are making lethal injections the way i make a barbecue rub? we don't have sodium penthal? screw it, throw some cumin in there. that ought to do the trick. the 9th and 10th amendments are there to make sure somebody doesn't get cute with the other ones. like when someone says there's nothing in here that says a chimp can't play basketball. those two amendments are there to make sure a chimp can't play baseball just because no one thought to explicitly forbid chimps from playing baseball. you can't just pretend that the constitution says whatever you want it to say. that's what the bible, expiration dates and speed limit signs are for. thank you very much for having

me. appreciate it. captioning performed by vitac >> we have some more thank yous. i want to thank our planner, ivan goldberg who made all this happen, also the great allison jafy of the great d.c. improv. those of you who heard the reception band, that's is madam organ's band. you may have noticed on your tables mip cards. those cards get you free into adams morgan. i want to thank cnn, my capitol hill colleagues who dealt with

me dealing with this dinner and who could not be better friends and colleagues. i'm so honored to work with you. it's such a privilege. thank you to my friends, megan, megan and kristen and to my husband jason, you make everything better. now to all of you, i have probably the deepest thanks, it has been an incredible honor. i would never have imagined reporting at the capital much less standing here with some of the greatest reporters in the world and we will continue fighting for access at the u.s. capitol because we sure could use it. finally, thank you of course to the great city of washington. with that, i would like to turn the gavel since, since nick didn't use it, to my friend, colleague and someone who has been a great help on this dinner, the rtca chairman behind me, nbc's frank thorp.

>> first off, let's have a round of applause for lisa. this is a great dinner. i'm not going to keep you any longer, so thank you all for coming tonight. have a great year. we'll see you next year. love you, luke. good night, everyone. thank you.

this morning a group of analysts will discuss european security and the challenges facing the trance atlantic relationship following the crises in ukraine. we'll have it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. this morning the center for american progress will hold a discussion on the demographic and political changes in the south. 50 years after civil rights activists traveled to mississippi to register people of color to vote. and we'll hear remarks by normer naacp president benjamin gel lis on voter suppression live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. the heritage foundation hosts a

discussion on federal land policy. they talked about the best ways to manage public lands. this is about an hour. good morning and welcome to the heritage foundation. we welcome those who join us on our heritage during website on all of these occasions. i would ask everyone in-house if you would double-check that cell phones have been turned off, especially with the rain in the area and all of the magical warnings about flash floods going off. it might be a little more

distracting than usual. we will of course post this program on the heritage home page following the presentation for everyone's future reference and our internet viewers are always welcome to send comments or questions, simply e-mailing speaker at heritage.org. hosting today is rob gordon who serves the senior advisers for strategic outreach in our external relationships department. before joining us here in 2008 he directed several conservation organizations. from 2003 to 2006 he served on committee staff for the house smitty on resources. in 1989 he founded the national wilderness institute, a nonprofit conservation organization and from 1997 to 2002 he served two terms as a member of the commonwealth board of recreations and conservation.

please join me in welcoming rob gordon. >> thank you, john. welcome again to the heritage foundation. we have a great panel today. judging from many of the faces i see in the audience, we have a great audience, too, so i think we'll get some excellent questions. let me start by acknowledging rachel kopec, the coalitions coordinator at the state policy network who worked with us to promote this event and is working with one of the speakers who is engaged with educating state officials on aspects of federal landownership. in a few minutes i will introduce our speakers and after they've made remarks we'll take questions. but first i'd like to offer a little bit of context for our panel. states of dependance, reducing washington's control of the western u.s. i think some comparisons regarding land areas are needed because the areas we're

discussing are vast. they're difficult to comprehend. when rural lands not under federal control and the lands under federal control that are ruled dlm are considered together, they are greater than the nation of india. that shouldn't be really too surprising based on ranking the u.s., we're the third after russia and canada, and according to the natural resources conservation service, as of 2003 only 5.6% of the united states was urban. so we have a huge area that is rural. i raise this because most americans live in urban and suburban areas. partially developed areas are the rule, not the exception, as to what most of us see on a

day-to-day basis. this certainly affects your outlook. fufrth development close to or within one's day to day world can make it seem as if everything is disappearing. i think this is a very inaccurate perception and it is something that advocates of expanding government land holdings and imposing barriers and regulations to inhibit productive private land use seize upon. let me offer a little bit more perspective. nonfederal rural lands total more than 1.3 billion acres with more than half of that being range or pasture. while these lands aren't owned by the federal government, they are subject to federal laws and regulations that have the effect of land use control in many instances, many commonly carried out through the endangered species act or the wet lands provision of the clean water act. in addition to seeking more string sent controls on private land, the establishment has

sought to expand the federal state, often arguing that doing so is the only means of preventing land from being somehow wrecked. consider this. while alabama, connecticut, maine, mississippi, new hampshire, new york, pennsylvania, south carolina, and west virginia are not among the states with the largest percentage of federal landownership, in all of them, significantly more than 50% of the land is forested. suffice it to say there's a vast amount of land, range and forest, not under federal control that has not disappeared as some in the environmental community would like you to believe. providing food, fiber, minerals and energy, improving the well-being of real people is hardly something that should be calculated as a loss. but onto the federal state which is vast. u.s. army corps of engineers for

example, manages 12 million acres of public lands and waters nationwide. this would be equivalent to an area bigger than taiwan or israel. while that may seem large to some of you, for those who understand a bit more about the federal estate, the corps of engineers is a relatively small player. there are four large land holding agencies. the national park service controls 84 million acres of land, roughly equivalent to the nation of finland, and requires some 28,000 employees. that sounds pretty big. but what may surprise you is the national park service is the smallest. the u.s. fish and wildlife service is substantially larger with 551 national wildlife refugees and additional other units constituting an area of 150 million acres, which is larger than the nation of the ukraine. the u.s. and fish and wildlife service employs some 9,000

people at facilities across the u.s. the forest service again is larger. it has 155 national forests, 20 national grass lands and seven national monuments totaling 193 million acres. that's larger than the area of chile. the united states forest service employs some 35,000 people. finally comes the bureau of land management. the bureau of land management has 254 million acres, and according to the cia's world fact book that puts it in position 31 compared to the 352 other nations on earth. it would come in just after egypt and has some 10,000 employees. all together we're talking over 260 million acres, which, one last comparison, is larger than france, spain, germany, poland,

austria, the netherlands and belgium combined and the four major agencies have employees that are greater than the military forces of australia. the federal estate is too large, and it's time we began exploring how at least a substantial portion of these lands can be returned to the states. our first speaker today chairs the subcommittee on those lands which, based on the number, would seem a formidable task. rob bishop serves on the house rules committee, armed services committee, national resources committee and is chairman of the public lands and environmental regulation subcommittee. representative bishop served 16 years in the utah state

legislature including as majority leader and the anonymously selected speaker of the house. he served two terms as state chairman of the republican party. representative bishop was co-founder of the western states coalition and past chair of the congressional western caucus. he was also co-founder of the 10th amendment task force in the united states house of representatives. prior to engaging in politics, representative bishop spent 28 years as a high school teacher in utah, focusing on american history and government. he's married and they have five children and six grandchildren and reside in brigham city. following that is carl gram, director of the institute for the west.

carl completed aviation officer candidate school in pensacola, florida, and flew the a6-5. following he was strike officer for the commander carrier group five, and he transitioned to squadron operations officer, flying and directing missions over bosnia and the persian gulf and acting as the officer to the joint task force southwest asia. carl then served as special assistant and liaison in omaha, nebraska, advancing his interest in public policy. his final naval tour was with commander pacific fleet at pearl harbor. he earned his masters in national security affairs and then from the naval postgraduate

school in monterey, california. he was born and raised in the northeast corner of montana. after a 20-year naval career he and his wife cindy settled in montana where he was adjunct professor and served on the u.s. commission on civil rights montana state advisory committee. he currently resides in salt lake city. please welcome congressman bishop. >> thank you. i appreciate that introduction. i want to tell you, words have meanings and those meanings become significant. i was walking to work one day wearing a tan, three-piece suit. out of one of the apartments came a teenager. i know he was a teenager because he wasn't wearing shoes and he had a cell phone in his ear.

as i passed him, he looked up and said, that suit is so fly. as i walked past him i wasn't sure whether i had been complimented. first i checked my zipper. that wasn't the issue. it wasn't until i got to the office and talked to my 20-year-old staffers they said me that was a compliment. we have the words but unless we understanding the meaning we're not communicating. the first problem is simply the size. i have medium sized posters and small ones, so enjoy. everything that's red is owned by the federal government. it's true, the federal government owns one out of every three acres in the united states but it's concentrated with us in the west. we get the joy of having over half of the west being controlled by the federal government. that means that those of our friends who live in the east have some federal land, but they

don't necessarily have that same content. let me get the small one. i picked three states at random. this is obviously the state of my speaker, my majority leader, and me. in ohio and virginia and utah, everything that's blue is private property. so our good friends in the east, really they have some public lands in there, they have very little access, very little interaction. the idea of actually working with the department of interior is not really coming in concept. now, in the 1960s, the head of the park service at that time came up with this plan that if i can get more parks in more congressional districts i can get more money. ironically, congress was dumb enough to fall for it. years later we find there are national parks in 49 out of 50 states and delaware is still trying to find something worthy of a park. but it's only 13% of the land. the bulk of the land, 44%, is blm but unfortunately that's

only found here in the west. there is no concept of what the blm does back there. kwe when you talk about public lands, my good friends in the east, the only contact they have is the national park nearby. you say public lands to them and they think of a pretty tree by a pretty lake. those of us in the west deal with the blm. we think of sage brush. we're talking the same language but they don't mean the same thing. most people in pennsylvania, new jersey and new england, when they say public lands, they think all public lands are yellow stone. they are not. in fact, sometimes i want to remind them that yellow stone was established in 1872 in the territory of wyoming. it took us six years to actually give them any money. the second national park was three years later and it was in michigan and we gave it back to

michigan because they could better manage the land. they are still doing it and still doing a far better job than we are. it was 18 years before the federal government came up with the idea of another national park. we have those concepts that are simply different. what it shows us though is that first of all states can manage land just as well if not better than the federal government. in testimony we've had in our committee dealing with the lands in idaho and washington, we found that even though idaho and washington and the triebs have fewer forest lands they get much more production over a bigger quality of land and they have healthier forests which simply means you don't have to have everything managed by washington in order to have it done well. states and tribes are showing that they can do just as good a job if not a better job. i also want to point out that in

all due respect, sometimes the federal government just hurts people because they have the absent of having decisions made by local officials who sometimes are good and sometimes aren't. in fort vancouver in washington there's a national historic site and they added more property to this park. so it's basically a community park. they have a pavilion there. the land manager at the site thought the noise that came from the public access area was too loud for the artifacts in her site. so she cancelled such things as a search picnic, a youth soccer fair, a concert that was there for the benefit of veterans, because the noise that the church picnic would generate would disturb her artifacts in the site. there was nothing you could do about it except come to congress and try to put pressure on them in some kind of a bill. a taxi driver in las vegas, his

body was dumped somewhere out there. they did a search. the family wanted to find the body. it took them 15 months to raise the money to get the special use permit to the federal government did. once they raised the money, they found the guy's body in two hours. it took the family another ten months getting an attorney, going to court to have the right to have a search and rescue company who volunteered to help find the body to allow them to come in on federal land and actually once they were allowed to come in, they quickly found the body. i mean, we have examples all over this country of federal land managers who actually end up hurting people. in t in the teetons they established that paddling, canoeing would

bother the fish habitats. they found out it wouldn't but they still banned the rule. i don't know what you do -- fish looking, whatever it is, they banned everything because simply it took them too much time to try and do that. we also have the simple example of federal government in this land process harms kids in the west. look, up in the first picture everything that's in red are the states that have the hardest time funding their education system. they raise the least amount of increase in their funds for public education. the bottom is obviously the area that you have public lands and i hate to say this, but there's a one to one relationship between those who have a problem in raising funds for education and those that have public lands simply because we have less ability to raise taxes, less

access to the resources that are there. the west gets screwed over in our education funding compared to what happens in the east t over a 20-year period of time, it is simply a matter that the east can raise twice the amount of money as the west can for its own public education. we in the west are taxed at a higher rate than those in the east. we put a higher percentage of our local budgets into education. i'm a teacher. my kids are harmed by it. my salary was depressed by it. my retirement is still coming through the state education system. you're putting my retirement in jeopardy. that ticks me off. but it's only because we have a different way of looking at the land. as i said at the very earlier statement of that, one of the problems we have is that people just don't understand what we're talking about when we deal with public land. all of the west and public lands are not yellow stone. one last statistics we found out. this hits people in the east.

you add up all the revenue that comes from these lands and all the expenses from the lands, they're taking 8 to $9 billion a year for the wonderful of controlling the west. there are three fault scenarios i'd like to dispel. number one is that only somebody in washington has the view of what is good for the entire country. false narrative number one. false narrative number two, if there's ever a difference of opinion on what should be done on public lands between someone locally and someone in washington, obviously someone has to win. false. number three, the west has to be protected from itself. i'm tired of that. my education funding is tired of that. it's time to look at things in a new way of doing it and that's what we're trying to do in congress today. thank you for the time. i'm sorry to have spent so much time boring you with all that. >> i'm not sure why i'm here anymore.

you guys pretty much got it. by the way, i have a much shorty bioif you are interested for the next time we do something like that. i'm going to try to put this into a context of maybe why you folks should care. representative bishop did a great job of laying out the false premises that are out there, the misunderstands and the language that we use. in the west we're looking to restore a balance between individual and state's rights and responsibilities versus the federal state and the federal government. i think that's one of the reasons that you should care about this because it has a broader context. we're seeing an unprecedented growth obviously in federal power right now, the growing of the regulatory state, obamacare, dodd frank. most of this is being done under an umbrella of federal cooperation where the federal government basically buys the rope and the states use it to

hang themselves. that's one of the things that comes back to federal funding. western states are particularly vulnerable to this because of a lot of reasons that representative bishop talked about. so we have both the opportunity and really a responsibility to ask a very simple question, why not govern ourselves. why be states of independence and govern ourselves? imagine if we can restore that balance to make government more accountable by bringing it closer to home, to have a servant instead of a master, to have a government to works for us instead of against us and to be able to decide our future. this is what this is about, the best way to educate our kids, to stewart our lands, to provide for public safety and services using local resources, local means, solutions reflective of those things and not imposed on higher one size fits all solutions, from experts who really maybe aren't experts at

the local level. we can see who's the most at risk and you've had some stuff laid out -- by the way, if you missed those numbers and comparisons, i got more. you can see who's mostly hurt at this for the often overreaching policies we've seen. the west is the canary in the coal mine. so you see ranchers in nevada getting on their horses and riding to the district blm offices to protest loss of access on lands they've been on for generations. atv riders in utah are risking arrest protesting trail closures on trails that they've been on with their families for generations. county commissioners in new mexico are threatening to break the locks, tear down barricades put on by federal officials to stop access to water that their ranchers have use tuesday responsibly for generations.

accountants, cpas calling on the utah legislature to be more responsibility and get a handle on the dependance on federal funds and the costs and risks that come with those funds and relooking at the level of dependance that we have there on federal money to perform basic state functions. so the primary vulnerability we have in the west that we don't control our own resources. here's another map to show you the same thing is that weapon don't own those lands, 50% of all those lands. 600 million acres of land in the west, west of the colorado/nevada line is owned by the federal government. that's enough land to cover the entire eastern seaboard, plus kansas, plus texas, plus france. that's a lot of land. 91% of all federal lands are in the west and make up about 50% on average of western states. that's 50% of land that we're

locked out of, 50% of our tax base, 50% of our productive economy, 50% of our economic potential. if the federal government owned half the casinos in las vegas and started shutting down blackjack tables, can you imagine the impact that would have on the economy? you could take the list on and on. if they shut down 50% of the trading houses on wall street -- that might not be so bad. but we have in the west the same rights as everybody else but we're not allowed to exercise those rights because frankly we came later and settled those lands later after a group of people or a system decided to shut those things off from other uses, from productive uses. some say that they're national treasures and they belong to us. some of them are but not all of them.

if you look at the national parks in the wilderness areas, these are special lands. they're the exception. they would remain the exception, but they make up a small fraction of the federal state out in the west. generally less than 15% of the federal lands in any given western state are those types of special lands. most of them are multiple use lands for forest services, some fish and wildlife services, things like that. it's about 20 to 30 million acres per state out in the west that falls understand that multiple use designation. the sage brush in many occasions that you saw the pictures, that's an area the size of virginia within each western state that is basically we're losing access to. if we're going to govern ourselves we need more control over those multiple use lands. we're talking blm and forest

lands that were designated for both recreation and economic uses. utah has passed a law, transfer of public lands act where they're demanding return of -- again not national parks or wilderness areas but multiple use lands for state control. four other states are studying it and i expect in 2015 and especially if i have anything to do with it we're going to see legislation similar to those states. we we're working in new mexico. i'm not here to critique the various approaches. each state is probably going to have its unique road. each parcel of land is going to have its unique way but we want to lay the ground work for trying to establish the information for folks like you to understand this issue better and to get each state with its own approach. these are lands with trillions of dollars in resources, billions of dollars in tax

revenues, hundreds of thousands of jobs that are increasingly being locked up by people who really don't understand what's at stake here. one of the things that's really ironic is that people who claim to worry so much about diversity and care about diversity are choking off an entire way of life, impose are their values on the rural production economy in ways that they don't understand of our goal is to stop that, protect the lands, balance conservation and the betterment of the human condition, to manage those lands for enjoyment and productivity now and long into the future. in short, just be proper stewards of those lands. another means of washington's imposition of control is funding. as the representative showed with that great slide, the federal government is taking up an increasing portion of the budget of states, on average around the country right now it's about a third of state budgets are provided by federal funds. this is dangerous. it's also one reason that western states become more dependent on those federal funds is again we don't have access to

our revenue case. these are federal funds that are being used to tell us how to educate our kids, how to run our businesses, our charities, our government, take care of our environment and resources. those funds come with strings that tell us how to do those things and we really have little control over what we do with those funds and that's not just the western problem. that's across the nation. those are discretionary funds for the most part. they're getting squeezed between entitlement spending and we're going to see them further squeezed between entitlement spending and service of the national debt. we need to work to create a plan for when the next federal funding crises occurs or when those funds come under pressure. we're helping states develop legislation and policies to see those funds and the strings attached to them to measure the risks of accepting them, not just the rewards and the benefits and the risks of potentially using them and

creating plans to be responsible, to do what we do in our every day lives, to plan for the day when those funds start to disappear or when they're cut in different ways so that we cut the right programs, maintain the right programs. i'll give you a couple of examples in a minute. before i do there's another thing that i want to quickly point out, too. we're trying to create a movement in the west and we're trying to public size and get support for that movement across the country. utah is leading the way on most of these things. that's an anomaly. two or three states, now you have a movement. that's what we're trying to do, to get the things done so we can have more control over our destiny. we provide the tools. you saw some of the handouts we have, tool kits we put together for each state to reclaim our state's rights and restore that proper balance again and to plan for the future. this goes beyond just wanting to do the right things. this also advances conservatism

which i think is near and dear to a lot of people in this room and in this great place here in heritage. skertism and principles are at stake here and these are winning issues to show the costs of going down the wrong path and to provide an alternative as well, not just show the costs but provide a way forward. the left is trying to change the lectoral map. they're trying to create a majority by making more people more dependent on and flat-out scared of criticizing a stronger d.c. bureaucracy or federal government. they increase dependance by raising the cost of healthcare and subsidize the increase. you take a basic need and turn it into a government issue and privilege. they're increasing the -- more people and businesses beholding

to special interests out there. i don't believe in cronie capitalists. you want to have your goods and services in the marketplace, you want to compete so you can't be a cronie. if you are a cronie, you want special tax treatment, regulations that impede other competition with you. you want a government that's big enough and powerful enough to pick winners and losers and decide who gets to stay in business and who doesn't. that's not the american way. it's not what made us great. it's not the direction we can go for very much longer. they're trying to create this permanent majority by creating fear, browbeating, threatening and silencing opponents. you have political leaders publicly berating individuals, private citizens, calling on agencies to auditor target private citizens who are engaging in legal speech. you have people threatening their opponents for political

and religious beliefs, calling for the loss of their jobs. they're able to do this because again the dependance that we've agreed to, we've got to cut those apron strings and restore our independence, our ability to self-govern. we need to find ideas that we can unite beyond and these are great ideas. i've been right for a long time. i'm tired of being right. i want to win. we've got to have these ideas that we can win and bring people behind. by pushing back against federal control and dependance. these are winning issues in the west and i think they're winning issues across the country. my friend tom in montana, a small town in northeast montana, he shouldn't be forced off land that his grandfather homesteaded because george sorros saw dancing with wolves and wants to put wild bison out there. a man i met a few months ago, he

shouldn't lose land in new mexico that his family has grazed since the 1600s because a san francisco billionaire. a caregiver shouldn't lose her job because of a sequester or a shutdown while we're continuing to run vegetable psas because it comes from a different pot of money. these are the freedoms we cherish and the proper balance between individual fulfillment, the betterment of the human condition. these western issues provide an opportunity for all of us to move forward. if we can do it together, we can show working class families the old reagan democrats, we can show them that there's somebody out there fighting for them and that there's alternatives out there and a path forward to them that enhances their traditional values of hard work, of family, of community. they have champions. we can be their champions and move these issues forward.

we need the resources under those lands. that's an easy argument to make, but a lot of those folks who want to make those resources available and the rule production economy are having a very difficult time because they're effectively being disenfranchised. their voice is smaller than the urban voice right now. there are more urban voters than rural voters. what do i mean by urban voters? that's not a code word. it's a demographic term. population density is part of it but it's also a connectedness or a disconnectedness with that rural production economy. there are values and ways of working that economy. there are things that are important in that economy that make it work, that the further you get from the land, the less understanding you have of those and the more likely you are to shunt those aside or not even recognize that you are harming them. so when you have -- if you go out west, if you go to billings, montana, albuquerque, new mexico, boise idaho, most of the people would be at most one or

two generations removed from somebody who actually worked the land or logged the land or developed resources from the land. they understand those values and understand what's needed for that rural production. you get to washington d.c., people don't understand that so they will unintentionally many times harm the people and the values and the economy that we all need to put electricity in our walls and gas in our cars and everything else. so when rural america goes to work in the morning, they put on their boots, they're not just going to work, they're preserving traditional values and ideals that made this country great. there are people who want to prevent them from doing that. they're powering the greatest economy in the world, thumbing their nose at tin pot dictators everywhere. again, there are people who want to prevent them from doing that and some people who don't even want to but are. they're building a stronger, more environmental responsible and sustainable future through this rural production economy that values hard work, that values family, values community.

in the meantime, by doing that they're feeding and powering the world. there's people who don't understand the value of that and they're trying to stop them. self-determination, self-government is what's really at stake in this war for the west that we're seeing picking up steam right now. it's not about dollars and sense. it is for some people. but where it really matters this isn't a dollars and sense issue, at least not for those who have the most to lose. it's about basic fairness, preserving viability and the values of this rural production economy. i'm starting in the west because it's in my back yard. it's what i know best, it's where i want to live quite frankly. that's where the risks and the opportunities are biggest as well. i hope you'll create your own revolt in your own back yard and if you did that, i would be honored to help you. thank you. >> great.

they have plenty of time for questions, and i think plenty of material to work with. if you have a question, if you could just raise your hand and then state your name and your affiliation. >> in the late 1990s, the clinton administration's department of interior carried out an inventory of blm land and they found some 3.3 million acres, if thmemory serves me, tt it costs more money to manage that land than was really worth their time. nothing came of their recommendation to do that, also including the eight years of the george w. bush administration which did absolutely nothing on this issue. i believe you have introduced legislation -- and correct me if

i'm wrong -- to sell those those 3.3 million acres and i believe that i saw an article not long ago saying that the barack obama administration wants no one to oppose that because as carl pointed out, their thing is to expand government dependency, not reduce it. my question to you is, in light of the different alternatives that carl outlined to all of us, which avenue or avenues would you support to ultimately convey is much of the federal estate as possible, that being mostly blm land from washington to the states? thank you. >> actually, it's not my bill. i'm co-responser. the bill has passed the house. it's one of a handful of bills sitting over in the senate. actually it needs to go forward and actually the administration

did testify against that particular bill and for whatever reason it's mind boggling, i don't know, that bill should go forward. that's the low hanging fruit. the other concept is that we should have as a standard of our policy the idea of transferring as much land and responsibility for that land to the state as possible. it can be done administrationively. one of the things i'd like the state of utah has been doing is there's always a problem with what's the remedy. the state of utah is coming up with policies so that is correct say if we have the land, this is how we would manage it, this is how we would fund it, this is how we would maintain it. so when you go to court or congress you can simply say this is our remedy, give us the land. so we can tell the east, save your money, give us the land and

everyone is going to be happy. >> come visit it. >> congressman bishop, i know you've had some experiences with wilderness lands along the southern border. can you talk about the impact federal lands have on immigration reform and border security. >> gee, thanks for opening up a whole new avenue of discussion. we have looked at our problems on the border. 51% of all illegal immigration and almost all illegal drugs and human trafficking are coming through one sector along the border. you got to ask yourself why, why do people want to come here through tucson and not through maine. the simple issue is our southern border is 80% owned by the federal government from texas to california. over half is in wilderness

category which prohibits by law the border patrol from doing anything except foot recon assistance. they are prohibited from doing anything mechanized. that means the border control does not have the ability to control our border. we need to change those laws and we did it actually in california so they could finish building the wall. you need to change the law across the border to allow the border patrol to do what they need to do. it's a statutory prohibition that is correct n you cannot overcome. we've got to change the law. the laws that create those kind of land designations prohibit the border patrol from doing the job, we will not have a secure border until we change those statutes. >> thank you. i have two questions for both of

you. the first is an easy one -- it's not easy but -- what do you think is the path forward if there is a window of opportunity to deferrderalize that in congress? my second question is what should be the ultimate goal? the last time we had a chance to do this was early in the reagan administration 33 years ago. the secretary and senior economist had a debate. president reagan sided with steve hanky and that was that we should not turn the land over to the state but privatize it, and particularly, we should sell the federal portion of the ownership of the blm land directly to the

grazing residents. president reagan sell we should sell it directly and privatize it. i don't care which way we go on this, but if we do turn it over to the states, i think we should have a goal in most states that most of that land eventually ends up in private ownership. socialized land is still socialized land. thank you. >> i'm an all of the above kind of guy right now. we're in the information coalition building phase of this to be honest with you. we're trying to get people more knowledgeable about this. so i'm not going to say any idea is a bad idea right now. i think each stating going to, to some degree, tailor their approach but we need some approach when the rubber meets the road. when it comes to that supreme

court decision or that bill that allows this to happen. utah has done a they have come through with another set of bills that now creates things like a utah wilderness act that allows the designation of hands that are turned over to be made wilderness areas in utah if it makes sense to do that. that shows goodwill. will that happen? probably in a few places. it shows goodwill above all else. they also have a land stewardship commission that will decide on the best use of each piece of land that's turned over as a part of the process of turnings it over. it's multiyear, it's going to take a while, but you have to show both the goodwill and the institutional stamina that you can pull this thing off before it will get further in the political process in d.c. or before it ultimately ends up probably at the supreme court no matter who wins, somebody is going to sue. as far as the privatization thing, i live in the world of a politically possible. i don't think that's politically

possible right now. will some of that land ultimately be privatized? yeah. sure it will. some of it will ultimately probably be fenced off as a result of this process. i think my point is the states are in a much better position to make those decisions than the federal government. and that's what i'm focusing on is trying to get that decision making process in state hands where they're much more accountable to the people who live there than in the federal government's hands where they're not accountable to the people who live there, limited accountability, and they're influenced by people who work down the street a ways as opposed to the people who actually make their living there and have stewarded it for generations. >> actually, you said that very well. there is a realm of possibility. people back east who don't understand the difference, i mean, we went and showed these slides once to one -- to somebody who said, okay. now, tell me the difference between forest service and blm which is a legitimate question unless you've been here for 14 years making law on those issues.

which he had. so we're talking about people who don't know the difference in the kinds of land whether or not it's specialized or privatized or that kind of stuff. you say privatization to them and it shows fears going up and down their spine. it will never happen. but the issue at hand is who should make decisions about these hands. is it somebody in washington or somebody who actually lives there? that's what you enunciated. people in the state can make those decisions wisely on whether it needs to be legitimized, whether it needs to be preserved, whether it needs to be open for development, controlled by the state, or simply open for development, period. they can make that decision as well or if not better than somebody here in washington. that's the first step that has to go. getting those lands to somebody who locally can make those decisions needs to be our first step. we can't jump to the last step before we do the first step. >> right here. newhouser with "u.s. news & world report."

there was mention earlier of special interests here in washington and certainly there's no shortage of that here in d.c., but it's also of course present in state houses, where a buck can often go much further. what make you confident that state legislators would be able to push back against that influence such as with development that might go beyond what many people might be seeking on these federal lands? >> for one thing, you are talking about 50 states. if you are trying to change broad policy, changing it in 50 states is more difficult than in one place that has all the power. the other thing, state legislators, county commissioners, they know they're -- in the west, western states, they know their constituents and their constituents know them. i know mine personally. i know my representative, too. we can have coffee and we can talk. we can't do that mostly with

your representative or senator. you certainly can't do it with the local blm. whoever runs local lands. where as in glasgow, montana, my rancher ted mcintyre talks to his blm guy every day. they know each other well. it's a matter of accountability. if the decision making is made closer to the people whom are effected by those decisions, there's a lot more feedback if it's the wrong one. that feedback is much more effective. >> thank you for going first. i need some time before i answer that question as one of the most insulting questions i've ever had. i told you about the false premise beginning. the idea that only somebody in washington has the grand view of what is good for this country, it's a stupid, false premise. i was speaker of the house in utah. now i am chairman of the public land subcommittee here in washington. because i am a congressman i am now better, brighter, more valuable, more moral than i was a speaker of the house? that is a false premise.

it's a silly premise to think that just because you're in washington means you make better decisions than somebody in the state legislature. i refute it. i deny it. and i find it personally insulting. >> how about over here. we'll get you next. >> hi, my name is paulina peneda from cronkite news service. there's mention of colorado, new mexico, utah, but nothing in arizona. i know, with the new epa standards coal mining in northern arizona an navajo prescribe might suffer. do you think this is a movement that can be pushed in arizona. do people in arizona want more control over the federal land? >> yeah. definitely. some people do. >> can you expand on that more than just -- >> they had a utah-like transfer public lands bill in the legislature, i think it was in 2013.

it was vetoed by the governor. i don't know if they're going to make another run at it this year or not. it's not one of the states i'm concentrating on. as you talk to county commissioner and ranchers in the state especially, they're very interested in it. i'm not sure if they've come up with a strategy to move it forward. >> in my committee we're indun kated with trying to give arizona more chance to make decisions for themselves. of course, they do. they would benefit also. >> right here. >> good morning. my name is scott cameron. i'm with a nonprofit. called reduce risk from invasive species coalition. i used to work for nevada senator and california governor. while i'm an easterner, i get where you're coming from, gentlemen. in nevada, for a number of years, there was an arrangement where blm lands would be sold and be spent on environmental projects in nevada. it's still ongoing. i'm wonder ing ing if a politic

deal could be struck from a blm land sold in the west could be used to augment the budget of the national park service, fish and wildlife service and so on. might that be enough to entice our eastern or liberal friends into supporting land transfers in the west? >> yeah. and there are certain opportunities with that. we do have the federal land transfer, flif or whatever that comes out to be, which allows that kind of process. that can be expanded. we have the land water conservation fund that allows those concepts to be expanded upon. the only problem we do have now is there are some budget rules. on what is or is not an earmark depending upon how you use those particular funds. i some respects i think our definitions are silly. in some respects insisting we have to have equal value before any kind of trade takes place. that's a silly concept as well. we have to work through some of those. but, yeah, it's viable. >> let me add something quickly to that, too. a lot of laws, there are a lot

of mechanisms for responsible management or transfer of these federal lands. when they're invoked or when they're tried the first thing that happens is you get a lawsuit. so you have the forest service managing timber lands to not get sued. they're not managing it to manage the land so they don't burn, so mother nature doesn't manage them, we do. they're managing them so that they don't end up in court and use their entire budget on a legal settlement or fees or just whatever it is that ties them up. one of the things we need to look at aside from this is that system that allows people to tie up, to misuse the remedies that we already have available. that's kind of a separate topic but it's worth bringing up with this, i think. >> okay. did we have a question over here somewhere? >> thank you. i'm sophie miller from congressman dean cain's office. i'm wondering the argument against gives states jurisdiction over their lands. what are we fighting against?

>> you want the flip answer or you want the -- it's -- i think congress laid out a lot of it. it's a lack of understanding of what the lands are. they see pictures of the grand tetons and they think that's all the federal lands in the west. they're these pristine national treasures. well, some of them are. some aren't. some are lands that not only can be used for economic development, for recreation, the multiple uses aren't just possible but often complementary and additive, in fact. a forest road gives access to hunters and fishermen as well. the infrastructure that comes with fossil fuel development in eastern montana or in utah creates infrastructure that, again, forest, recreation users, atv riders, all those folks can use as well. they're not just complementary. additive in many cases. i think the biggest obstacle we

have, first of all, people that believe that humans are a scourge to the planet. want to keep them off as much real estate as we can. and others who don't understand that we can do this responsibly and in a way that looks to the future and betters the end condition and supports that real production economy. >> i appreciate the question. there's two big broad responses to it. the first one is, we always have every 60, 70, 80 years a change in the attitude we have towards public lands. colonial time encouraged people to come over here. then sell lands in the territories to make money. in the 1820s, 25% of the federal budget was from sale of lands. they would kick off the squatters they called them homesteaders and encouraged homesteading. the last of those bills was passed in 1916. progressive era came. we had a great idea, we'll keep everything and administer it. people don't have to mess their

hands in those nasty things. we'll do it scientifically and won't let people's desires play a role in it. we are about time for the change. and the idea of multiple use and also the ability of opening up for suing and settling, those things are changes. we're about time to change that paradigm of how we look on lands. that's why i feel comfortable as we go forward we can make some of those changes, just instinctively how we deal with land. the other part of it is also this concept in our constitution of dual sovereignty. we are one of those few people that said there are some things the federal government should do and have power to do, some things states should do and have power to do. we keep mixing those. unfortunately a lot of people in washington still have this idea that i'm in congress, i should be able to deal with everything, including land policies. when actually it was set up to have the states take that responsibility. because they can do it so much better. i'm sorry. as bad as state budgets sometimes are, they're not nearly as behind on their appropriations and their maintenance as the national park

service is. going back to the concept of dual sovereignty, going back to this idea that we have a paradigm shift on how we deal with public lands, we are due to change that. it means that we can go into a better way of handling public lands in the future. >> do we have any more questions out here? we have maybe time for one more. right there. >> megan drake with the "washington times." mr. graham, you were talking about how you would like this to become a movement. can you talk about possibly if that will become a big issue in 2016? and if you're hoping momentum will gain? especially in the face of more glitzy issues like health care or education policy. >> it's going to be a challenge putting it in the top ten interest at a national level. but it's going to be -- it already is building in a large building movement in western states. we're working to try to make it even a larger issue. as the costs of these policies

become more apparent at the gas pump, in your electricity bill and also for those families who are trying to make their living the way they have for a long time, they're going to be looking for answers. my job is to be out there with those answers. so it's not going to be a -- yes, i think we will have a movement. but it's going to be focused more in the west than the east. we need help from the east as well. >> very good answer. >> well, very good. i think if we have no more question, please, join me in thanking our speakers. [ applause ]

we're live this morning. up next, a group of analysts will discuss european security and the challenges facing the trans-atlantic relationship following the crisis in ukraine. speakers today will include national security advisers zbigniew brzezinski and ischinger. he also chairs the mu nick conference. former u.s. representative jane harman who now heads the wilson center will give some opening remarks. live coverage as we said here on c-span 3 should get under way in just a moment.

again, we're awaiting the

start of the discussion on european security following the crisis in ukraine. jane harman will be giving introductory remarks in a moment. petro poroshenko says he'll seek this week to produce a peace plan including a cease-fire with separatist rebels in the east. he said a cease-fire will be proposed as the beginning of implementation of the president's peace plan.

good morning, everyone. find seats? okay. good morning. i'm jane harman, the president and ceo of the wilson center. and as i always say, a recovering politician. it is not a 12-step program, but

i'm very happy and fortunate to be in this role. i do want to recognize u.s. ambassador to egypt robert becroft. i think he is here. there he is. welcome, sir. and to underscore the title of today's event which is mutual security on hold? russia, the west and european security architecture. this conversation could not come at a more important time with events in ukraine looming large on the global agenda. i was thinking about it earlier. i suppose one piece of good news about the assault of the isis extremist organization in iraq is that russia is distracted. what is russia distracted by? ukraine. and the disintegrating with europe -- its disintegrating

relations with europe and the u.s. the downing of a military transport plane in east ukraine on saturday has created outrage in kiev. the russian embassy there was substantially damaged by an angry mob. fortunately, the event was defused by the foreign minister of ukraine, although a comment he made there has obviously gone viral. at any rate, no one really believes that russia isn't meddling and fomenting some instability in eastern ukraine. and that makes it much harder for petro poroshenko, the recently elected president, to stand up an effective, transparent and corruption-free, let's try that, government. for the first time in ukraine's history. i observed the election on the national democratic institute, ndi, delegation led by madeleine albright. we had a chance right before it to meet with the leading

candidates. and poroshenko certainly said the right things about the leadership he hopes to provide for ukraine. and it is my personal wish that he's able to -- to be successful. today's event is really, although ukraine will be a focus, to celebrate the role of the munich security conference and other organizations like the osce and the wilson center who pay careful attention to russia and other major security challenges. the wilson center has invested in these issues for 40 years. ambassador george cannon and others founded the kennon institute in 1974. it's the center's oldest program. and our global europe program led by christian osterman, who is on today's panel or i guess moderating it, is the home of our newest distinguished scholar who was the co-moderator of the osce's ukrainian national dialogue. ambassador wolfgang ischinger. we have 1,400 scholar alumni

worldwide from our kennon institute. 100 of them are on the ground right now in ukraine. in fact, i met several of them, and three of them work in a small office that we still have in kiev. so who better to keynote our program than someone who knows a lot about this region, ambassador big behr zinky. big and i worked together. i didn't work for him. he was the big shot, i was the small shot in the carter white house in another century. when somehow the problems seemed a little easier other than hostages in iran and a few other things. but zbig has continued to think carefully about the strategic challenges in the world and -- and has, in my view, written some of the most important books that give the rest of us tools to think about those. during his tenure in the carter white house, he managed the normalization of relations with china, the signing of sol 2,

brokering of the camp david accords, encouraging of dissidence in eastern europe and the fallout from the 1981 ukrainian revolution. though that didn't resolve until immediately after president carter left office. he is currently the senior research professor at johns hopkins. but i actually think he's the second most important member of his family after mika. after zbig's talk, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, steve pifer, will make some comments. steve and i testified together a few weeks ago before the senate foreign relations committee, which is focused intently on what strategies could be successful in ukraine. but before any of that happens, let me introduce wilson scholar, ambassador wolfgang ischinger, who will talk a bit more about the munich security conference's most recent anniversary volume.

wolfgang has chaired the munich security conference since 2008, following a very successful career in germany's foreign service where he was a deputy foreign minister, ambassador to the u.s. during the 9/11 period and then ambassador to the uk. the book that he produced, which was released at this past february's conference includes chapters written by various folks. i was honored to write the chapter on nonlugar and last year to be involved in a celebration of senator sam nunn for his enormous contributions in the area of nuclear security. the conference each february is the security event in the world. our congress sends a major delegation there. i think i'm up to year 14 attending it. one last thing about wolfgang before i introduce him. among his other extraordinary accomplishments, he is, of

course, a grandfather. but he's also a father of a 9-year-old. and so i've been waiting, wolfgang, to wish you happy father's day. please welcome ambassador wolfgang ischinger. [ applause ] >> thank you so much, jane. and thank you zbig and steve and, of course, christian for allowing us to have this session here this morning. both jane harman and zbig brzezinski were, of course, participating once again after many previous sessions, at the munich security conference earlier this year. and i remember that you, zbig, participated in a session on ukraine at a moment when many of us were still considering ukraine a problem of ukrainians.

and, of course, now it has become a problem of not only european, but global dimensions. and we'll talk more about that. so thank you for allowing me just to make a few brief remarks. i want to sort of present to you this book. there are outside in the hall a few copies of it. and there's also a sheet where you -- if you want a copy, you can order a copy from a u.s. distribution company. it's actually, if i may say very modestly, a really good book. i know of very few other collections of essays that offer such a comprehensive overview of -- of foreign policy and global affairs. we have in this book contributions from -- and i'll just give you a few names.

from igo ivanof, chuck hagel, john kerry, helmut schmidt, bill cohen, senator mccain, sam nunn, joe nye, jim hogueland, jim stravides, nato secretary general rasmussen. but also, you know, non-americans like klaus nowman. carl bilt. of course, most importantly, jane harman. and buy the book. it's worth reading it. there are really some -- some real gems in the book. and i'm -- i am proud that we -- we worked on it for almost a year to come up with -- with something on the anniversary of

munich. for those of you who have not had a chance to be in munich, let me just make one comment about the munich security conference. it is at its core a tra trans-atlantic event. there are not many events around the world annually where you will find up to ten active u.s. senators and a number of members of the house in one place for two days all together. that's a rare thing to see. i've checked with many of my american diplomatic colleagues, and it's -- it's something that doesn't happen very often. so this strong participation, not only by -- by all u.s. administrations since the 1960s, but by the congress, by those in the congress who lead on foreign policy, is a huge asset for the

conference. the conference was founded by ava forcloois, for those of you who don't know who he was, he was until he passed away last year the last surviving member of the group of people who tried to assassinate adolph hitler in 1944. and he had a -- quite a story to tell about how he escaped death and how, unfortunately, the attempt in 1944 failed. just one or two words about our topic before i hand over to our keynote speaker, dr. brzezinski. i had this opportunity to spend a few weeks in ukraine on behalf of the osce chairman in office during the month of may leading up to the presidential elections in ukraine. i have to tell you that i did not meet many separatists. and i tried very hard.

i went all over the country. and i found that there was huge dissatisfaction, enormous dissatisfaction, by many citizens with the conduct on their own government over the last decade or so. because of corruption, because of lack of unity. either there was somebody from the east running the country from an eastern point of view, or there was somebody from the west running the country from a western point of view, et cetera. but i did not encounter a great deal of support for the idea that ukraine should be carved up. neither, by the way, did i find a lot of fascism or anti-semitism. which is something that russian propaganda has tended to suggest over the last period. so we need to be careful that we don't let ourselves be driven into the wrong direction. second point, my view, and i -- i expect that dr. brzezinski and

ambassador pifer will hopefully correct me if i'm wrong, my view is that russian action on ukraine has not been an action motivated by strength and strategic -- strategic sense, but more out of weakness and, in a way, almost out of a sense of panic that certain things were sort of drifting apart, that russia thought was important for them. my russian friend, dmitry trainic, who represents the carnegie endowment in moscow, has recently said russia has three options now. unfortunately the only good option is the least likely one. he said the first option the russians have is self-improvement, self-reliance, more democracy. that's not very likely. the second option is that russia

will tend to rely more and more on military options. certainly not a big war, but -- but fomenting unrest, continue to foment unrest in ukraine and maybe in other crisis spots in europe and beyond. and the third option for russia, as dimitri put it, is for russia to leave the west and to go more to china, which they've already tried in a certain way. but that would be tantamount to russia surrendering to china. and would also not be such a good option. so my -- i tend to agree with dimit dimitri. russia has a problem. and has created a problem by the very behavior which we have seen. finally, let me say that trans-atlantic coordination on how to deal with the ukraine, on the sanctions issue and beyond,

has actually been relatively good. we have stayed together. on the day i left kiev, i asked the prime minister of ukraine, what if he had one wish, what would it be from the west? and he said to me, and i -- i think i'm authorized to quote him, he said, ambassador ischinger, there's one thing you need to do. make sure that everybody understands that what we need is western cohesion. don't allow yourselves to be falling apart once again within europe and between europe and the united states. we've actually been quite good at it. but it's not been easy. and one of the reasons why it's not easy, if you look at certain elements of the german and european public, is the loss of trust created by the, quote, unquote, snowden, nsa affair. that is a handicap currently.

and -- and i -- i keep saying it while i'm here in this country. you shouldn't think that it will simply blow over. it is a -- it continues to be a serious handicapping factor for european governments trying to work with the united states in handling these types of emergencies. last point, you might think looking at ukraine that this ambitious title, "toward mutual security," was maybe an illusion. i believe, and i'm interested in hearing what our speakers will have to say, i believe that even if this is now a vision that is more remote than we thought two or three years ago it would be, it's still an appropriate vision for a future where europe is not going to be as divided as it is currently between the west and russia.

but where we will have a europe whole and free. including with a security architecture that works and with a kind of relationship of mutual trust that would help us to renew relations with russia in -- in months and years to come hopefully. with this, i stop and hand over to our keynote speaker, dr. brzezinski. [ applause ] >> president harman -- that sounds pretty good, doesn't it? distinguished panelists, it's a pleasure to be here. let me try to discuss the implications for the european security architecture of what

wolfgang ishing her just addressed. mainly the problem of the relationship of russia to the west and ukraine. what we are seeing in ukraine in my judgment is not a peak, but a symptom of a more basic problem. namely, the gradual but steady emergence in russia over the last six or seven years of a quasi mystical chauvinism. putin has taken the lead in this. and it has a great deal of content that is significant for the totality of russia's relations with the world and the west in particular. recently, the russian international affairs council, an institution in moscow

composed of very reputable scholars, not dissidents, but independent thinkers, and these do exist these days in moscow, has come up with a report on russia's national identity transformation and new foreign policy doctrine. and it reports in some detail on the process of creating a wholly new conceptual framework for defining russia's relationship with the world. a relationship that the russians feel is needed because of the collapse of the soviet union and the partial disintegration of the long-established russian empire. it's a longish report, but it's worth reading for those who are interested in international affairs. it deals particularly with several key concepts. that this new view of the world

contains. a view of the world created by the need of russians around putin and putin himself have felt for a more comprehensive interpretation of what is the nature of russia's position in the world and its relationship with the world and the west in particular. it's in this context that the ukrainian issue then becomes significant. and the key concepts are that this report written by a group of people of some prominence in moscow involves four basic concepts. that of, and i quote, a divided people. secondly, the theme of, quote, protecting compatriots abroad, end quote. then more broadly, the russian world. ruski mere, in russian. and the importance of acknowledging and sustaining, embraces and promoting, quote,

the great russian civilization. i mention this because i think it will be an error to think that crimea and ukraine are just the products of a sudden outrage. they are to some extent in terms of timing. it would have been much smarter for russia to have what has been happening, happen about ten years from now when russia would be stronger, economically more solid. but it happened. and these concepts are important. a divided people is the point of departure for the chauvinistic claim that russia's sovereignty embraces all russians. wherever they are. and that has, for anyone familiar with european history, some ominously familiar sounds. prior to world war ii.

it leads, of course, to the concept of protecting compatriots abroad. and that has special meaning for those countries which do have russian ethnic nationals living in their society and who border on russia. the divided people and the protecting of compatriots abroad then raises the question of the russian world. and the notion here is of an organic integral unity between all russians, irrespective of their territorial location. and there's that territorial location can be altered favorably in reuniting the russian people. think of the baltic states. last but not least, the conviction that russia is not part of the western civilizat n civilization. is also not a part of china. it is not part of the muslim

world. russia itself is a great civilization. a world civilization. which emphasizes a set of principles, some of which are not unfamiliar to our own society, such as, for example, strong commitment to a particular religion, but much stronger than in the west where religion is part of a more complex social arrangement. the notion that the great russian civilization stands for certain basic values, not only religious, but in terms of interpersonal relationships, to some extent. for example, condemning some of the changes in the relationship between the sexes and within the sexes that are now taking place in the world. in effect, russia protects the integrity of certain basic beliefs that have characterized christianity, but in the russian view, christianity is now betraying or permitting to slip

away. so this is a comprehensive outlook. and an ambitious outlook. and an outlook which justifies, then, the conclusion that russia is a world power. and nothing has hurt putin lately. in some of the international dialogue with the west, than the words of president obama. which credited russia with being a significant regional power. he didn't have to say more in order to score a point that hurt. that is, therefore, an important point of departure for dealing with the ukraine issue. the ukraine issue is not a sudden peak, but a symptom, as i have said, of a basic problem. the emergence of the policies packaged within the larger philosophical framework, which i've described. what can we, therefore, expect? if ukraine, in fact, is its

manifestation, that problem will be difficult to resolve. and i think it will take time to resolve. but, of course, resolution of it need not be a unilateral solution if the west has a stake in it. and the stake has to be, then, crystallized into meaningful policy. the ukraine problem may fade if it is contained. and especially if the russian increasingly cosmopolitan middle class which is surfacing, but not dominant currently, becomes politically more important, perhaps repelled by its sense of vulnerability and disappointment in putin, and at some point assumes a more significant political role when putin has passed from the stage. but when? there's no way of predicting it. it could be soon. it could be a long time. but also a great deal will

depend on whether what ukraine has become as a symptom, becomes a success or a failure from putin's point of view. so in brief, the stakes are significant. in the most immediate sense, the stake involves, of course, the issue that the use of force in crimea and the ongoing and sustained effort to destabilize parts of ukraine pose as a threat to the post-world war ii notions of international arrangements, and particularly the exclusion of the use of force in resolving territorial issues. that has been a cardinal asumption of the european order after world war ii. and russia has been part of it, including through the treaties that it has signed. but it now is challenging that. that is a significant threat. in a broad sense and an

immediate threat. psychological psychologically, at least, but potentially, in view of crimea, militarily. to the baltic states. to georgia. to mall doe va. and more vaguely and directly, but perhaps potentially more successful than the others, belarus. because belarus does not have any external protection. the others that i have mentioned do, in varying degrees. it follows from what i'm saying that the ukrainian problem is a challenge that the west, by which i mean the united states and europe and the nato particularly, must address on three levels. we have to effectively deter the temptation facing the russian leadership regarding the use of force.

we have to deter the use of force, more simply put. we have to secondly obtain determination of russia's deliberate efforts at the progressive or continuing destabilization of parts of ukraine. it's very hard to judge how ambitious these goals are. but it is not an accident that in that one single portion in which the russians actually predominate, one single portion of ukraine in which they actually predominate, the use of force has been sophisticated. the participants in the effort have been well armed. even tanks. certainly effective anti-aircraft weaponry. all of that is something that even disagreeable -- disaffected citizens of a country to which they feel they do not belong would be storing somewhere in their attic or in their basement. these are weapons provided, in

effect, for the purpose of shaping formations capable of sustaining serious military engagements. it is a form of interstate aggression. you can't call it anything else. how would we feel if all of a sudden, let's say, the drug-oriented gangs in the united states were armed from abroad, from our southern neighbor, by equipment which would permit violence on that scale on a continuing basis? so this is a serious challenge. so that is the second objective. and the third objective is to promote and then discuss with the russians a formula for an eventual compromise, assuming that in the first instance the use of force openly and on a large scale is deterred and the effort destabilized is

abandoned. that means, in turn, the following. and i will be quite blunt regarding my own views on the subject. ukraine has to be supported if it is to resist. if ukraine doesn't resist, if its internalist order persist in its capacity to organize national defense doesn't transpire, then the ukraine problem will be resolved unilaterally, but probably with consequential effects that will be destabilizing in regards to the vulnerable states and to the totality of the east-west relationship. for the forces of shoefl nichl, the forces of a new sort of world self-definition will become more strident. and they do represent the most negative aspects of contemporary russian society. a kind of thirst for

nationalism, for self-fulfi self-fulfillme self-fulfillment, gratification of the exercise of power. something which is not pervasive in the new middle class, which is the longer range alternative. but which is a certain notch on top of political influence. if ukraine has to be supported so that it does resist, the ukraiew ukrainians have to know the west is prepared to help them resist. and there's no reason to be secretive about it. it would be much better to be open about it and to say to the ukrainians and to those who may threaten ukraine that if you resist, if you ukrainians resist, you will have weapons. and we'll provide some of those weapons in advance of the very act of invasion. because in the absence of that, the temptation to invade and to preempt may become overwhelming. but what kind of weapons is important.

and in my view, they should be weapons designed particularly to permit the ukrainians to engage in effective urban warfare of resistance. there's no point trying to arm the ukrainians to take on the russian army in the open field. thousands of tanks, an army organized for some purposes, overwhelming force. but there is a history to be learned from urban resistance. in world war ii, and most recently in chechnya. which persisted for three months in house to house fighting. some moving examples from world war ii which i do not need to reiterate. the point is, if the effort to invade was to be successful politically, it would have to incorporate taking the major cities. if the major cities, say harkiv, say kiev, were to resist and street fighting became a

necessity, it will be prolonged. and costly. and the fact of the matter is, and this is where the timing of this whole crisis is important, russia is not yet ready to undertake that kind of an effort. it will be too costly in blood, paralyzingly costly in finances. and would take a long time and create more and more international pressure. so i feel that we should make it clear to the ukrainians that if you are determined to resist, as they say they are and seemingly they are trying to do so, though not very effectively, we'll provide them with anti-tank weapons, hand held anti-tank weapons, hand held rockets, weapons capable for use in urban short range fighting. this is not an arming of ukraine for some invasion of russia. you don't invade a country as large as russia with defensive weaponry. but if you have defensive weaponry and you have access to

it and you know it's arriving, you're more likely to resist. and hence that acts as a deterren deterrence. and that in turn can permit them or efrktive operations to terminate some of the violence that is being sponsored on the borders between ukraine and russia. that, i think, would help in any case to contain the risk and the temptation to resolve thissish sh issue by form of arms. on the russian side, in the context of a mood of great ecstasy over the crimeaen success which was quick and decisive and which encountered no resis tense, the temptation to seek its repetition can be quite strong and appealing to a political leader who desperately needs a major success. but at the same time, we have to engage in some exploration of possible arrangements for

compromise outcome. especially if it becomes clear to the russians and to mr. putin that either destabilizing ukraine or taking it by force poses great risks and may not be attainable. that has to be accompanied, therefore, by an effort to engage the inner dialogue. what should be the formula for such a possible compromise? i think it's relatively simple, in fact. ukraine can proceed with its process, publicly endorsed by an overwhelming majority of ukrainian people, of becoming part of europe. but it's a long process. the turks have been promised that outcome. and they have been engaging in that process. already for 60 years. in other words, it's not done very quickly. therefore, the danger to russia is not imminent and the negative consequences are not so destructive. but at the same time, clarity that ukraine will not be a member of nato.

i think that is important for a variety of political reasons. if you look at the map, it's important from a psychological, strategic point of view. and ukraine will not be a member of nato. but by the same token, russia has to understand that ukraine will not be member of some mythical eurasian union that president putin is trying to promote on the basis of this new doctrine of a special position for russia in the world and special claims outside of russia, vis-a-vis some of its fellow natives. ukraine will not be a member of the eurasian union, but ukraine can have a separate trade agreement with russia. particularly taking into account the mutual benefits of the fact that certain forms of exchange and trade are mutually beneficial. agricultural products, for example, from ukraine to russia. industrial products that russia

needs and are being produced in ukraine. not many people realize that some of russia's best rockets, most of the engines for russian civil aviation, and some of the rockets used by the united states are produced in ukraine. it's a profitable and successful industrial enterprise. and that, therefore, should be continued under an arrangement whereby ukraine and russia have a special treaty. i think something like this might actually at some point become appealing. and it should be surfaced, but it should be surfaced in the context of an open, not covert, but an open action designed to convince the russians that any use of form will have negative, but enduring con kwenss for russia itself. not involving a threat to russia's security, but involving rising costs of the assertion of russia's power at the cost of

ukrainian independence. in my view in that context, nato should also act somewhat more assertively in reducing the insecurity of those nato countries that border on russia and happen to have on the average about 25% of its population constituted of russian nationals. i speak specifically of estonia and latvia. america has committed its presence there. i would think it would be very productive if, in addition to america, some leading european states, notably germany, france and great britain, deployed some basis. on a regular basis. so that this would reaffirm the fact that nato stands, in the context of this problem, together. in international politics, symbolism is as important as decisiveness. and symbolism can avert the

necessity for extreme measures. given the current consequences of the very massive expansion of nato in the last several decades to 28 members, it might be also appropriate in the light of the ongoing experience that we are in the process of assimilating to take another look at the structure of nato itself. and i have in mind particularly a review of the historical paradox involved, and it's not much mentioned, but potentially very important article 5. article 5 is the article which provides for the procedure that the alliance follows in undertaking a military response to an aggression directed at it in general or at one or two or more of its members. you've got to recall that

article 5 has a provision that decisions to engage in hostilities by the alliance have to be unanimous. which, in other words, means that a single country has a veto. it was the united states that insisted on this provision when nato was first formed. it insisted on it in order to obtain popular support from it in the american congress from the isolationist portions of the american body politic. which feared that an alliance of this sort would violate american tradition of no foreign entanglements. the argument was this gives america what it needs to avoid a foreign entanglement. unfortunately today, with 28 members, a varying degree of capacity for participating in military action, and unfortunately of some varying degree of genuine political

commitment to some of the security assumptions of the alliance, the situation has become reversed. it is some of the new allies that may be tempted in some circumstances to invoke article 5. not entirely preventing nato from responding, but i am convinced with that were to happen after prolonged debates, much resentment, internal threats, the country would be persuaded to join or de facto, taken out of the alliance. i think it would be wise e e ere this. there will be no veto right in the alliance for sustained,

enduring, underperformers the jointly agreed commitments. some members of nato don't meet their commitments even by some remote approximation. they just do no. and hands their membership in nato as a free ride all together. why should a member that doesn't meet nato commitments practically fail in toto, then have the right to veto the other members' right to engage in collective self-defense? it's an anomaly and potential source of gridlock and confusion. as this crisis is gradually resolved, i hope nato will take another look at it and will also look at the issue of additional new members in nato more critically. it doesn't follow that a country in whose security nato has an

interest has to be nato. nato han have an interest in its security without having it in nato and have a variety of understandings regarding how it might respond. there is some talk of new members in the eu, and perhaps of these will seek nato membership. the reason is some countries will maintain nato memberships while being territorially remote from the possible conflicts on the east/west dividing line. i think more discretion here may be actually beneficial and some reflection on this subject might, in fact, enhance nato credibility and create some pressure on those members who wish to be active members in nato to do more to meet the commitments they have formally undertaken. finally and looking much further one way ahead without a

solution, crimea is going to become a serious economic burden for russia. there is no way that the kind of economic activity in which crimea has been able to engage and quite profitably named as a major source of tourism and visits and internationalal liners on a large scale coming into its ports and foreign tourists engaging in trade, collection of souvenirs and so forth can be sustained, as long as international community doesn't formally recognize the incorporation of crimea into russia. it means that the exploration of the underwater resources within crimea's territorial confines of the sea cannot be undertaken by international companies because they'll be subject to suits from a variety of interested parties. in brief, russia faces the prospect of the necessity of subsidizing on a significant

scale economic activity in crimea to the benefit of its citizens. prices, consumer prices have already risen three-fold since the incorporation of crimea into russia. this situation creates a potentially serious liability for russia, which already is in a relatively weak economic position. beyond that, there is the potential reality, which i think will take on the enduring fact as ukraine succeeds, that russia in the process has create d the enduring reality of hostility to russia on the basis of 40 million people. ukraine have not been under russia historically and certainly, there is no comparison between its attitude traditionally that is russia and that of the poles next door. the poles have repeatedly thought for their independence against the russia and have

strong feelings and enduring feelings on this subject. it's becoming very intense and the entire new generation of ukrainians born in freedom and national sovereignty reflected the strongest. ukraine, therefore, will evolve not an enduring problem for russia in that respect, but a permanent loss of a huge swath of territory, the greatest loss of territory suffered by russia in the course of imperial expansion. this may, in turn, eventually begin to work against this new mythology regarding russia's place and role in the world with which i started in my presentation. it may be refuted by realities. and this is what i am increasingly hopeful for that the new emerging russia middle class realizing that the kind of mythology that putin has adopted

and which a significant portion of the less educated, more chauvinistic russians have absorbed and embraced is the road to nowhere. that the real place in russia as an important country is in europe, as a major european country, and they'll be reminded of that imperative every time they look to the east and ask themselves, what does that mean for the future of russia? thank you. >> thank you, so much, dr. brzezinski for these brilliant marks very clearly laying out your views on russian motivations and western actions. we now have the bridge to have comments by ambassador stephen

pipher. served for 25 years in the state department including as ambassador to ukraine from 1998 to 2000. >> thank you very much. thank you to the woodrow wilson center for inviting me here. it's awfully hard to follow dr. brzezinski when i covers a broad bit of history, of current history and does it in such comprehensive and such terrific terms. some of my comments will be mainly underscoring points that he made. i would agree completely that the thing the west needs to do is support ukraine. the best review of the kremlin's policy the last six months would be three or four years from now ukraine is looking each day more and more like poland. a normal democratic rule of law european country. i think the west can do things to help make that happen in terms of economic support, advice on things like energy diversification, which is going to be a real issue today with

gazproz's decision to reduce gas flows to ukraine. i would second his point about the provision of military assistance to ukraine. nonlethal assistance makes sense. like anti-armor weapons and manned portable air systems make sense making sure the russian military, which i believe is not eager to go into eastern ukraine. i think they worry precisely about the urban fighting dr. brzezinski described. they are not eager for that. we ought to be providing weapons to the ukrainian military to, in fact, affect that calculation. particularly in the case of manned portable air defense systems, there is almost sort of an obligation for nato which over the last ten years has been running programs to destroy stocks of ukrainian manned pads. a second direction is the point of assuring nato countries, particularly those in central europe who today are much mh mo nervous about russia, russian policies and russian actions

than they were six months ago. the u.s. military deploy ed troops to different countries. the pentagon says it is persistent and will last up to a year. having ground forces which do not have heavy equipment do not have significant offense capability but are a tangible signal that america's commitment is important. i grow it would be useful to have them joined by european forces. for example, a german company pegged with the american company lithuania and a dutch township paired with an american company in estonia to make clear to russia that the commitment is a nato commitment. it's not just an american commitment. i think it can be done in a way that would not be provocative, very much like the berlin brigade and its british and french counterparts 30 years,

vastly outnumbered by soviet and east german forces and still manage to keep west berlin free by their presence. the third area the west needs to work on and perhaps needs to work more on is the question of sanctions of russia. the goal of sanctions should be to change russia policy. those sanctions which today are relatively modest have had an economic impact on russia. for example, russian companies in 2013 were able to sell foreign currency bond about $830 million. january february they sold them $6 billion. since march they sold zero. i think the sanctions are successful in their economic impact. but they have failed in their primary and political purpose to affect a change of policy in the kremlin. i worry that the west has not