by predatory private health-care companies? >> obviously, i will look at the individual case and he raises. this government is putting 12 point 7 billion pounds into the nhs. i don't believe that we should rule out saying that other organizations cannot help to deliver nhs services. at a hospital in cambridge, it is providing much better services because of the changes we have made. look at what he says about the freedom of information request, but i think it is important that we have a health service that can access the best of both public, private and voluntary. >> it is good news that the prime minister has resuscitated plans for a recall bill. can he confirm that he intends to push ahead with a genuine system of recall, and not fall back on the deputy prime minister, which is recall in name only?

>> i fear it is going to be difficult to satisfy my friend on this point. i think we should proceed taking the jobs. eight -- what i think would be an excellent reform, one that we committed to in the coalition agreement, and that is to say that if members of parliament are seriously in breach of standards and judged to be so, then they should not have to wait for a general election to receive a verdict of their constituents. watching primen minister's questions from the british house of commons. question time it airs live every wednesday at seven :00 a.m. eastern -- at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch anytime online at c-span.org, or you can find video of past prime minister's questions and other british public affairs programs. next, a discussion about

ukraine from the conservative political action conference. later, a senate hearing on syria. after that, a supreme court oral caseent on a death penalty . entityore than one manages the key identifiers of the internet, then by nature the internet will no longer be one net. at the heart of the domain name system is the root services system. in orderpreciate that to resolve names on the internet, there is an actual root system that makes that work for the entire planet. in the root, all names are resolved to make sure that when , forype www. c-span.org example, or any other website name, you go to the exact site that c-span wants you to go to

all the time, every time, for the last two decades. monday, on the communicators at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. a look now at the crisis in ukraine at the annual conservative political action conference on saturday, former under secretary of state paula dobry and ski -- halle dobr ianski moderated a panel. this is 25 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone. we are going to spend some time focusing on the crisis in ukraine. i want to take a minute and just give you a little bit of context to what is happening. let's go back to last year. in november of last year, then

president yanukovych turned down the opportunity to become associated with the european union. that association would have resulted in economic reforms and political change in ukraine. ukraine is in dire economic straits. make a reals could difference in its way forward. as a result of his unwillingness to sign association, massive protests took out on the streets in kiev and throughout ukraine. people were protesting and put their lives on the line, once because they wanted to become associated with the west, with the european union, and secondly , they were also protesting against corruption, because corruption has played and set the ukraine back. fast forward to february of this year. three diplomats from europe went to ukraine to try to broker a peace between the opposition and

those demonstrating on the street, and with then president yanukovych. you had the polis foreign polishr, -- you had the others.minister and the russian ambassador was on the scene. an agreement was concluded very a that was signed by then president yanukovych. the agreement calls for a change in the constitution, an agreement to go forward with thereic reforms, and that would be new presidential elections to be held before .ecember at the end of 2014 there were other terms that were established between the opposition and then president yanukovych. it was signed by president yanukovych and those three diplomats. what happened then was in the .ews

president yanukovych disappeared. he ended up in moscow. then, the next thing we saw was that there was a russian aggression into crimea. is comes at such a crucial time. ukraine is politically ripped and economically in very dire straits. what will this mean for the west? states and the we have a great panel and i want to invite him to come out and join. who is aiff mays foreign affairs contributor to the washington times. [applause] we also have paul saunders who exec -- who is executive for -- and also associate publisher for the magazine, "the national

interest." [applause] gentlemen. let me go to you immediately. the question on everyone's mind, first and foremost, is why did -- presidenttine putin support this advance and aggression into the crimea? it flies in the face of international legal agreements, including the osce and the budapest memorandum which the u.s., u.k. and russia signed when ukraine give up its nuclear weapons. the agreement was the protection of ukraine's sovereignty. paul, why? >> speaking from a russian perspective in trying to explain your thinking, rather than from my own point of view as an american, to boil it down to one reason, i think russia has been

quite frustrated over the last 20 years by the way that europe has developed. many russians feel that russia does not have the kind of role in europeand security that they liked. they are especially concerned whichthe fate of ukraine, has very close historical, cultural and other ties to russia. i think what you see here is essentially president putin trying to tell the united states , you can't europe decide the future of ukraine unilaterally. you need to consult with me. >> are the measures you could use which are in conformity with international norms? this flies in the face of -- >> i would take a harder line. the basic reason he does this is because he can. czars, russia had an

empire. under the commissar, russia had an empire. he knows -- that is the way he looks at it. palin was here recently. i want to give her a compliment because it turns out she could see russia clearly from her house. [applause] she also saw vladimir putin didrly, more clearly than to american presidents. president bush famously looked into putin's eyes and saw in his sole something akin to thomas jefferson when he should've seen something to ivan the terrible or catherine the great. recess with a russia which assumes the new question, that russia wants to live by international norms, that they want to abide international law. vladimir putin is an aspiring democrat, when in fact he is a very convinced autocrat who thinks that the way we try to govern the world, this idea of

an international community is very silly. in 2008 he chopped off a piece of georgia. --you listen to condi rice now they're going to chop off at least the crimea from the ukraine. >> let me ask you this. why does this matter to the united states and to the west? should we care about what is happening? tell us why. >> we better care. now, president putin is deciding what he should do next. this is not the extent of his ambitions. we better think out whether or not we're going to send a strong message of our own, or whether we sent a weak message. he is not the only tyrant in the world who's looking at this and learning lessons. among those lessons is this. under the budapest memorandum's

you mentioned, yes, ukraine's territorial integrity was guaranteed, in exchange for which the give up its nuclear weapons. you don't give up your weapons the matter what the western community says. >> i have to agree completely with you. it undermines the nonproliferation treaty. you absolutely have a ron watching the situation very closely, as in asia countries like japan are also watching. >> and china which is throwing its weight around asia as well now. >> paul, do you want to jump in? >> i guess i would say a couple of things. certainly, i agree very much that it does matter. there's no question that it matters. we are really talking here about the future of europe, and beyond

that the future of the international system. i would differ a little bit with cliff on the question of russia doing this because it can. there are a lot of things that russia can do that it does not do. russia could be sending s 300 missiles to iran. at this point it is not. russia is defending and geranium lawsuit because they signed a contract to deliver those missiles. at the request of united states they did not. they also decided that they wanted to keep the money, which did not please the iranians very much. they certainly have the option to deliver those missiles. the iranians would be quite pleased with that. russia is not doing that. -- whatwe need to russia has done is entirely inappropriate. it violates international norms.

it violates a lot of agreements, but the question of russia doing things because it can, i think that is not a helpful way to think about it. >> gentlemen, let's talk about the united states, the west, looking at options as to how we can have potential influence. first, the question is do we have influence on the situation and this crisis? secondly, if we do, are the political instruments? are the economic instruments? do we use sanctions? are there other options on the table? >> i think it is true that president putin has most of the high cards, particularly when it comes to crimea. he is probably also considering whether he should take parts of eastern ukraine along with it or treatd how he is going to western ukraine. i think he can have an impact on that and his thinking further down the road. my view of it is this.

we shouldn't be taking steps simply to punish russia. rather, this is a good occasion for us to takes depths to strengthen america, which will send the most important message. first, we do not begin to take a peace dividend and bring our military down to pre-world war ii levels. we don't do that. bad idea, very bad idea. now is not the time to lay off soldiers so we can hire more irs officials. this is not what we want to be doing. secondly, i would say president obama has said just a few years ago that he was going to have an all of the above energy policy. it hasn't happened. we should be utilizing every source of energy we possibly can. the keystone pipeline from canada, encouraging entrepreneurship, all of our gas. we should begin exporting to europe to reduce the dependence

europe now has on russia, and eastern europe in particular. you may agree with me. here is something a little more radical. g7 was expanded to g-8, and russia was included. it did not belong. it is not productive enough, it is not a democracy. i think we should be discussing that it does not belong in the g-8. she turned the club into an association of democracies and not pretend that those who join will become democracies if they are rewarded in advance. >> what about the wto? wose two have singled out the russia has used economic instruments to strangle ukraine. what about the wto? is that on your list? >> everything on my list will

strengthen the united states and bolster american leadership, economic power, military power, diplomatic power in the world. i think the united states has to shoulder the burden of leadership because there's nobody else that can do it. the international community is not going to do it. >> let's see if paul agrees. >> i certainly agree on the military, i certainly agree on american energy. i think those are two critical areas. on the g-8, we can decide in this room that it is something we want to do. there are six other countries there. $120 billionbout from exports to russia. 80,pe has about a hundred -- has about it on an $80 billion to 200 billion dollars

of foreign aid to russia. i'm not sure the foreign minister of france is prepared to consider canceling the sale of two mistral helicopter hair. to the a carriers russian navy. i think we're getting a little bit out in front of the europeans on that issue. >> freezing assets has also been put on the table. freezing assets of those russians complicit in these actions. >> freezing assets, i think, frankly, is a little bit of a comical idea on the part of the administration. with the united states congress ago an passing 15 months act which gave the u.s. government the state department and treasury department the ability to do that. what ill intentioned self-respecting russian after 15

months would still have significant assets in the united states? earlier this week, the administration announced they would extend the authority to this issue. they said we have created this authority, but we are not naming any specific ibo at this point. there have already been three anybody who did not take their assets out in the to work onths to get that. i imagine a number of them called the bankers fairly quickly. i don't consider that to be a credible policy. at extenduld look some of the things that cliff was saying, let's talk about europe. partnersean allies and are trying to develop their own energy resources. i certainly think the united states should get behind that. there are some american

companies exploring for shale gas in western ukraine. that could make a huge difference in terms of ukraine's energy dependence on russia. i think that is certainly something that should be supported. we also need to think after the situation, and i'm sure we will hear from our allies about the disappearances and -- the disposition of our forces in europe. that is something we should consider very carefully. >> let me ask both of you, the foreign minister of sweden tweeted this morning that the helsinki monitor's tried to get into crimea and they were not able to cross in to actually verify the allegations going on. those statements may that the russians and russian speaking ukrainians, that their lives are in jeopardy. they sent monitors but they could not get in. the first question is that he

tweeted that and said that there is a movement of russian troops in the area. what does that portend? no monitors, troop movements, where is this going? >> let's first understand that it is more than a violation of international norms. when you send your troops into a foreign country, especially when they are not wearing proper insignia, that is a violation of the most basic international law. that is an aggression, there's no question. it is possible that resident putin knows exactly what he is going to do tomorrow, the next day and a day after. it is also possible he's trying to see and judge and then decide. what i don't know is that whether or not he thinks that i would want the ukraine as part of my sphere of influence or part of russia proper. he could think it is better not to have that and simply let the government of ukraine know that

no decision should be taken at displeases him. there are a number of possibilities he is looking at. it is hard to fathom his strategy exactly. cut the eastern ukraine off from western ukraine, he could leave the western ukraine as a ward of the european union for a very long time. europe and america would have to pour money in. he might want to do that. he might reconsider and that. i don't know if he's making a decision to do that. i think crimea is probably him.stically lost to >> will this aggression go further and split ukraine? >> we have eight days until the

referendum in crimea. country and this effective administration, i think eight days would be enough time to try to work with moscow and others to point crimea in the direction of much greater hadnomy, somewhat like it under ukraine's 1992 constitution and ukraine had -- when crimea had much greater autonomy than it has now. with the leadership that we currently have, i think that it is very unlikely that that heavy lift will be accomplished in eight days. ukrainelook at eastern and compare it to crimea, crimea is roughly the size of the state of maryland, geographically.

there are about 2 million people there, so the population density is not too high. eastern ukraine is a totally different situation. sending the russian military into eastern ukraine, into major urban centers where the , and inon is divided many cases more divided than crimea, that could potentially be very costly. it is certainly very different -- is surely a different russiansthan sending into crimea, which certainly was and of the russian empire the russian republic of the soviet union. that is until 1954. it is just a different situation, and president putin may come to that point.

i think that cliff is correct in suggesting that he probably has not decided, but i think for the russian leadership that would be a much tougher decision than the decision to go into crimea. >> cliff, you want to make a point? >> the outcome of the referendum is not clear. 60% of the population of ukraine does identify as russian rather than ukrainian. where long been a place russian military retires. it is like colorado springs on the black sea for russians. is also the basic stalinist rule that who votes does not count, who counts the vote counts. i think we know how the referendum will come out. that is the most predictable part of it. the rest seems to be open to different outcomes. >> it is what the audience knowing that there have been quite a few polls taken in the ukraine itself.

by the way, for both east and west, the numbers have come up higher in a variety of polls when ukrainians vote russian ukrainians and ukrainian speaking ukrainians, when they up and asked if they want to be associated with the east or west, always the west has come out ahead. you, isn, let me ask this a new cold war? is that what we are witnessing? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> is this a in cold war? >> i don't think it has to be. that is one possible outcome. i think we have to be careful moving forward in how we are thinking about this situation. you know, there is one school of thought, which is that we need to isolate russia.