[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> about ready to start here at the heritage foundation about federal land, more than 90% of federal land is located in the western united states. the government says their control of the land is meant to preserve the environment, benefit local economies and put aside land for public recreation. here at the heritage foundation a discussion about management of

those federal lands and the possibility of it transferred back to the state. some of the focus, and on this issue as ranchers continue their protests of federal land in oregon and like a jerk-- coverage is expected to start shortly at the heritage foundation and also several events we will cover live including tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern michigan state of the state address in lansing, and you can lie-- watch that live over on c-span and tomorrow-- attorney general testifying on capitol hill about the president's executive action on guns and we will have live coverage tomorrow morning 10:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. again, waiting for the discussion of federal land to begin here at the heritage foundation. >> good afternoon and welcome to the heritage foundation and our

douglas and sarah allison auditorium and we welcome those who join us on our website and would ask our in-house guess to make that courtesy to check the cell phone that they had been silenced. our internet viewers are reminded that you can submit questions any time simply e-mailing speaker at heritage.org and hosting our discussion and opening our program today is becky norton dunlop, vice president for external relations. she oversees heritage overseas outreach and internationally to conservative policy organizations, other leadership organizations as well as policy activists and prior to joining heritage she served as the cabinet of governor george allen, secretary of natural resources and has also been a senior official in the reagan administration serving in office of presidential personnel and a

special assistant to the president for his cabinet office and has been a special assistant to attorney general ed meese and for purposes of today's program she was deputy undersecretary of the department of interior and an assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. please join me in welcoming becky norton dunlop. becky. [applause]. >> thank you very much, john, and lets me add my words welcome to the group we have here today have the heritage foundation. the heritage foundation is an organization, research and education organization that finds its policy roots in the constitution of the united states of america and i think that is a very important point when it comes to having discussions of such as the one we'll have today. we think that if you are on originalist that you don't look too prior court decisions, you look to the constitution. and what does the constitution

say and how we should behave and act in this country today. we have a great conversation that we will have today. it's one that we need to have more often these days. given the challenges that we are facing and giving the opportunities that we have. it certainly the two thoroughly timely and it's my privilege to introduce the person who will moderate the discussion today. stand rasmussen. stan and i met through heritage activities and because sutherland has been very active in the policy discussion and the legal background and work done on this very important issue of who should be in charge of the lands in the several states. the sutherland institute has posted a number of conferences on this and also done a lot of the support of the legal work. it also has become-- let's say

the face of this battle these days, can i read he was also with us, but stan direct the sutherland institute legislative efforts on utah's capitol hill and coordinates the institute interactions with the governor's office and other state local leaders. he has a tall order today because we have a whole table full of wonderful speakers, but let me introduce stan who will take over from here and introduce our various speakers and make sure we have a robust discussion. stan rasmussen, welcome to the heritage foundation. [applause]. >> my sincere thanks to john and becky and to your heritage foundation colleagues were welcoming me here today and for hosting this important and timely discussion as you mention. america is a land of promise. the american promise of service the government secures equal opportunity, fundamental fairness and the inalienable rights of freedom, the right

control property and the right of individuals to determine their own destiny. to protect life and liberty, but to take away the right and control of property, which is the fruit and veg of that liberty is to shatter this promise, leaving states and their people as second class citizens. at this point time in january of 2016 the federal government still controls more than 50% of all the land west of the rocky mountains and no less than 5% of the land east of this continental divide. this inequality and fundamental unfairness harms the environment, depressing western community, stifles opportunity and undermines our constitutional system were self-reliant states provide a double security to the rights of the people. our history attests that until we realize that american promise, with american promise, there will always be discord and

frustration. the solution is for congress to transfer to willing states all use of federal land for more effective local care, management and leadership. novel. >> we will be hearing from doctor robert nelson, mr. matthew anderson, professor ronald rotunda and mr. george wendt's. speaker of the utah house representatives, gregory hughes will describe efforts undertaken today and the remaining necessary work to be done to redress these issues. following speakers use we will take a few minutes for question answer for those of you who are with us here in the health auditorium. we will first take a look at the terminal illness, the federal land bureaucracy has a long-standing pattern of prioritizing policy over people. as is particularly evident in the state of utah and throughout the west. among the most articulate and

persistent voices addressing these issues is doctor robert h nelson, professor of environmental policy. professor nelson. [applause]. >> i am pleased to be here at this important meeting and it seems as though we might be on the verge or hopefully on the verge of some major new developments of publicly and. i'm going to talk, actually, more about history than economics even though i am an economist by training, but i have long had the view that historical perspective is critical to public policymaking. i will start with a little personal history and then present some broad picture of the overall public land history. it will have to be very broad

given the amount of time i have and anyway, i came to the interior department as a young staff economists. that was in 1975 and one of my first assignments was to study the grazing program. not having been raised in the rural west, i was surprised to discover that the federal government was deciding specific pastures where cattle should graze in very specific month of the year over tens of millions of federal acres in the west. as i thought-- as it struck me at hardly looked like a federal question. i was wondering what we were doing and then later i looked into another thing that influenced my thinking, which was the financial aspects of western public land management. i looked at the grazing program. grazing would bring in about 15 million a year while the cost

of the grazing program easily exceeded 100 million a year. this was symptomatically the whole federal land presence in the west. so, by the early 1980s, i was arguing still in the interior department and a surprising number of mike economists colleagues even in the interior department agreed with me that we should simply get rid of that much of the federal lands in the west, not on national parks, but the vast areas of what you might call ordinary public lands or multiple use public land. since public recreation was the most valuable use of these lands , i propose to give them away to states in the early 1980s. where easy public access could be maintained. privatization i came to understand was a sure loser. at that time westerners complained that saudi sheiks then rolling in money would become their new landlords.

so, i was encouraged when ronald reagan declared he was a sagebrush revel in 1980. this is when i started learning, however, that things could be complicated. i do not interact much personally with james, but the head of my office did and is so i had access in that way to him, but to my surprise what was not interested. he said based on his information that the states did not really want to the land. they were concerned that the management cost would be too high and so the land transfer ideas and privatization proposals of the early 1980s went nowhere. so, i decided to take a longer strategy of thinking and writing about the future of the public lands. if any major public land or form was going to happen, a lot more

public knowledge and understanding apparently would be necessary. so, i have been working on this project now, for more than 30 years including three books, one in 2000, with the title "burning issue: a case for abolishing the u.s. forest service" and by then i had moved to the school of public policy of the university of maryland where i'm still based today. besides the books, 20 or 30 articles and other publications over 30 years are posted as my-- at my school website. i would also like to say that recent developments in the west, this goes back to the old fiscal impact issue with the 1980s, have brought me back to the old question, the fiscal impact on federal government in states have transferred much of the ordinary public lands of the western states. fortunately, the state of utah

issued 732 page report in november 2014 that made it possible to answer this question with a brand-new degree of accuracy. at least four utah. the bottom line is that and despite the arguments and even the fears of many people assuming all the rights are transferred to utah, but the federal government continues to pay for oppression and protection. the fiscal impact comes close to a wash. about a plus 20 million comprehensive land transfer for the federal government's na minus 20,000,004 utah. so, there are no major financial obstacles to a conference of land transfer. i think this is a very important point to make clear with the continuing public debate.

so, the question of federal land really comes down then to a basic question of american federalism, and i think the answer is per the obvious that the federal government owning 66% of utah is not exactly compatible with traditional american federal-- federalism thinking. so, i'm going to turn now to the broader issue of the history of the public lands. i have spent a lot of time thinking and writing about over the last 40 years. on the whole, i sometime ago and recognize that federal land management over the past 200 years has been a history of failure. the roots of that failure lying in american national ignorance of the real circumstances in the west. time and again members of

congress and the wider american public have projected utopian fantasies on the west and then enacted laws-- supposedly designed to realize insanities. it is left to westerners to try to find a way of living with these misguided laws. the first washington fantasy concerns the disposal of federal lands in the 19th century. of federal officials wanted to publicly plan orderly process of land settlement. another key idea was that since the lands were federal property, their disposal should raise large revenues to fund the federal government. but, even then washington was dysfunctional. it's not a new thing and the whole federal officials were very slow to work out their plan and put them into action. at the same time, millions of

americans, many recent immigrants wanted some land of their own. unwilling to wait for a federal cumbersome federal government to act, they simply moved on to the land in large way of occupancy. large parts of the midwest and the west in united states were settled squatters. congress would then engage in fierce debates about whether illegal acts should be rewarded by granting the squatters retroactive property rights. in the end, they always perpetuated to the squatters with the homestead act, congress effectively without. you might call it the legalized squatting act of 1862. but, as so often has been the case of official washington got it wrong again. in the aftermath of the homestead act, settlement was moving into the wild areas of the west where 160 acres, which

was the limitation in the homestead act was altogether unworkable. westerners in the late 19th and early 20th century were left to develop two forms of invasion of the federal land laws. the next great american utopian fantasy projected on the west was shaped by the progressive movement at the end of the 19th and early 20th century. this guiding theme was scientific management of american society displacing accrued interest group politics of the gilded era. the core idea was that american governments could be separated into two distinct domains, one of democratic politics to submit broad direction and another expert implementation of the politically determined goals. in american universities than were gearing up provide the technical knowledge and professional personnel to put in

practice. they gale school of four street, for example, was created in 1900, to supply the federal forests with the necessary for history professionals. on the federal land, all of this meant that era of disposable and the arrival of a new era of progressive management. of the forest service was graded in 1905. the first wildlife refuge was established in 1903. the federal government ceased disposed of oil and gas and: rights in 1910, and the park service was created in 1916. by the 1950s, however, leading american scholars were describing the progressive governing scheme as unworkable in practice. public land management as a leading example turned out not to be scientific management, but political management. the leading land agencies sought to create a image designed to maximize their political

support. smokey bear was a great public relations success, although, prominent scientists even then more warning of the problems of total fire suppression. we are now dealing with the consequences, but the forest service itself has always-- find a way to survive now spending half of its budget on wildfire suppression and prevention. by the 21st century with increasing number of americans the federal scientific management really meant dysfunctional management. in its recent failures on american governments, political order and political decay, francis proffered the forest service a leading taste example. the most recent of the great public land fantasies took shape in the 1960s, as reflected in

the wilderness act of 1964. instead of the old progressive movement, we now saw that marriages of the environmental movement, the core idea was pristine nature was being trampled by the american headline pursuit of industrialization and other forms of growth and economic progress. the resulting harm were seen as essentially a moral evil prohibited against nature itself. implicitly, a part of nature little touched by human hands was a remaining part of god's creation and in disturbing the natural areas of environmentalists human beings were stepping into the role of god. divine retribution typically in the form of on environmental calamity was sure to follow. it was all very biblical. a secular deuteronomy, you might

say. secular environmental fundamentalism spread across the american society in the late 20th century with the same power as a christian fundamentalism. interestingly, they both agreed on one thing, the god of economic progress as one some e-commerce in the 20th century was the fall of god. the triumph of environmentalism was symbolized in the 1990s, by a fundamental shift in the official management goals of the federal land agencies. for decades reflecting progressive era thinking the federal lands had been guided by the utilitarian goal of multiple use and sustained yield. from the 1990s, however, the new purpose would be ecosystem management. focused on new objectives such as protecting the intrinsic

value of wild nature and biodiversity from human impacts or assaults and knowing which of the environment movement. instead of new ski resorts we would now have high mountain wilderness. instead of timber harvests we would now dedicate millions of acres to protecting endangered species such as the spotted owl. instead of new recreational roles easily accessible to most americans, the clinton administration would commit itself to doubling the sides of roadless areas in the forest-- national forest. secular environmental religion never had enough public support to win official approval from congress. instead, ecosystem management was put into practice in both the clinton and obama administrations by aggressive executive action. but, even more influential is that american he did--

judiciary, which in the 1970s effectively replace the forest service as the leading driver of public policy. that the environmentalism was scientific knowledge is now increasingly recognized even by many american environmentalists themselves. we live in what is increasingly being recognized as an and the pursing age. there is actually no pristine nature to protect from human impacts. so, this has all been something of a very happy delusion. the obama administration sees itself as the virtuous spokesperson for hire american values. the rest of us americans are in essence country bumpkins, but it is the obama administration that fails to recognize that the grounds of its supposed high ideals have been crumbling in

the 21st century. but, projecting fantasies on the west is admittedly nothing new. as i have been describing. the most recent example of all of this was the announcement just last week by the obama administration that it is suspending federal police-- under pressure from many current environmentalists who increasingly demand that america must soon become fossil fuel free. they were also pressing to keep it in the ground in the west. halting the leasing is a symbolic incremental step towards the realization of that goal. as always the public land in the west are guinea pig for projection of the latest idealistic fantasies of a truly natural world. such projections are easier to make when the land is public and is subject to federal decisions in washington.

it would be much more difficult to try to put these fantasies into effect if the land is privately owned. but, in the west i don't see any privatization, so a state transfers what we have to look for. in conclusion, i remain an optimist that a new dose of reality can be introduced in federal land management. about 30% of federal lands are now being managed for the protection of their supposedly wild character. it may be a fiction, but a lot of people still believe it. as a political compromise, i would be willing to accept their continued federal ownership and in fact, the utah proposal essentially do that exempting the national park and wilderness areas. for the rest of the land, it seems to me quite compelling-- of course, i have been saying this since the early 1980s, so

i have given you sort of the rationale and how i came to the conclusion, but it seems rather obvious that if we were to apply any normal understanding of american federalism principles, we would safely transfer the ordinary for the multiple use, public lands to the states. >> act examining the revenues and expenditures associated with federal land management. and comparing with them with state trust land management and we will hear from mr. matthew anderson, with the coalition of self-government in the west. an organization based in salt lake city, and he will briefly-- describe the experience of western states that the street the difference in outcomes when the performance of absentee bureaucrats arc are compared

with that of peoples whose livelihood depend on the affective care and management of their lands. mr. anderson. [applause]. >> hello. it is an honor to be hit today up at heritage foundation in our nation's capital. i will talk let the economic impacts federal land has on states and in five minutes that is a pretty tall order, but i will do my best. 90% of all federal lands are located in the western united states with one out of every 2 acres managed and controlled by the federal government. that is one out of every 2 acres being controlled by bureaucrats nearly 2000 miles away from people who own the land. doctor nelson just talked about environmental impacts that has. is certainly, we see that every day as westerners with polluted skies, smoke, decimated wildlife and i enforced a reality. the ramifications are just as

obvious. receipt our oil and gas industry as whether other energy development industries are languishing under heavy regulation. is in our rule communities are experience the mass exodus out of our states to other communities where it jobs are abundant and they can provide livelihood for their family. clearly, federal lands in fact westerners especially the pocketbooks, so to begin with-- i will make sure this works. from 2008 till 2014, pennsylvania experienced a 2000% increase in the production of natural gas. my home state of utah, 1%. now, this is not a matter of geology or matter of natural gas in pennsylvania compared to utah. we have plenty of that utah. but it is is federal management.

the federal government only controls 2% of the state of pennsylvania and my home state of utah, 66%. huge difference. so, when we consider that, we also need to consider how long it takes for these oil and gas wells for their permits to be approved and in 2011, it was reported that it took an average of 307 days to approve a new oil or gas oil permit, 307 days. almost an entire year. that's when permits get approved. the obama administration has put a cease and desist on all new permits for cold. that's just what actually happens, so we combine this backlog with all the federal land considered off-limits by the federal government. is it any surprise that states like utah are languishing under this regulation and not participating as much as eastern states? we must exercise a question, what if the federal government loosened its grip and we have the opportunity use these lands?

well, an economics professor at the university of wyoming has the answer. in his 2013 study, he proposes three scenarios based on the amount of oil and gas wells and permits that are up as well as the economic impact that would have if the federal government work to approve these. there is a high, medium and low scenarios. underneath the medium scenario, the approval of permits would go back to the original levels that they were out before 2008. 2008 saw a huge shift in the amount of permits approved. under that we would see a huge increase in economic benefit to states and the rocky mount region. over 600 more gas wells than oil wells would be drought-- grilled every year, $10.6 billion in increased revenue from oil and gas, 87000 jobs and more than $3 billion in tax and royalty payments to tack-- state and local governments.

the problem is, this is unlikely to happen with federal management. more likely to see this a reality. last march, the property of environmental research center released a study examining state land management on state land versus federal. these four states that were examined work new mexico, arizona, montana-- just the second. montana, idaho, new mexico and arizona. this was a great comparison because they have very different economies, very different state management agencies as well as natural resources. came to no surprise that the states managed their lands more effectively than the federal government did. the federal government lost $2 billion every year on their land management in the western united states. when it states were producing

substantial amounts of revenue. now, as you can see my powerpoint, for every dollar that the state spent on the state spent on land management, they produced $14.51 whereas the federal government, well, they were losing 27 cents on every dollar only producing 73 cents. that's amazing. the federal government does not have the same incentive states us-- to produce economic benefits. they don't produce the revenue and the reason for this is they cannot keep the revenues generally that they produce. in addition to this, you can see that the federal government spends nearly six times as much per acre as states do. so, there is huge economic

ramifications that occur here. often times the federal lands today we hear the question, well, if these lands were transferred to the state, how would you management them, how could you afford to do it. i think the real question should be, how are the feds managing to do this. the simple answer, taxes. this is not just a western problem. this is a problem that impacts all of us. utah is paying for this, arizona, colorado, but maryland, florida, new york and other eastern states as well. the simple fact is these lands to need to be transferred to the states. states have the capability and know-how and desire to manage these lands responsively. thank you. [applause]. >> thank you, matt. of focusing on the legal dimensions, on december 9, 2015, an acclaimed team of constitutional scholars and legal experts presented a landmark legal analysis on utah's claims to compel the federal government to transfer certain lands to the state. the exhaustive 150 page analysis

of the history, constitutional construction, course of dealing and prudence concluded that the intent of the property clause of the u.s. constitution was to dispose of public land, not to forever retain them. we will now view a brief videotaped message by member of that legal team, emmett constitutional scholar and distinguished perspex-- professor at the chapman university school of law and a meagerly falling those are marks we will be pleased to hear from mr. roberts-- part of me, mr. mr. george wentz, a partner in a law group and the leader of the legal team commissioned by the utah legislature. we will now view the videotape. in account to think the good people at heritage for inviting me and i am sorry i cannot be in there in, but i cannot be two places at once. i have been in constitutional law since i graduated from law school in 1970.

this is one of the most exciting cases i have worked on. it relates to a basic principle of states rights and in a way that to give rights to the state, it's to give rights to us, the people. when the 13 states can't together they understood that some states had a lot of land, virginia and some states had very little land, rhode island. regina claimed only from the eastern shore all the way to the west coast. in fact, part of california was originally part of virginia, according to the title from the king. people didn't want that to happen and they didn't want some states to be an equal to others. they should be equal in sovereign powers and should have the same powers of their land at the other states have. so, they had this principle with the supremesupreme court called it go putting doctorate or all

states coming on equal footing. we knew how to acquire land, but the framers way to make sure that there was this power and obligation to dispose of the land. as a way of developing the nation. the idea was that they would turn of the land to the federal government, that an appropriate land, so-called public land to the federal government was so that could give clear title. everyone understood that the federal government would engage in the regular chair position of the land. they did that at first. they did this for the eight states, maine, texas, tennessee, vermont, kentucky, hawaii and in all of those the federal government turned over to the states the public land. when they became states. not so for utah, oregon and other states. twelve are distinctly orphan like position. they are less equal than others.

if you drove a line roughly two denver, to the right of that line facing the map the federal government owned entirely anything and to the left of the federal government owns every task or substantially more than that in some states and if you subtract from all that land the federal parks, the grand canyon and so on it is miniscule compared to the rest that the federal government owns and it lies shall a. for example, in utah, the federal government owns land than the entire state of new york. one of the counties that owns an amount of land greater than the entire state of connecticut, over two thirds of the state is owned by the federal government. the legislature and people of utah, and the governor, all agree, could not string a fiber optic cable across the state without getting permission from a bunch of faceless federal

bravura cats in washington dc. that's not what the framers intended. is not the way was in this country until about 1976. people don't seem to understand it. now, once the federal land policy and management act tells us in 1976 is that 12 of the 50 states are going to be treated second-rate, not on equal footing. we didn't know that at first and the way it was phrased it still allows some sale, but the way it has been interbedded, we have figured out that the federal government is not about to allow these 12 states to be like all of the others. we have this problem what we don't have to do is what they are doing in oregon, which is takeover federal buildings. the constitution has given us a remedy to provide the power to sue the federal government for violation of their rights and i'm pleased to work with a great team of lawyers. there is john howard, who is a

lawyer in california working on land problems for years. tremendous knowledge about the early history and all the case by this area. jimmy jardine who is a very respected practitioner in salt lake city. richard cmis, professor at the university of idaho, former assistant to the speaker general and has argued over a dozen cases, 15 or more cases before the us supreme court. george wins who has his law form in louisiana, very knowledgeable and then there is little old me. this is a good case and with the federal government is doing is wrong and the western states uniformly object to the federal control. they know how to take care the land and they can do a better job than people several thousand miles away. 's uxo, they went back to my high school yearbook for that picture. so, i am george wentz and if i

can get this to work i will start rocking and rolling here. there we go. stomach law school, 1970. >> all right. they gave me 15 minutes to cover 400 years of history and i am off to the races. so, i think professor rotunda has showed us was going on here very well and when it comes to dominion over land within its borders, utah's treated differently than 38 other states. today, we will talk a lot about that quality of the states, sovereignty of the states and the way the states governments interact with the federal government that the states themselves graded and we all know no one ever went fishing with the state or no one ever sat down to dinner with the state. when it comes down to it, what we are talking about is the issue of kids. their future.

this is my son, robert. when we talk about these legal theories i want you to understand that all of these legal theories that we will discuss are designed to protect the life, liberty and property of kids like my son, rob. over the course of my lifetime the biggest change i've seen is the progressive growth of the federal government and at this point i think the concentration of power in washington dc is probably the largest threat to my son's future. so, when i talk about federalism, the structure of the constitution, a lot of thought went into that by the founders to protect that kid's future. so, let's talk about equal sovereignty principles. according to an unbroken line of supreme court cases, the states of the union-- you can see the states there, they created the federal government in order for the system that i tried to depict in this picture to work,

the states have to be equal and sovereign power. here's how chief justice roberts put it in 2013, in shelby county, the holder. not only do states retain sovereignty under the constitution, there is also a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. over 100 years ago, this court explained that our nation was and is a union of states people in power, dignity and authority. indeed, the constitutionally quality of the states is essential to the harmonious operation of the scam upon which the republic was organized. the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent treatment of states. so, the equal sovereignty principle makes perfect sense and you consider that we are a federal republic.

we are a federation of states. the central government was created by independent sovereign states that if i wanted hard in defeat of the most powerful military in the world to get their independence and their sovereignty. they were not about to go into a union where they had to give that up. they were going to be equal. now, the government takes the position that dominion over land was in the borders of a state has absolute-- absolutely nothing to do with state sovereignty, nothing to do whatsoever. so, let me show you where this thing all started, where the state started first arguing about equal sovereignty. you got it, dominion over land. under 1609 charters virginia claimed a massive swap of land on wet california, and maryland had this little land abound locked state over here to the right.

maryland said, we are not joining a state where we will be swallowed up by this huge land called virginia and we are not to join a union of states where virginia can create subsequent vassal states. you can imagine virginia's land and they can put in when they get away to great another state and they go u-boat threat to about. they can stack the deck in congress, so maryland was worried about this and they held out in joining the union over this. six states had western land claims, not just virginia. they were all over the place and they all claimed each out west. france was standing by to join the fight against of the british. but, they were going to join until the united states codirect together and formed on effective government, so maryland insisted that the states with western land claims give those up in the question arose, give them up to whom, to what and the only

answer out there was to give them up to the new central government that they were forming to be divided out into new states to become equal members of the union. so, in 1780, maryland held out long enough to get congress to pass this resolution that that on appropriate land that may be relinquished to the united states by any particular state, shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the united states and be settled and formed into distinct publican states and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other states. maryland finally relented in march of 1781, after virginia and the other states with western land claims agreed to this resolution, almost immediately after that france sent over 20000 troops. they sent over there fleet and within five months of maryland

signing the article of confederation the war was over. i don't know how many men died while maryland held out for the principle of equal or-- = 30, but i can tell you it's a fundamental founding principle of our nation and its in the fabric of the way we were constructed. so, in addition to the rulings of the supreme court that i read to, history of the dictates that states must be equal in sovereign power and the states have from the beginning seen that a quality as part of having an awful lot to do with the dominion over the land within the borders. so, as a matter of history, the government's position that dominion over the land within our borders had nothing to do with sovereignty is wrong, but i believe there also wrong as a matter of constitutional law. in a federal system, as you can tell the screen, the states

create the central power, as i said and it only works if each one of those states when they are bargaining with each other can protect their interests and that only works if they had equal sovereignty. if you have weak states that cannot protect their interest, they get ganged up on bus-- by the stronger's dates and what's again the deck gets stacked in congress. it was exactly the situation a maryland held out for dairy in the revolutionary. so, is utah weaker than new york because utah does not have dominion over its land when you're done. the answer is, absolutely, absolutely. let's talk about to rise the supreme court has recognized as fundamental sovereign state rights, taxes and self-governance. taxes are the fuel of self-government, but utah cannot tax sixes 6.5% of the land, so you get sort of a welfare check that we have heard, tilt,

payment in lieu of taxes. do you think there is any political pressure in congress associated with congress issuing those welfare checks to utah? maybe strong-arming goes on? will, let me read you what senator mark-- mike lee had a say on the senate floor and explain his vote against the farm bill. congress lords its power over western communities to extort political concessions from them like some two bit rack. that's a nice fire department you got there they say to western communities. nice cool they have, and it would be a shame if anything happened to it. the states and communities are looking for nothing more than equality under the law, yet congress treats these as not as rights to be protected, but as vulnerability to be exploited. this is not what the framers had in mind. our federal system simply cannot work as designed were some

states are weak and their votes in congress can be controlled by the strong states. the citizens of the week states will never be equal to the citizens of the strong states. this is happening now throughout the west. so, second, the federal system based on a concept called dual sovereignty, the federal government up top and you see the state below and there is a duality in the system. what is that all about? that's all about protecting the citizens of the states from tyranny and protecting their individual liberty. it comes down to people. here's how the roberts court put it in the first obamacare case and i'm sorry for the density of that slide. but, if you can read it with me state sovereignty is not just an end in itself rather federalism secures the citizens the liberties, the drive from the diffusion of sovereign power.

because the police power is controlled by 50 different states instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the govern. the framers thus insured that powers which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberty and property of the people were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. the independent power of the states also serves as a check on the power of the federal government. by denying anyone government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. so, how does that work when you got the federal government owning 66% of your stay? it does not work. the dual sovereignty is swept away. unelected federal bureaucrats

thousands of miles away exercise police power over far more of utah than governor herbert, unelected state legislator like we have this review. as the citizens of utah cannot vote out unelected federal bureaucrats if they do not like what they're doing. so, utah citizens do not have the same protections from arbitrary sarver power that new york citizens do. it's a huge problem. utah's also denied the same sovereign power to take land. you want to the live road, well, you know, utah is 66 a half percent of federal land. you can't throw a stone without hitting federal land, so try to build a highway. try a-- to string a broadband system. you can't do it. e can do it in your, but not utah. that's another sovereign right taken away, but think about that right. commerce attracts industry.

population growth. highways and broadband make commerce. now, let's ask this, how is federal political power doled out among the states. the weights doled out among the states is through the census every 10 years on the basis of population. so, we increase our population we get more votes for the president in the electoral college. but, because we have no sovereign power and we cannot create highways and broadband and other things to attract commerce and industry, we can't increase our population. no population, no political power, no dominion over land, no ability to develop commerce. no commerce, no population. of population, no political power, so it's a vicious cycle and if you look at this map and you wanted to gerrymander the nation, so that the west would

be permanently denied political power in washington dc, you would do exactly this. so, the government, i believe, when it says dominion over land has nothing to do with sovereign and political rights, i think, they are just simply incorrect. the fact is that the system was designed to work only if states had dominion over the land within their borders for all the reasons i've described. there is another doctrine that we rely on called equal footing doctrine. the equal footing doctrine stands from the equal sovereignty principle that the court emphasizes in the shell the case that i discussed earlier. it's only logical if everyone in the club has to be equal, then if you bring a new member into the club and they have to be equal to. that's a pretty simple concept i think we can agree. so, those western states, they look equal.

lets go through the equal footing doctrine and talk about it with relationship to dominion over land. is go through the progression. one, we all know historically in every instance ownership of the unappropriated lands within a sovereign art on inherit right of sovereignty that they get. sovereign gets unappropriated lands. the crown of all the unappropriated lands in the 13 colonies as an inherent incident of sovereignty. upon independence the original 13 states succeeded the ownership of the unappropriated lands within their borders as an inherent incident of sovereignty. news states are admitted as equal sovereign with the-- i can quit right now. we all agree under their logic there is no way utah did not get its land, so what happens? what went wrong? what we are missing is a little piece of history called the compact theory. the deal was the federal government withholding the land

in order to dispose of it and don't it out into states: right? so, the new states were brought in with the explicit understanding that they would get the land over time through the disposal of the land. they would grow to become equal. here's what the supreme court said. whenever that united states shall have fully executed these trusts-- they were holding in trust to create a states mess the trust the supreme court is talking about-- the menace of both sovereignty of the new states will be complete throughout their respective borders and they and the original states will be upon equal footing in all respects. and that is exactly what happened from 1785 until that 1913. you all know what happened in 1913? we passed the 16th amendment and created income taxing gave the feds a new source of revenue and suddenly they lost all interest in liberating--

liberating western land. not only did they lose interest in liberating the land, in 1976 congress somehow discovered that instead of holding all that land in trust for the newly admitted states, it was really there is an commerce owned and they were going to keep it and not give it out. the admission compact they made with the 12 western states the mechanism for doing it, the compact clause was reached and we talk about read-- here's what we have now, we have the united states will never fully execute east trusts. the sovereignty of these 12 states will never be complete throughout the respectable borders and they in the original states will never be upon equal footing in all respects, whatever. look, we talk about three theories, but it's really one theory. you have the basic equal sovereignty. if they are equal they have to be equal when they come in. the compact theory, it means we are going to allow new states to grow into equality.

if you breach the compact, then you have violated to bedrock constitutional principles, the equal footing doctrine and the equal sovereignty doctrine. utah deserves to allow this compact to go forward and grow into an equal sovereign. [applause]. >> thank you and professor rotunda and mr. winds explain there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to keep-- treat western lands like second-class citizens and the legal analysis makes clear that congress lacks the authority to hop the disposal of public lands in 1976 with the federal lands policy management act. and that the framers of the constitution intended to grant the power to regulate all the claims only in the context of their disposal, not to permanently retain the majority of the land within a state. with these insights the problematic status quo in the western states in terms that

varma, and legal dimensions and in a moment we will listen as speaker of the cute-- house of representatives it claims what has been done and we go from here. under the leadership of speaker hughes the utah legislature has led the way in addressing lands related to issues of equal opportunity and fentanyl and fairness. in the interest of time, we will forgo the introduction by his colleague and civic knowledge his presence here today. he was the sponsor of the utah transfer public lands act enacted in 2012 and continues to be a champion of it. speaker greg hughes. [applause]. >> i want to thank the heritage foundation for formats like this an opportunity to come out here in the beltway and start talking about some of the things we think actually affect not only our state, and western states,

but this whole country. after that that i am not originally from use top. i grew up in pennsylvania and my mother was a single mother and went west to go to college and i met my wife from utah and i only bring that up to give you the prospective that i'm a city boy. in utah, our issues about land and land sovereignty have usually come from our world. these are the guys that are out there in dealing with and trying to interact with the bureau of land management or the federal land. ..

school district for david van v. ability to have football fields with artificial turf. if you look at this country, most of education funding is from our property tax. it's the fuel that drives these classrooms and teachers salaries. when you get to a state like utah and see a map that shows very little property is even available to be taxed and how does a state like ours actually fund our public education system? in the throes of depression, because there wasn't a lot of available funds, the state legislature enacted a state income tax. our state income tax is dedicated to public education. still, with that income tax if

he were to look you were to look at a national rating, utah has more and the least amount of arriving per child of any state in the country. so, we feel the impact of not being able to access land or use some of the other practices and policies that other states are able to do is to find something as critical as the public schools. if the environment is something you care passionately about and i believe much of the stewardship or the idea we would stop disposing of land like the country had up to 38 states with 12 states where they decided maybe not, i think that 76 legislation was done in regards to try to improve or protect the environment. today we can show you the stage management of land protects the environment and make sure the forest fires don't rage beyond the inevitable acres that are

damaged. on environmental concerns you can meet a verifiable argument we can be better stewards of the land when the local states are able to control and manage those lands you can show our education system would be turned around overnight with the ability to do what 38 states in the country have already done. why does this matter to anyone that doesn't necessarily live in utah or a western state? it was mentioned we have the payment in lieu of taxes so when they decided we are going to stop doing it the way we've always done it and give you some money for your troubles is an acknowledgment that he should have but we are not so we will give you the payment in lieu of taxes that they are are payment to be companies on the dollar and the question becomes the reason you saw a lot of that disposable of land over time is because the treasury and federal government needed those dollars.

you see that at some point with an affordable income tax that came on the books and other sources the need for the treasury to see the land disposed of in the pace into the way they were had not become so urgent that they will tell you now that it was $19 trillion of debt. i think this treasury might not need to send the payments any longer. i think there is an absolute strong argument to say taxpayers across the country no longer need to send two states what they are send two states what they are sending in payment in lieu of taxes for federal land. there is a way for states to manage the land to sea resources from the land and revenue $14 per every dollar managing it. we are losing the bowlers as they attempt to manage the land. my point today, and i will try to be brief is i think that we

are all in this together. i was elected in 2002 in the legislature and served as a standing committee chair for two terms and i was a majority whip for two terms in last year became the speaker of the house. i would put my money on the state legislatures every single time and i'm not just talking republican states i'm talking every state, democrat majorities that balance their budgets. they manage the tasks, the policies in front of them and we as a nation need to look at the state wherever we live and say we know that those represented can do this job and they do the job. i look at the 38 states and icy in the states i grew up in iac a great opportunity of tools and a tall box to do the job of representing the people and letting the people enjoy those

things that an organized government would provide public education, transportation infrastructure. you get to those states and see a very different set of rules. so we have worked with other states that have been impacted this way but this is a conversation that has to be broad. you heard on the video from george what we did in the state as we said we'd had this political discussion for a long time before i ever arrived in the legislature. we need to do something different. we asked for the request for the legal scholars and attorneys and law firms to propose a way to review in a dispassionate and scholarly way these issues we brought up today if valid if it's something we should even pursue. the product of that in our discussions today that we have an exhaustive body of work and a case to be made that in fact

there is something we should be doing as a country on this front so our commission let me get the name right, the commission for the stewardship of public land has republicans and democrats to serve on the state legislature. there was one that was done that i think is one of the strongest legal cases you will ever hear about why 12 states in the country are not on equal footing and are not having the opportunity and citizenry are not having the same opportunities afforded to them as the 38 other states and that is just not the way that it was designed so we are moving forward in that case and this is broad i will say as i did about five minutes ago you don't know what you don't know. i'm absolutely convinced the stakeholders in this issue are a lot more than we realized.

ideally that if you are an advocate for good quality public education you should be paying attention to this issue. if you care about the stewardship and being good stewards of the environment, you should care about this issue. if you belief in the transportation technology we have to get fiber, the kids don't know a world without technology. we have to get the technology infrastructure to the schools. that's something that the federal lands keep us from doing simply letting commerce of her or being able to access the lan. or are so many different stakeholders in this but i don't see this as a partisan issue. it would be to stay on equal footing and that's why i'm here today and truly when you go back

whenever you are from there's a robust discussion even on the questions and answers. they face all of us and i think you for your time. [applause] we will give you the opportunity to pose questions that join me if you weren't in thanking the panelists. [applause] >> you can indicate how long we can go and we will open up to some questions. questions to pose for the panel. >> right here.

>> you mentioned the federal agents [inaudible] >> what would be the average on utah state lands in utah? >> if it is changed or where it currently sits. >> to get it through, how long would it take to do? spinning i don't know, the study didn't break it down it just had 307 total regardless of what state it was in. we have a question right here. >> [inaudible] i read your legal report. it's great and very convincing. i would like to ask another

legal aspect about the federal land which is the assertion by the federal land managers that they have weak power on the federal land. this seems to me to be a huge problem and growing problem and the claims seemed to me to be illegitimate and i wonder if it also crafts how the state of utah might somehow reassert at some point its powers on the federal land through the state legislature and the governor. >> [inaudible] >> good question. the case the federal government is always going to the property clause issues where justice thurgood marshall read it there was a plenary power over the property they owned to regulate. they've never addressed our

issue that even in that case, justice marshall recognized the extent hasn't been fully supported by the court. he also said that there was an overlap of justice diction and that the states had jurisdiction over some federal land as well as the federal government. so, the -- if i'm looking at the case law, there is an indication that the power you discuss is not legitimately exercised. if i look at the case law discussing the federal system in the way that it works for the protection of individual liberty that the roberts court has emphasized frequently i just don't see how in the world federal government exercises police power. it's the dual sovereignty issue i discussed. it's illegitimate. we are not supposed to be -- you go to mexico city and you will see the police. they carry guns and they are all

over. the system is different from ours. we have never had federal police. show us your papers. that's not how we do it. now you go in and when i moved from louisiana to idaho and i went to the west and i got -- you see vehicles on the side and it says federal police. never have i seen that. i don't believe that power should exist. i don't know if it is being challenged. but the exercise of the police power has always been reserved to the states. why? so we can throw them out if we don't like what they are doing. faceless unelected bureaucrats -- actually that's not a good term for me because every bureaucrat has a face. but unelected bureaucrats shouldn't exercise power in any land within any borders of a state. it was a territory issue but in

a sovereign state, no can do. >> thank you. are there questions back here next >> the question is you have this great legal analyst is. what are the next steps? either legally or legislatively where is this going? >> i'm going to continue to refer to our council, but i will say there is a legal path that needs to be pursued and -- there is a legal path and i will let george talk about that but the critical thing for us is we absolutely have to have that game plan and not just speaking about how important the issue is but how we get something different than we've already had

>> are we good? this matter has basically been referred to the attorney general by the legislature and the attorney general and attorney general and the governor in the state of utah are the executive officers that would make the decision as to whether the suit was filed. so the ball is in their court and that recommendation has been made that they seriously consider this by the legislature now come if they were to do it, what would they do if the attorney general were to say i'm all for it. what we have recommended is the path that makes the most sense is to file a motion and to file a complaint in the original jurisdiction of the court which under the constitution that states can do. so that would be the fastest and it would probably be referred to the special that could take several years that is not easy,

clean and shiny but that is probably the way that the state would move forward on the litigation. >> let me just say as a legislative body we think is in our court. it's the responsibility for the legislators in house and senate to come together. we have members with us today and we think it is our duty to do this but we would love some friends. we would love to have others interested in this issue understand that it's a broad ramifications to join our efforts and go to the supreme court to make the case. >> at this point in time we are working with members of other states and we are meeting on friday with state legislators as well as our senators and idaho and our state representatives we have some folks here from idaho today. but it really needs to be the coalition of the western states to bring this to the attention

of the nation. but when the federal system isn't working, you've got a problem. he needs to be corrected and it impacts the entire country can not just the west. if you want to do a study of the last farm bill i will tell you what, that's not how we want to see things go and it's not the way that was designed to work. we need to fix it. it's a national problem. >> another question right here down towards the front. >> [inaudible] >> i came back to -- i came back to washington in 1982 with utah senator jake garn one of the original supporters of the heritage foundation, i should say. i now represent 35 counties in five western states, all of who are the recipients of this disconnect between the federal government and the local governments, all of whom are

dependent on copayments -- pill payments. i would like to throw out the idea that this issue is not ripe yet for congress to weigh in and act with legislation. we have not educated congress and haven't had these kind of discussions with each member of congress. we need to do that in order to succeed in something this complicated. however, i think there are things that congress can be doing in the meantime while this new legal strategy plays out and one of the ideas that i've had but has received some good feedback and i would be interested in your take on it, i've learned the united states government has never done a formal audit of its holding of its land holdings in a comprehensive way. we have oil and gas figures offshore in louisiana and from the rocky mountains and those

numbers are pretty good but we don't have all of the comprehensive information that comes from the national park entrance fees and grazing fees from powerline corridor fees and from all these remote places that the federal lands are supposed to produce. i am a belief or that if you pay the picture of the situation the next questions will automatically come forward. for example, i see this audit is done by a comprehensive and bipartisan way and to conduct it by the general accounting administration, could paint the picture of the lands that are grossly underutilized and mismanaged, and those eastern friends of ours who always say they have ownership of the western lands, they would have a dog in the fight and that the

mismanagement, the lack of management would all of a sudden become an important thing for them to way into. i think that's something we can do over the next couple of years as we are waiting for the legal strategy to play out and i think we can constantly assume the results if we do it in a bipartisan request will taint the picture of the disconnect between federal land management and private land management. i think that's an idea to set the table for the political debate that ultimately has to occur in the congress just to throw that out. >> i have one question. what planet did you want this bipartisan coordination -- i was just curious. >> i was just in dc -- [laughter] spinnaker was a joke it wasn't a serious question. >> know but you don't see bipartisanship very often going

on. >> to his credit, he took his democratic counterpart out to utah and showed him and returned the favor in visiting his district in baltimore. there are guys that get along and we need more of it. so in that spirit, if you pop it were to get a bipartisan request to do this audit, then you could argue after the audit results come in what to do about it. they couldn't play football outside or swim. so i think that above results is not such a study.

we need a bill to buy this shouldn't be a bipartisan issue. to be effective to bring people together if we had those types of monies. we can't get it out of the expanse of land we are talking about. there would be revenue generated versus protecting it and there's the issue that we have these under the natural arches and the starting of the landscape. we have them over the national guard armory is.

when you are in a plane or commercial plane and you look down at the ground you can't make out what anything is good when you are at that height and going around the entire state it's just like said you can take new york and drop it as a whole state and the federal land you can't imagine how much land and in fact if i just want to pave the world, you could start in utah and would not be seen again because there's that much out there. so the idea that you can be good stewards of the environment and work in the land in responsible ways and see the revenue that would arrive in critical areas that we face every day. it can happen. and we don't appreciate some of those things out there.

>> i can see the headline proposed. utah has done something similar. whether they are going to authorize the similar kinds of studies some of them are getting close to it. i am not sure if it is because it is a fast-moving ball game but whether any of them had actually gone ahead and authorize what you would call a comprehensive study but the first thing to do would be to take this test because now you can actually do a great deal of analysis of the whole public

land situation in utah that was basically very difficult or impossible to do until the study was released in november of 2014. so an alternative to your vision was actually a series of state-sponsored studies and death that might even be more appropriate than a federally sponsored audit of the whole west west and it would also be a part of the political process within each state where they started moving forward towards thinking more seriously about all these questions. >> let me suggest what that we will conclude now and i'm sure the panels will be pleased to respond to questions privately after that. but we thank you very much for your hospitality and with that we will include. thank you for being with us. ask [applause] c-span will probably discontinue the teething but if there's other questions we would like to

do that. [inaudible] anything else anyone would like to pose for the question here? thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] the heritage foundation event and others are on the c-span video library. find them online anytime at c-span.org. we will let you know some new numbers released by the congressional budget office this morning to read the hill is reporting the federal budget deficit expected to increase this year for the first time since 2009. this year's budget shortfall expected to rise to $540 million, 100 more than last

year. the new estimates mark a shift in the cbo estimates released in august when projections were lowered by about half actually in dollars. you can read more at thehill.com. the state department official that coordinate sanctions talked about some of the lessons he learned about the use and application. he also discussed the current sanctions against russia, iran and north korea into discussion hosted by the american university in washington, d.c..

welcome, everyone. thank you for joining us this afternoon. i am james pa at the international service at american university and is a great pleasure to continue the discussion this year with ambassador daniel fried who i was just thinking as we walked up here it was 20 years ago we worked together in my brief stint in the government. he's had an incredibly distinguished career in the foreign service and is currently the state department coordinator for sanctions policy. prior to that come ambassador fried served as special envoy for closure of the guantánamo detainee facility, which we will discuss briefly because we can't not bring it up even though the main focus of the conversation will be on sanctions. he also had additional responsibilities as the secretary special adviser on the camp november, 2011.

previously the assistant secretary of state for the european and asian affairs and senior director for european and asian affairs at the national security council and before that the u.s. investor to poland and a number of other postings in the foreign service. so it's wonderful to welcome you to the school of international service. >> thanks for the opportunity, appreciate it. >> said, one of the interesting things about the policy in the recent years is as people have gotten and have grown disillusioned with the effectiveness of military force as an instrument of coercion in american foreign policy, a lot of attention has focused on sanctions as a way to try to get others to do what we want and not have to use military force but force accused of financial instruments to try to get others to do what we want. first i want to ask you is since you've been involved in so many different policy positions over the recent decades, how much of

a change do you feel there is in thinking about the effectiveness of the different instruments and a sanctions are becoming more prominent as a tool for the u.s. foreign policy and does that change the nature of the policy conversations since those who implement sanctions are different than those who implement the use of military force? >> clearly, sanctions are a kind of foreign-policy tool of the month right now and i don't mean that sarcastically. it's what i do. there is -- they've been seen as relatively successful in number of cases and they are a tool of choice in situations like the one you mentioned.

where do you go from diplomatic pressure short of military force and sanctions have been developed by the u.s. policy community and have grown much smarter than they were 20 years ago. now, i don't work at patricia rae department but i'm going to start with a plug for a u.s. government agency bureaucracy that is first and works very well and that is the treasury office of the foreign assets control. as a taxpayer is nice to see and efficient group of people that know what they are doing and sophistication in the government about the use of sanctions has grown enormously. there are dumb sanctions, okay? i guess now it is possible to admit that our sanctions against cuba were dumb sanctions because they were unilateral, supported by basically nobody else.

and therefore far less effective. we have learned lots of lessons about the smart use of sanctions among those are don't go it alone. the gold standard is if you add a security council resolution that is the gold standard and that's great. but if russia or china have an opportunity to veto, you're not going to as the acronym goes. the silver standard is to be multilateral and on the russia sanctions program i've been working on from the beginning we did indeed go multilateral and we made a conscious decision from the outset to work with the g7 in general and in the european union in particular in defining sanctions. we've covered this before quite the success. this was a sanctions program designed with europe and not

designed for us down the reporter pressed it was designed in advance with europeans and has been much more effective because it was multilateral. the g7 supports it, canada, plus australia and other countries so that is a lesson of sanctions. don't go it alone. another is going to be in a hurry. sanctions can work but not on the timeline of the new cycle. it takes a while and sometimes you don't know they are working until they work in spectacular fashion. the government you are sanctioning will probably deny that they have any affect and they will fold their arms and posture and then all of a sudden admits that the sanctions have worked. don't be greedy. sanctions can help.

the purpose of the sanctions is in fact to change behavior, not punish. and the behavior you want to change has to be achievable. you can't ask them to deliver the others sending running up the white flag. sanctions are no better than the policy they are attempting to support and they must be coupled with diplomacy which means also that if you're going to sanction you have to know when to take the sanctions off and in the case of iran, they are to the point we could ask for successful negotiations and implementation day as it is called is fast approaching. in the case of the russia sanctions, there is the possibility of a diplomatic solution to end the aggression

against ukraine or at least to get them out of eastern ukraine and sanctions therefore serve the diplomacy. they don't substitute for it so the do's and don'ts of the sanctions are don't be in a hurry, don't go it alone, don't be greedy. and the final is don't look for too much. he by which i mean sanctions hurt and they are designed if you designed them right they will hurt the person you are trying to hurt him it will hurt the government you are trying to hurt but they will be paying on some of your companies and there will be complications and if you can't face that, you shouldn't start sanctioning in the first place. i've been in the government a long time and you have, too. we are always looking for for that option that's all gain and no pain with no risk. it doesn't exist.

>> let's talk about the sanctions and the different dimensions. one is on the multilateral approach and on this issue of the pain that one causes to one's own companies. there were a lot of expectations early on that the german government wouldn't go along with the stiff sanctions because of the deep ties between the german business and russian business. i think a lot of people were surprised at the strong stance that the chancellor took on imposing the sanctions in russia. there's been concern however in the more recent months that others in europe are wishing that we could move in a different direction and perhaps

relax or lift some of the sanctions as if the pain that it's causing. if you would describe the challenges of doing this and this multilateral context and also the role that chancellor merkel has played in ensuring the sanctions were placed on the russians. >> well, of course you're right that there was a lot of speculation that europe in general would never go along with tough sanctions against russia and germany or italy or other countries or some country would and that's not happened. europe, all 28 countries have repeatedly voted to extend the sanctions and they voted some very tough sanctions which is not what many expected in washington and not what many expected in brussels and europe and i suspect it came as a surprise to many in moscow.

if you think about the diplomatic history, president putin and the russians probably remembered the breakup of western unity over the iraq war and the huge fight. bush and blair on one side and the germans and french on the other and it may be that the expected a similar break. in fact the european union shows more strategic determination and purpose than many people expected and not at the lowest common denominator it was pretty strong stuff. of course you're right that there are differences of views in the european government. germany under chancellor merkel has been strong. and her party has business

interests, the social democrats have traditionally wanted to reach out to russia. all of this is true but they've been a leader in the european consensus. they were forward leaning in sanctions and others were more skeptical but they coalesced around a strong position. and that is to be applauded. but the united states did was actually as i said they negotiate with the european union's and not simply come up with a made in washington formula to try to push it through. we figured our assumption, my assumption was if you actually consult with the europeans and do it right, take it seriously you have a much better chance of getting to the end of the process army and are man army and that's what we did and it worked. >> so i worked in a sense that we were able to impose

sanctions, and i am mindful of your point that sanctions can take a long time to have an effect so trying to judge them in what has been less than two years is challenging and you also pointed out of course your goal is to try to change the behavior of another state. we have had different goals with respect to russia and ukraine. some of the directly related and others elsewhere in the region we wanted to make sure that russia didn't do anything to our allies. we didn't recognize the annexation of crimea but i don't think anyone expects there to be a change. they are of course still supporting the separatists of eastern ukraine and we wanted to keep them from going further than that and so that has -- you know, we've been able to do that but on the specific challenge of

the russian support for separatists in eastern ukraine on the challenge of trying to get the russians to truly support some kind of solution that would allow ukraine to move forward when we are looking at the role of the sanctions policy and the other challenge is of course figuring out with the russian calculations how much of the calculations as the economy struggles is to to the sanctions and how much is due to the drop in oil prices which is helpful, so who is going to complain about that. but how do we each write to understand the impact of the sanctions in the and the different elements and where is the focus right now in terms of what specifically we would want the russians to do and are there things that if we did them we would then look to lift some of the sanctions?

>> i can answer that specifically. the good news is there's a diplomatic process underway in the process where it was negotiated which if carried out, it will give us the end of the russian oppression against ukraine in the east and it involves elections in the occupied territories and a new electoral law to bride to be cut -- provide. and the monitors and a lot of other things and then ending with the restoration of the eastern ukrainian international border. once men's is fulfilled, -- once minks is fulfilled into the eastern border is restored, yes

the sanctions will come off. now you notice i didn't mention crimea. it's possible there will be a satisfactory solution in the east but crimea will still be under the russian occupation. in that case, we would list the overall sanctions against russia but maintained the sanctions on crimea and the united states and europe have imposed a separate and inseparable sanctions on crimea with this possibility in mind. it's no secret we have said that this is our intention. so the sanctions serve an achievable diplomatic purpose. now the french and germans have the lead in the minks diplomacy with the ukrainians and russians. we are in touch with the russians ourselves obviously and there are some signs that they are starting to take the process more seriously. we hope they are and there is a

sanctions person it would be my hope we could start taking off the sanctions in the wake of the successful settlement areas we are not sanctioning for its own sake. the first part of your question was wow, we have lots of objectives towards the russians how to sanction the figure. we imposed the sanctions because of what russia was doing and ukraine. if we hadn't imposed the sanctions, i don't know what the situation would be like on the ground but i'm pretty confident that it would be a whole lot worse. remember the russian claim that about one third of the extravagant ideas that were being floated sort of vanished. russia seems more aimed at a diplomatic solution and we would welcome it. we hope we can get there this

year. >> i should mention we will have plenty of time for questions so if you want to follow up further on the issue we would welcome that. i want to turn to a different country and that is north korea which has been in the news recently. with respect to russia you had identifiable targets to sanction individuals close to the president and important companies. it would seem like it's much more challenging to come up with sanctions for a country that has governed like north korea. so how do we think about the sanctions policy and what is a very different context? >> it's different as you say and it's harder for the reasons that you cited. the north korean economy is much more isolated, much more china

dependent. right now, the option on additional sanctions is about the un. we are working with the security council on a draft resolution. i think we've said this publicly and we are working on this. there are things and additional steps that we can take to strengthen the un regime of sanctions. in this case the sanctions against north korea generally are un backed by the there are also some national sanctions we can take in support of the un and we will see where we end up in new york. we knew and we hoped for a long time that we wouldn't be in this position, but if we knew it was a possibility so we won't shock you that we were prepared and that our people in our works and

mission working for ambassador power who understand the sanctions very well were ready so we were in consultation with the key players up there and we will be pushing this. it's true that north korea is not as vulnerable to sanctions as either russia or iran but it's also true that they are not invulnerable. there are things we can do and we are looking at that. it's obviously frustrating but we are committed to giving this a strong push and i think we will. >> i think a lot of people look at iran to step back for a second there's always been a long discussion about how effective the sanctions are and partly for the reason you cite they don't have a long time time to rise her eyes in and they get very frustrated when the sanctions don't work right away.

and there is a sort of general notion that there's so many different ways to avoid sanctions and it's hard to get them to work and to do the kind of things you're talking about in terms of changing behavior. iran is now seen as a major success story that there is a nuclear agreement with iran and about countries that were part of the process including the russians really stuck with the sanctions and in fact even certainly during the first part of the obama administration during the recess with russia they have supported additional sanctions on iran and this state of the iranian economy was seen as a major part of their incentive to move towards a deal there's been a lot of concern among the people here who support the deal that there's

still a challenge from the u.s. side because of the opposition to the deal in parts of the united states congress and how does the continued debate over iran and the united states play out in the time frame with respect to the lifting of the sanctions and any differences with respect to what the united states does versus how other countries will be engaged with their own? >> happily. the united states is prepared to do everything we need to do under the jcp oa. we will do everything we need to do and we will do it when we need to do it. we were very careful to make commitments because keep and to work with them the law in our authority. now the sanctions regime is the

most complicated to sanction system i've ever seen because it goes through multiple security council resolutions walls and implementing executive orders and they all refer to each other and build on each other so it is eminently complicated. but sanctions experts, my deputy was involved in the negotiations because we have to make sure we weren't going to take on a responsibility we couldn't meet. we've come a long way and of course the timing illustrates the point we were discussing earlier. the uranian sunder mahmoud ahmadinejad said the sanctions have no effect and repeated that for years and then it turned out they did. we work well with the russians and we work well with the russians despite the fact that we were also beginning to sanction them at the same time. europe deserves however a lot of

credit because when europe joined us in the energy sanctions, that was a game changer and it wasn't clear that they would be willing to do it in the early days. this whole process started under the bush administration but under the obama administration it took off. let's hope that we can succeed that we have come a long way. moving from the sanctions to it as a different issue given your role and the effort to close one, though, i wanted to ask you a few thoughts on that. the president has made clear from the moment he took the oath of office that closing the facility is a major priority for him and we are now in his final year in office and so she's got a little more than a year,

almost a year exactly to try to carry this out. and of course there's a lot of discussion about the role that facility plays in our reputation overseas. can you talk a little bit about why this does remain so important for the president to do this and what -- when you were working on this issue the obstacles that you faced in terms of trying to move forward on this presidential priority? >> love me go back to the bush administration. it's sometimes forgotten in the debate that the bush administration and president bush also wants to close guantánamo and it seems

completely forgotten the debate in washington that the bush administration moved over 500 detainees held at guantánamo, far more than this administration. so, when i started with the obama administration on the closure office, we had something to build on from the bush administration. i'm not a partisan person and there was a lot of good that the bush administration had done if i can put it this way to climb out of the hole they have dug for itself earlier and we vote on that so this is although politically it doesn't seem so, it is in fact bipartisan so it's hard to get anybody to admit to that. i will hold to that position and i ought to know. i remember in the bush administration when people used

to say that the damage in the existence of a quantified number was doing far outweigh the damage that could be done by the detainees returning to the fight which is a fascinating observation by people in the bush administration who then especially in the second term wanted to close at. there are many things wrong with guantánamo. it's not wrong in my view to hold people as prisoners of war when you pick them up in the battlefield. that's recognized. it has legitimacy. guantánamo wasn't set up that way. it was set up outside the regular norms and in our system which is a rule of law system,

when you try to take something set up outside and integrate it with the regular system it just doesn't work. now, this administration, the white house instructions to me starting out in 2009, when i was approaching the government to take the detainees was make sure you get security assurances so you know what's going to happen to these people when you've transferred them to third countries. don't cut corners and even though we want to close it, i was under no pressure to rack up the numbers. so we worked hard. there is a risk with every transfer that risk is greater than zero but overall, the risk of transferring detainees so you

can close the facility is smaller than the risk of maintaining it forever. and this was also the view of the bush administration and a lot of the people i work with were the same people doing it in a second term. a very very skilled people, intelligence professionals, people who were not motivated by left-wing ideological commitment or any of the other stuff you hear on some of the network talk shows. these were professionals. so i think the obama administration is right and the second term was right as well. i no longer do guantánamo, i haven't done it in several years but the person doing it now is

doing a good job and the obama administration was right. i hope they succeed. let's open up. if you have a question or comment please come to the microphone and introduced herself so we know who you are. >> my name is well and i'm a second year regional studies student studying eurasia. i was wondering if you could comment on the recent political developments in poland and whether you think the polish democracy is under threat and if you've experienced the sanctions should the eu consider a political or economic sanctions on poland if the trends continue against the democracy. thank you. >> i spent many years in poland and many years working on polish issues. and it is of concern that we

find ourselves in a situation you can even ask that question. the polish society has pretty deep to the credit groups. anna poland's success since 1989 as a reflection of those deep democratic roots. the government in poland have been right, center, left, liberal, christian, democrat, just about every possible configuration you can imagine and it's all worked out fine so far. and i hope that the current tensions will result in a

greater consensus in the country moving forward. polish democracy has been the driving force hide our support for poland. it hasn't just been geopolitics or realism. it was solidarity starting in 1980 that changed the world and changed our policy and the advent of democracy in 89 that made it possible everything else was done with poland. so we are obviously following that very closely. >> you can find the rest of this conversation online, c-span.org as we go now to the live floor of the senate about to gavel in starting with general speeches until general speech is a bullfighter clucked eastern when they take up the nomination of the u.s. district court judge in

minnesota. a vote on that advice:30. a vote on that at 5:30. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. infinite spirit, your thoughts are too high for us to comprehend and your ways are past finding out. you transform our discordant notes into harmony, and your goodness and mercy pursue us.