about digital machines at the time. what's happened now with

technology which is so great for instruction but it's also become a tool to enable bullying to be a 24/7 sport. none of this is acceptable. what's really great about today's summit and different than prior summits is that instead of focusing on what the problem is, we'll be asking you to take a closer look at the challenges and to export possible strategies to address bullying prevention. this is particularly important since the issue of bullying has neither diminished nor has been eradicated. so we are really looking forward to hearing from you throughout the day, particularly during the s we examine bullying and related high-risk behavior's concluding hazing and teen dating violence through the lens of school climate. as we all are aware, school climate is incredibly important for not only keeping students safe and engaged, but also for helping to improve their academic achievement. i think so much about school climate, at one point in my

career i actually was in middle school teacher and if you've ever want the high so those of education on a daily basis, going to in middle school and fall on people. if you read middle school kid yourself, you know that anyone data ready to hug you and evan next day you don't know anything and they want to walk 20 feet in front of you, right? right? i just couldn't recruit a student of mine, kendra, was hay and unknown to me should been bullied extensively for the last several months. she got into a fight. and because she precipitated the fight, i knew that this was going to be hard challenge for her, and probably the repercussions were not going to be really good. so i did exactly what every adult should never do. i looked at kendra and i said to her, it doesn't matter. whereupon she pushed me into a locker and she said to me with a very emphatic voice and through her hit out at me, and she said, it do matter but i realized at that moment in time that out of my frustration with my bag of

tricks dealing with a situation that i needed some help and resources to strategize how best to deal with the kendra's of my cricket how best to deal with na what to do and the only retaliation was to do something that would end of them in trouble as opposed to what precipitated event. so i should think through this about school culture and climate please beware of the kendra's that are in our schools all over the country. please be aware of those who did the wrong thing. it's not only students who need resources, its teachers and principals who need resources as well. and many families need resources. we are -- with a great parts of my job is getting to travel around the country and doing things -- two schools of walking into the. when into the. whenever walking to school i asked myself one basic question, and the question is, is this cool good enough for my own kids? is the school good enough for my own child?

because it into the question is no, then we should never allow that school to be okay for other people's kids. and so much of it comes down to culture. you all know when you walk into school probably within 10 minutes you know whether not you want to be in that school by what you hear, sometimes unfortunately by what you smell, what you see on the walls but more important the interactions between adults and students. you get a flavor of whether not you want your own kids in that school. so quite simply what we want for our own children should be what we dedicate ourselves to giving to every child in america. i want to thank our partners, our partner ngos and cbo's for joining us because much of the work and success in feel is owed to your dedication and passion and effort. thank you as well as i mentioned our federal partners, in particular hhs and doj, not only for being here today but for being such great partners dedicate to this support issue. for me it's always easy for

partners to show up, but it's what they do behind the scenes on a daily basis is really what matters and it matters to us. the department of education also take school climate issues very strictly as evidenced by its partnership and president obama's conference a plan now is the time. because that's a way for us to protect our children and communities are reducing gun violence, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. as part of his plan, we announced the school climate grant program for state educational agencies and local educational agencies. this is just, i'm so excited about this competitive program. these programs will work in conjunction for improving behavioral outcomes and learning conditions for all kids in america. one of our expectation is that this program will really focus in on the reduction of bullying behavior. this year we hope to a wart over 70 grants to eliades for aroundn

grants to mca's for an $8 million but in the grand scheme of things that's not huge amount of money but it's a great start for us in this work. because it means many states and school districts across the country will be working hard to improve school climate. we know when adults and students walk into schools in which they feel safe and supported, great things can happen in those buildings. again on behalf of the department of education and the federal partners in bullying prevention i really want to thank you all for attending what and who's going to be productive and hands-on day. i really, i am so honored now to introduce a great colleague, karol mason, assistant attorney general for the office of justice programs in the department of justice to so thank you so much for being here and we welcome you for your remarks. [applause]

>> good morning, and thank you, deb, for setting the tone for this meeting. and a half to tell you all the time the family failure because i'm the only one in my family that did not become an educator in some form or fashion. so i am pleased to be in partnership on issues with the department of education because of feel like i'm to my family duty. to be working on these issues, so thank you. i also want to acknowledge steffi graf who is the embodiment of the work that we're doing here at the department of justice on this issue. stand up. thank you. [applause] >> i also want to apologize for leaving right after speak. normally i like to stay put today is kids day at ojp and what are the things we're doing in our offices were teaching on cyberbullying. it was a wonderful going to this the day happen to overlap. so i'd like to again thank deb and our colleagues and staff and the department of education for

the leadership of the federal partners in bullying prevention and the steering committee. this has been an outstanding partnership across a number of federal agencies, including the department of justice. i'm proud that program has been a part of this work. i am very pleased to be representing the department of justice along with my colleagues from across ojp, including bob, the ministry of the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention who will be part of the federal panel later today. this is an excellent opportunity to talk about our commitment to addressing the link between bullying and life outcomes for our young people, particularly and addressing academic success and avoiding the involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems. because if we do our jobs well, then you can hopefully put us out of business. we know through research conducted by the national center for school engagement that bullying adversely affects school attendance and we know ww generally that schützi and

dropping out of schools are risk factors for involvement in the juvenile justice system. we also know that kids are exposed to violence, that are exposed to violate are more likely to experience a host of problems ranging from truancy and poor academic performance, depression and later delinquency and criminality. since more than 60% of america's children encounter some form of violence, either directly or indirectly, we are not just talking about a small group of young people. this is a commences concern for us in the department of justice and for the attorney general personally. four years ago he launched the defending a childhood initiative to do with the problem of children exposed to bullying and other forms of violence. as part of that initiative we are funding a demonstration sites across the country that are using evidence-based strategies to tackle these challenges. one of the big advantages we have is that the task force that we had on children exposed to violence was chaired by bob who is now head of the office of

general justice delivered to prevention so we can be assured that the recommendations that came out of that work are not going to sit on a shelf. they're going to work on and used and hopefully implemented by all of you will. so six of the sites have incorporated an anti-bullying component. one good example is in grand forks, north dakota, where more than 10,000 youth have been reached to the programs which targets preschoolers and friendships at work and at 58th graders as well as other efforts to combat bullying. we are making a special effort to do with the challenges facing american indian and alaskan native children exposed to violence. a national task force appointed by the attorney general spent the last are traveling the country holding hearings to find out how we can address the many violence related problems faced by native children, and we hope to release that report by the end of this year. under a attorney general holder's leadership the department is playing a leading role with the department of

education and the suppor sport f school despite initiative which you've heard about earlier from roberto. which is designed to foster safe and supportive school climate and to keep kids on the road to academic success and out of the school to prison pipeline. our office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention funded the development of net smart, an online safety program for kids run by the national center for missing and exploited children which teaches them how to deal with cyberbullying and other online threats. many of the internet against crimes children task forces across the country that we support are working to raise the awareness of the problem. a number of other programs address bullying and working to increase active factors and create safe climate in schools and homes. i hope you hear the recurring theme that we're all dealing with at the department of education, justice, samhsa, we're all focused on this issue and leveraging our resources to support each other's work and that's what makes this partnership so special.

on top of the training and awareness and funding we provide we're supporting research so that we can better understand what works to prevent bullying and ameliorate the impact on its victims but as part of the defending childhood, our national institute of justice which is the research arm of the department of justice launched a program of research focused on children exposed to violence with a focus on cyberbullying. as part of this violence against women's research project, in ij has support studies examine the relationship between bullying and teen dating violence. under a new comprehensive school siege initiative launched just this year, in ij is making fun of it will through research anybody wishing projects to test models that address a host of school safety issues including bullying and our initiative will deal -- dovetail nice with one deb just make in remarks this winter by collaborating and that is again a hallmark of all these initiatives we're working together on these things not in her own silo.

finally, i'm pleased to announce a new video resource titled bullying, harassment and civil rights, an overview of school districts federal obligation to respond to harassment. this video has been developed as part of a collaboration among the department of education, justice, and the substance abuse and mental health services administration of the department of health and human services. that's what we actually call samhsa and you hear from samhsa. if you explain schools obligations to respond to bullying and harassment under federal civil rights law. it provides helpful information for schools to ensure students learn in safe, healthy and nondiscriminatory climates. we hope it will be shared widely so schools will both be better informed of the responsibility and students will understand their rights. secretary of education arne duncan provides opening comments, and i join my colleague, katherine lehman, the assistant secretary for surprised at the department of education, to discuss what schools can and must do in

response to bullying and arrested by other students. we're excited this video features narration by morgan freeman narration by morgan freeman. i featured a story. adobe when they talk me into filming that because i don't do this will as you'll see shortly, i am not meant to be an actress. but morgan freeman was doing this i walked in looking for morgan freeman and no, he's not there. he narrates. and does a wonderful job of the. schools have a responsibility to create safe learning environments for all students. when bullying or harassment is based on a protected class increase a hostile environment or when bullying or harassment every student with a disability affects that since ability to receive a free, appropriate public education, schools have an obligation under federal civil rights laws to take action. i encourage you to use the resources identified in this video to support your own work efforts to address harassment and help all of us build safe, supportive, learning environments for our nation's children and our future leaders. we were short clip of the video

in just a moment to watch the full version, i encourage you to visit www.stopbullying.gov. that's www.stopbullying.gov, which also has many me additional, other additional resources. i would be remiss if i didn't mention we are joined in all of our efforts are partners in the office on violence against women but violence against women. as your earlier they are very active in looking at the relationship between bullying and healthy relationships and gain relationships. ..

we have an obligation to dedicate our resources and talents to stop olean behaviors. we must continue the work we started and build on successes so my abuse started to make possible. we must do together. we ought to our children. thank you for this time and everything you do in our community for her children. after the video, you will hear from pam jai, administrator of the substance abuse and mental health service administration. thank you. [applause] the fact the u.s. department of justice for several rights laws that protect students from