investigation. chris inglis did not explain what he meant. in thes a saying newsroom that there is a danger when a reporter does arithmetic. go and touch only means that each number called an average of less than one percent a year. year.son a we have all heard of six degrees of separation. six degrees of separation on average. it is not just a play on a novel. computer science theoretical work that was done. the average number of hops that you have to do to reach every single person in the world to another is six.

let's suppose, more conservatively, the 300 people call 100 people a year and you multiply that by a hundred and -- multiply that by 100 and that by 100. i don't do math. i count on my fingers. >> more than 6000. said that it was fewer than 300 numbers in one year and the numbers have varied from year to year. you can be confident that the numbers have not very downward. that is consistent with the possibility that, some other seats.hey had 5000 that is the kind of massaging of data in public statements that they have done and in other demonstrable ways.

>> my name is harry. my question is less technical. it is for both of you were neither of you. it seems obvious to the casual observer that, every time there is a national tragedy, there is a reaction within the populace where wenment for a -- give up liberty for security. the patriot act, the internment of japanese americans. obvious examples. it takes some time and society skills this back. is it concerning to both or could -- you that, we that we could end up giving up a lot of liberty for security. whether or not you agree with the programs.

>> thank you. right behind you question mark -- behind you? >> i am an aspiring journalist. my question has to do with journalism in light of edward snowden. we have seen glenn greenwald and james rosen accused of conspiring with whistleblowers. i was wondering what your thoughts were on investigative journalism. and, do you think that press freedoms are under attack by the obama administration? >> i would jump in on 9/11. here is where i do my moral calculus. my professional role, we are all responsible for our actions as human beings.

my great fear is that we did not use the authorities available to us right now. , this the metaphor that is the box you want us to play in legally. there is a national debate. the nsa will say that they have two houses of congress, a president, a court that says it is good to go. otherwise, they will play section 215 out to the edges. the background ethical argument for this is that, if we do not play with in this box and we another we have catastrophic attack on the homeland, the box you will demand, not the one you will accept, the one you will demand will be out here. in a reverse psychology way,

playing this aggressively with in the law of now is actually protection against dangers to civil liberties in the future. do you she that -- are that? perversely lead to demands for crater surveillance -- greater surveillance? >> everybody wants to talk about terrorism. that is not -- that does not account for nearly anything close to the majority of intelligence gathering. there are a lot of purposes. it is an emotional trigger. some of it is and some of it is not. our society has always had and one swings. it is a cliché. the difference is, what happens

under the regime of extreme secrecy? the internment camps of the japanese. it was announced and they were behind barbed wire and you can take pictures of them and look at your history books and there are the pictures. andnow when we overreached come to a decision after a certain span of time. we say, i do not like that picture and that was not the right thing to do. the supreme court reverses. when you are doing everything in secret or large parts of it in secret, it is hard to decide if you have gone too far. -- years year later, later, we are trying to resolve the torture debate. the senate has voted to recommend for the classification the executive summary of a 6000 page report. publish their report

under the current understandings of the way these things work and there is no law that says that only the president is the five -- gets to decide what is classified. in any case, we still do not know what happened. there are 6000 more pages of conversation that they want to have. they are notte, allowed to publish. like, let's steps collect all the content that flows across this cable or all of this data about the phone calls that you make or, allowing us to put communications in our repository. we will decide what we can look at and when. we do not get to debate those things. we would not be having these conversations it not -- if not

for edward snowden. >> i have one minor thought. those americans in the room, you are citizens of the nation with the most intelligence -- transparent intelligence community. there is no one near us. it does not make barton's argument that there needs to be more transparency. you need to understand the baseline that you are working at. you have more information about your country's espionage than any other citizenry on the planet. >> let's take to questions over here and close that microphone. >> my question piggybacks off of that well. we have heard about an overclassification of data and a shock reaction about sources and methods. goquestion is, how do we

about having that debate without compromising intelligence undertakings with the methods being used while avoiding shocks ? >> yeah. the two speakers before me cover the questions i would ask. as someone else -- if someone else -- >> you did not answer my question. >> i would be happy to answer. i got distracted. there are alarming sides. there have been more probes from prosecutions under obama. everyone has read this. more than all previous presidencies combined. the have used aggressive means of surveillance against the associated press and fox news. wiggle construct is that a

leak of classified information is a counterintelligence problem. that makes reporters doing egitimate l targets. i spent a lot of my time trying to protect the security of my communications. not only from the u.s. government. from the foreign governments that want documents that i have that should not be public. all of that being said, i am sitting on a stage, a free person and not in handcuffs having a civil conversation with general hayden. you can read the espionage act or various other statutes. there are ways to read them. things that ious

could be charged under. it is not because we do not have laws to prosecute journalists. it is because we have a legal and political more in this country that says that this is a line that we do not want to cross. way, when youe ask about sanctions or controls on me, i am well aware that if i published a story that clearly securityusly led to a disaster, that could change the legal more. -- norm. cnn.com.e to i thought that the prosecution the nsa collapse under its own weight because of overreached. some things deserved response from the government. not that. i was troubled by the

scattershot subpoena on the associated press and the dedication of rosen as a co-conspirator. that is someone of my background. transparency, how do you make that work? the intelligence community has to be more transparent than it ever has before. if not, you are not going to let us do this. care is one copy out -- veat, it is inevitable that we will make usa. that is the deal -- less safe. that is the deal. >> thank you for coming. both the president and the congress in the usa freedom act and several other bills have introduced the special advocate.

a privacy and civil liberties advocate that we placed within the fisa court. of this, youosals would be granted powers to appeal to the federal courts. potentially, ending up in the supreme court. i was open to get your general thoughts and comments on this position, in general. the potential effectiveness and, also, whether you think the granting of standing was going too far. >> hi. thank you for coming. my name is out arrest. -- alverez. dick cheney spoke at our campus. he said that he believed that 9/11 could have been prevented if the nsa had capabilities back

then that it currently has. do you agree with this statement? >> there has been enormous amounts of scholarship on whether 9/11 could have been prevented with the technology of today. it has been fairly well established and is the view of the 9/11 commission that 9/11 could have been prevented with what they had been if they had used it as designed and had the anddination between the fbi cia had gone as it should have. c advocateof the fis is beyond my confidence. i follow and have read a lot of opinions now. i have read some fisa requests in the past. any preceding before a mutual armored or is going to be, in the long run, working better and

better if there is a checking power and an advocate. hasnow that the fisa court a number of the decisions for the first time in their history. they said that certain programs were lawful. before, it was only individual warrants. we know that the first time that a judge consider that program in proceeding, ital was found to be unconstitutional. another one considered it shortly after and said that it was constitutional. that is the whole point. a contested perceiving tends to bring out the best evidence. in principle, i would before that. -- anm not in advocate advocate for individualized warrants. we do that and the criminalized

system -- in the criminal system. number one, and happens less frequently. -- it happens less frequently. it has implications. you want the benefit of the avid serial process. -- adversarial process. what vice president cheney was referring to was two guys in san diego. intercepted seven or eight phone calls from san diego to a safe house. house.get was a safe .e detected the call there was nothing in the physics or in the content of the call that told us that these guys were making the call from san diego. we have people speaking arabic

calling to a safe house in yemen. his wife was pregnant and he was asking about her welfare. we intercepted seven calls and pushed up reports on intelligence. again, the content of the call in san diego. with the program, when you go , the phone transom number in san diego races is hand. that is what the vice president was referring to. barton is right. there are other ways. saying that we could have done is like saying, all i want to do is when things close. no coach has that as a game plan. i would like to have the additional capacity.

> that number was -- >> the metadata would have recorded the connection between the u.s. number and the yemen number. >> we have two last questions. ayres.ame is chris gellman.on is for mr. you mentioned the data that you have to protect because you are a target for the u.s. and outside countries. would you do with the data that you consider to be too important to publish? you delete the data? -- do you delete the data? question, thank you very much for getting into the details of this program. return to where we started talking about, we talked about how radically data collection

has expanded in the last decade. someone pointed to the intercepts between google centers and the bolt data collection. since data collection has changed so much, should our concept of surveillance and what it means to be surveilled change? were talking about data --ng from a public company private company. we, as americans, have enough our data to private companies will stop should that mean the same thing -- private companies. should that mean the same thing? , for reasons that are obvious, i'm not going into all of the details. proposition, what i have done, with the benefit of the expertise of some of the best people in the world on this

because they have been available , i have kept the material .hysically secure there are physical barriers as to where it is stop it is on encrypted computers with the best modern encryption. it is now, when you get to if frontal attack on encryption, the encryption stance against any country in the world and it never touches a network. it is on a computer that never touches a network. there are other things. i'm not going to go any further than that. , actually, the ironic thing is, i have been asking since the first day of last year , for the more secure way to communicate with the government when i tell them what i have each time i write a story. i say, i would like to tell you

about this story. i'm telling you every single fact that i am contemplating publishing. said, it is crazy to have this conversation on an open phone line or e-mail. and, not months later, they have not provided me with a secure means of having those conversations. it is as simple as a key that is it is not bureaucratically or legally simple for them. shape in the bottom left and words that rhyme with each other. that- literally, words rhyme with each other on the page. there are ways that this could be better approached. let the record show that

barton retains the data. just like nsa. >> if you think that is the same, we have more to talk about. >> on the meaning of privacy in the digital age, in an age where every time anyone uses easy pass , giving allping sorts of information to companies voluntarily. we are comfortable giving away tons of metadata and content of data as everyone who has ever gotten a pop-up ad after they have made an inquiry. knows. >> we continue to negotiate with ourselves as unique riches of

god and as social animals. changes. it is changing with the digital age. it is a nightmare for security services in a democracy who are sworn to protect reasonable when theons of privacy definition of reasonable is a movable feast within a broader culture. onthere are two things going legally and conceptually, in terms of privacy. there is a third-party doctrine will stop i voluntarily told verizon -- third-party doctrine. i voluntarily told verizon, who was transmitting my voice over vacations that cross all sorts therefore, ianies,

have no lawful or moral reason to believe that that is confidential. relational. i may be happy to tell you something and not all these other guys. -- way itt the work works. the third-party doctrine began as an analog, pencil and paper, thanks. thing.untarily -- you voluntarily told the bank something and you waved your privacy. offgoing to cut myself entirely from civilization. there is no way for us to function in the city or society or be employed or students without these mitigation methods. methods.ication if we allow google to know that we are sending a love letter to our love interest, we are happy

to let anyone read it. that is preposterous. the other is the reasonable expectation of privacy. that has been interpreted that, ,hen you know the means exist then you have no reasonable expectation to believe it is not happening to you. if i tell you that we have "through the wall" thermal imaging, you now know that your sex life is not immune. that technology does exist. you are all warned. beenoncepts have stretched. there is a lot of work being done to try to bring that back -- into reason. --thank you for an unlimited illuminating conversation.

>> on the next "washington journal." and then rebecca wilkins and leah mcbride discuss the fairness and equity of the u.s. tax system and what needs to be done to reform it. plus your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. all in "washington journal" at 7 a.m. on these -- on c-span. >> tuesday, former state department advisers discuss the muslim other herds influence in the middle east and the impact of the ouster under egyptian president morsi. see this event hosted by the american task force on palestine live it 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> for over 35 years, c-span

brings public affairs events from washington rightly too. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences and offering complete apple to gavel coverage of the u.s. house all of the public service of private industry. we are c-span. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought you as a public service ire local cable or satellite provider. watch is in hd, like us on -- in facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> suzanna massey spoke about the history of u.s.-russian relations and how the american media is reporting events in ukraine. this was hosted by the center on global interest. it is over one hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2014] >> welcome to the center of global interest. i am president of the center. i am very glad to see all of you here. we have today a meeting for the purpose to talk about what to do in the current situation. obviously we are moving toward some kind of new cold war, or at least a very serious conflict tween the west and russia. whether you like it or not, we are back in old times. in many ways -- some people say, whether you like it or not, we are back in old times. in many ways -- some people say, some experts say, that this new cold war will be much more serious because we do not have geological differences anymore. rush is a capitalistic country. it is not communism. it is not a difference between

communism and capitalism. that the cold war between two different social and political systems. that makes the conflict even more dangerous because it is much more serious. these agreements between russia and the soviet union, maybe it is geopolitical disagreement, how we received the new world order. one way or another, we cannot even start to think about what to do without looking at the recent past. if you look at the recent past, we have very few good examples of how in history we have managed to solve our systematic conflicts. the cold war is an example of

how i managed our disagreement. you know the history and i will not give you a lesson on history. the best person to tell us how it was done can be -- we can learn lessons from that keyword -- fewer. -- period. how would ronald reagan handled his current situation? if reagan would be in the white house, the situation will be derek -- very different. it is getting more and more dangerous. it is much more serious and there is a deeper conflict. i've been in moscow just a week ago. the united states does not want to hear russian logic. they do not understand what we want. they do not understand why we behave this way. i hear the same argument, russia does not want to hear the west perceives the situation. two sides do not hear each other.

i still think that after all of this, russia and united states do not understand each other on a very basic level. it is a serious and deep level. i think a lot of misconceptions and political disagreements come from this deep misunderstanding. we have a person who can explain this and why we have such a misunderstanding and how we can overcome this. the personal advisor to president reagan. i recommend everyone to buy and read this book. it is a very good analysis of the situation. i think he shocked gorbachev when he said this because gorbachev did not expect reagan to be so advanced.

but that is basically -- this is a key to how to deal with these relations. -- this is a key to how to deal with these relations. we cannot trust him he cannot verify. there is mistrust. people who manage and know their history, they know about the cold war. they can tell us. we are in a new cold war. why don't we understand russia? i ask you to give us little

comments on the topic. why is it always wrong? why are american policies always wrong toward russia. that is not our responsibility. it is how they look. it is always wrong. i have been studying russia for a quarter century. they say, they did not expect it from putin. they did not expect it from boris johnson was stopped -- yeltsin. what do we do with russia? what to do? tell us. let's spend 20 minutes and you can ask weston's. let's keep it as informal as possible. this is a very nice informal event. this is a nice lady. well and know her very

she was my close friends. it will tell you a lot about the reagan administration. dealing withn foreign policy with russia. they succeeded. but here the wisdom from that time. much.nk you so when you are talking, you let me to something. i was not going to start this way, but i think i have to s. i have thought, and this is what i have come up with. -- i read this and it is the first quote in my book. if countries have gender, then rush is a woman. this explains her capriciousness and her motion -- emotion.

she starts everything with her own particular way. then of course the man in her life is america. after all, i see it as an older woman. she happens to have had a tumultuous background. because that tumultuous background has developed in her suspicion,weariness, and even fear. the man in her life happens to be younger. he does not have a long background. like all young men, he occasionally is insensitive to her. he does not understand why she feels so badly. this younger man also likes to flex his muscles. unusual that the two would find great difficulty in

fighting -- finding common conversation. the more i look at it, the more i see this. i have dealt with russia for a long time. i love russia for the right things. everybody in the world has defects. i do not hide these. i noted outside of russia. that willsome things be very useful for us. they are not things that we generally value in the united states because we are so different. one of those things is that russians are more emotional in many ways. they feel that way deeply. americans consider emotional a bad word. think of the english. emotionally. she behaved emotionally. he made an emotional decision. in russian, that is a good word. we have to deal with these things.

it is sad. it would be very sad. 2001, i gave a speech here in washington, why are we always wrong about russia? i gave it again in 2005. mater, vassar.ma i just did it again at the university of maine. same.ains the i just have to update it for the most recent crisis. now it is bad. i want to start with a great deal of importance on knowing history. not political tribes. i have to say that a great scientist who is a great friend of my husband always used to say that anything that calls itself science is in. history is absolutely vital, especially in this case.

russians are very proud of their long history. they should be. they have also got three a great deal because of their long history. it has taught them about suffering. writerell you that one wrote well about suffering. how do you explain suffering to the people who have not suffered? that is a challenge. those are some of the things. i am beginning to give you the emotional side of angst. i really have been working and going to russia since 1968. i was very lucky. i cannot tell you how lucky i was during that keyword. -- period. i am a private citizen. i got to know many russians. i was the first foreigner they had ever seen. i was lucky. i began to share their lives.

i began to see how difficult everything was myself. different to see how and how many misunderstandings there were. basic misunderstandings. everything. stalin was one thing. russia is a new country. it is not stalin. it is not a totalitarian country, the matter how president putin is criticized. he is authoritarian. i am not judging anything. i am just saying that he hates stalin and i happen to know president putin a little bit. i can tell you right now at this table that he does not behave that way. he is a man of thought. i go back to history. -- there is a russian proverb that says if you ignore

history, you lose an eye. if you forget history, you lose to lies. we in the united states have consistently ignored russian history. evident absolutely today in this crisis of relations that we are facing. we are close to a century. the success of american administrations has been dominated by basic premises about russia that were based on selective and often narrowly focused the is that have led to a succession of wrong assessments and wrong policies. whether thesetrue policies came from the right or the left. strangely, despite increased communication and contact, this process was most particularly marked in the 20th century and now to the 21st.

we have often been almost as mistaken about russia as europeans were in the 60's century when it was confidently believed that russia had plans -- that they worship an image of a great golden goddess. i am not going to go into this. believe me. you have to start at the beginning of the 20th century. if you go through this, you will see that when my or the other, we were always wrong in interpreting russia. whether we thought that it was great or whether we thought that mccarthy was great and absolutely right. we continue to do it. , russia cannotai be explained in 25 words or less. everything about russia is long.

long history, long church service, long names. it takes a little time. i will not take your time today theaining what administration says has happened. you can find it out yourself. it is not secret. we will go on to what we can do. that is very long. course -- i was very sad and am sad about this. i have always believed since the very beginning that russia and the united states belong together. if man and woman are complementary in the united find some we can common language and we did find some, remember i like to think about this. are up there in space.

a russian and un-american are circling us as we be. -- speak. where we really understand each other's music. russians love our music. we love there is. i can tell you because i have lectured all over the isted they -- united states them,any americans, for the not cracker has become an american custom. many americans asked if tchaikovsky is american. i have been confronted with that quite often. much some things have been adopted. popularhings that are like musical comedies.

it is a part of us as well. it would be to me and i still believe that we have to work harder than ever. about that, and that is hard. there are two things now that have been changed very badly. one of them is trust. as far as i can see, there is no trust in the united states. and vice versa. that becomes very difficult. as you have said and as i told president reagan, without trust, there is no talk. there's nothing. that i consider very serious and i do not know right now how we can fix that. i know that we have to try. i am very distressed about the demonization of president putin.

frankly, as citizens said so pitifully, demonization of putin is not a policy. it is an alibi for a policy. why is our press demonizing absolutely everything? i follow this very carefully. here's one thing that americans do not know. they are not being told is in their newspapers or anywhere else. as a historian, i consider it very important. in the last 20 years, russia has become according to an independent poll taken by europe , reported in the christian science monitor, it has become the country where the most people believe in god. 82%. two thirds are now calling themselves orthodox. that is pretty spectacular in 20 years. especially since everything else

theyad -- for some reason were not slow about this. it has changed. who are now a super majority -- russia is a young country and we have to remember that. it is a young country and now -- theung country majority believe in god. more than england. more than anywhere. as a historian, what does this mean in the long run? i do not believe that history repeats itself. i do believe that sometimes it is a spiral. russia was the last bastion of the west against the east. that happened. i am not saying it will happen again, but for me, this tectonic shift in russia thinking --

russian thinking is important. we have not discussed it. i would love to have a seminar discussing what this could potentially mean for society. now religion is taught in every school in russia. this is not true in the united states. we have become more secular. they are turning more towards religion. i don't know why. i just find it extremely interesting. what was important for president reagan? my story is totally improbable. i was in them and private citizen. i was always a private citizen. you have to read my book. it is a long story.

the reason that i finally ended up in the oval office, why? the soviet union took away my visa. i was really mad. i had been going for a while and i love russia. we became very close friends. i admired her kurds. i admired her survival and their humor and their generosity. happens. i fell in love with all of them. they were wonderful. i was very happy and that is all i wanted to do. my life was not easy. i was happy. back, they say don't write. i didn't do anything. my visa was taken away anyway. timeat point, i said, this that is too much. if that is what you are going to do to your friends, what would

you do to your enemies? i came to washington on my own. everything i did was on my own nickel. i did not have a lot of nickels. i did not want anybody. all of these things happens more or less as incidents. i met a lady at a cocktail party. she was the president of the democratic woman's club. we were in the middle of detente. no russians could come here. no one could marry anybody. i thought that was awful. that ied that time decided to talk. that was my first public each year in washington. no detente. that was not very popular. i can tell you that. kissinger did not like it at all. may i tell you that i'm swiss?

we are known to be very perseverance and stubborn. i went to see kissinger. me todenly said to explain a policy, how great it was. wonderful, but a russian proverb says that the wolf does not become the lamb. he said something i will never forget. well we are building trade, your friends in the soviet union will have to take the heart out. to use that world --o word inm theg this lady -- word, happens quickly.

the senator said, can you help this woman? for the united states and russia, it increased exchange and cultural knowledge. it was key. i always felt that people to people where what counts. there i was, preaching a little late. department, they said it would be inappropriate for us at this time. they said, you are the single american citizen who knows the most soviet citizens personally. as if this were bad. anyway, nothing worked. i was about to give up. -- my friends

said i wasy forbidden forever. nobody knew why. said thaty and they they had reasons. that was my position. reagan comes in. i try to get my visa that. reagan was elected and of course the soviet union -- you have to take a little more attention. there should be more talking back and forth. -- i had another life. i knew the boys very well. they all ended up heavy kernels. some were generals. this was the only one who is interested in my problem.

how stupid can you get? it was so selfish. all i wanted to do was get back. if you can imagine, the people responsible for my getting back to the soviet union were united states crews and the army. he went to do it. he told me he had deposited it at the u.s. institute -- several copies. they had that i was an interesting woman. you know this lady? we would like to talk to her. and he said, what a coincidence. she would like to talk to you too, but she has no visa. they called me up and said, call so-and-so. that was the translator of stolen. he happen to like america very much.

he happen to be a very intelligent man. them, they two of got me back to the soviet union. was just after -- the temperature was so cold. you cannot imagine. somebody said i had to see ron reagan. fewve seen quite a bureaucrats. but it was not a bureaucrat. my children, i have always told i worked on that. finally, nothing happened quickly. i finally went to the senator from maine. i kept saying, i hadn't noticed the terrible atmosphere in moscow when i went. was ae first time, there psychosis of war and people were terrified.

bombren were running into shelters and hiding under their desks. it was bad. i saw what a tremendous golf there was between understanding and of the others. finally, i said to bill, it is really bad. it is bad. you have to talk. talk about something. should, he said, you talk to a national security advisor. thele as that, pick up phone call. hi, bill, i have this woman who knows a lot about russia and you should talk about her. i argued about the cultural exchange. i said i think maybe there is a way to discuss this. anotherone thing led to and at one point, it is hard to believe when you look at me now, istuck my hand up and said --

did not know how bad it was. had i known, it is now considered the worst period in the entire cold war. that is how i met the president. he read all of the books after. there i was suddenly, just said, the russians are personal people. all of the presidents men do not add up to the president unless i ask one question, it will only take a few minutes. i want to be able to say honestly to anyone i have seen that the president came from himself. they said put it on paper. there i was in the oval office and that is how i met president reagan for the first time. he asked me the first question, he asked me was how much do

they, meaning those who believed in communism? i said i cannot tell you, but many of them say they love only theirs. we went on. leave.sident would at the end, i asked him the question. i said, mr. president, if you are elected to a second term, will policy of small steps toward better relations be a policy continuing of your administration? he looked at me and had a fierce eye when he wanted to and said, yes. he wants peace, they can have it. i went to moscow, i did have the talks. they were pretty hot. at the end, i said i'm a i said the onlysaid, i said thing we could tell what his mother's and culture.

if we cannot talk about mothers and culture, there is some logic in what you say and they said, yes. 13 months later, they talked for 13 months. there was a meeting in geneva where ajax was the only -- i was so proud of that, the only agreement. should i continue to have deep faith in the power of people to people relations, nothing to beat it. not a bureaucratic or anything. ronald reagan was the only politician i ever met who was in what theot kremlin sought, but what the russians sink. we have made a great mistake in the united states to make russia a -- i was able to explain to him the difference between is a -- between the two. the most important thing i told,

was that the russians -- nobody ,n washington, specialist experts, everybody else had never told the president of the united states that the russians were religious and they had 1000-year-old church. and despite all of the persecution of the government, it had existed. and indeed, it is only limited next organization -- leninist organization allow to exist. that turned out to be the big difference for him. i told you everything is along. now we will stop. >> ok, thank you. to pick somebody on the russian side. difficult to find one american. to normalizearting

kind of. >> no, i got one. i protested the bureaucracy. i really got one, amazing. to doingking forward what the russians called -- this was before the crisis. but my husband had a terrible accident years ago. i was afraid to leave him. i cannot do that. i do know quite a few people around and i just wanted to talk to the church. i just wanted to take the pulse. i wanted to do that because i think it is really good when it is somebody not connected with the government anyway. actually, the trust to verify p

mr. president, russians like to talk in proverbs. there is one i think that might come in handy for you. and it is -- of course, i said to him, you are an actor. you can learn it very quickly. at first i said in russian. he loved it. now is itso delighted has come and gone into the american lexicon with post-people not knowing at all it is russian. -- which is why i, back to culture is important and to,challenge now is defined if you want to go around the left field here. do things, something

nonpolitical where both countries look good. the woodwind situation. he loved that. [laughter] you might try that. >> thank you. up withill open it questions. my question is, i see your emphasis on person-to-person contact, cultural connections, and understanding history and each other in real ways of based on meeting and exchange. keysseems like one of the to your advice. od of crisis when everything is so can distance -- condensed into a has only been gone off for a couple of months, what is the solution in this situation?

>> i do believe it is people to people. i do not mean big picture, but reagan always said personal contact. say, theto let us ofture of the -- divesture the fierce. i believe in that. you had your hand up. >> a comment if i may. i slightly disagree on not understanding russia. i think reagan's administration characterized soviet union from my understanding was one of the empire by naming the people. [indiscernible] i think it describes russia. and anothernion form of russian empire. at least from those countries .ho are forcefully part

my second comment is you liesoned -- the problem not in demonizing putin because no rush of can hear your voices russians can -- hear your voice from the west. [indiscernible] right now isalking the largest european nation is under occupation. and that this occupation is continuing even as we talking right now. in order to understand how we shape our response, we have to understand what russian wants. i do not think putin wants crimea. or as polarizing in this stage. i do not think he was eastern -- wants easter ukraine. his main goal is to turn ukraine where some western

allies will turn for assistance. i think this russian policy has never changed. i think the expansion and subduing its was always part of the russian foreign-policy with some minor exceptions. i think what we are witnessing right now is a continuation. sorry for a long comment. committed,, they they change the current world order for the not just order, buts -- world not just occupationism. >> can i answer that? or you answer? said in the

beginning of the discussion, that is a valid point. his creation. reagan was fighting communism. states,here united enemy was a geopolitical which despite communism? hear people saying if united states was fighting communism, why doesn't it fight china which is a huge communist country. you are still fighting russia which is not communist country anymore. you can like it or not like it. it is not about communism anymore. the cold war was about communism. why not with china?

that was about something else. what was it about? that is basically my question. on how yout based see russia as a power that challenges you or what? russia was a regional power. i still do not understand. it is kind of silly. what was it about? what is the basis for american policy? if we had a chance to talk to the president now? part abouttake you a history. i shall not to do so.

i expected from you though fiery response. do respect it. i do respect it. myself, i feel that things are not in the same the way you see them. and i think that is not very constructive on what is going to happen now. i look at this question of ukraine at the moment. ukraine is intertwined in many ways, culturally, his store y with-- historicall russia since the ninth century. as civilization was there. it is a very complicated case. it is not so simple. in every way, it does not even like your country which has an identification. it is a nation with culture, religion, and the unified.

ukraine is not unified at all. a very comment i read was jack who said it has become a state for the first time only 21 years ago. it is not yet a bashan. t a nationot ye because it is so fragmented and all of these ways. ukraine has not yet been capable of finding a leader for this new state that can unify them. to me, that is the greatest problem. i do not think the big powers should be involved so much in this. i think it is very much a question of ukrainian putting together themselves. there are so many questions about what happened. some of them are not even answered yet. things, i look at whether they're making fast comments i say, when in doubt,

hesitate. i wish we had done that. i wish we had a little more patience to see what would happen because anybody who has , even elementary knowledge of russian history must or should have known that to do any meddling in the ukraine, you have to deal with a long stick and no you would rub a nerve very raw and be prepared for it. what bothers me about all of this is what is this all about? it does not help the united states and does not help russia. and the person it helps the lease is ukraine. i would have wished it would've been more constructive. that could've been more impartiality. there could have been some help

internationally and helping the ukrainians themselves find a way to make peace among themselves and go forward with all of their problems. that is what i would have hoped. it did not happen. that is what so dangerous. i think when nationalist emotions are aroused in any country in the whole world, they are dangerous and that can easily get out of hand. and not to be controlled by howody, i do not care powerful. they cannot be stopped. that is what worries me. the rest of the world would be involved somehow. peace is what we want. how to get to peace? everybody in the world really wants peace. how did we get there is the problem. thank you. >> questions? >> demonizing putin is a bad thing.

putin --t with >> conflating? >> conflating putin and russia. much of what you described in your book was made possible by a network of connections between americans and russians. you and the people you connected with. that is terribly important. on pages 119 and one hundred 20, you talk about the different mentality of the soviet leadership and the american leadership and your concern that in these decent americans are going to be really taken for a ride by the men of the kremlin. that resonates unfortunately. what i hear from a lot of people affairs andtry of

cultural rounds is a lot of concern about what is happening. i am not sure that without the ramping up of public opinion there would have been as much support for what is happening in the ukraine. we should not demonize putin and putin should not save the entire ukrainian pro-groups are fascist . there has got to be a more reasonable dialogue. what concerns me is it is getting beyond that. a lot of that is not in danger right here. the american councils deregistered in russia. one wonders about the rationale. twice as many russians come here as americans go there. that does not help anybody including the russians. the buzzing american ships in the mediterranean today does not help to lower the tension. i think you are absolutely right.

a mucheal has to be broader segment of russian society than a focus on leadership. >> thank you. we are all friends. -- it was ang in great pleasure. that is basically what i am saying, too. i am concerned about the emotional wrapping up. you know they can get out of hand whether just a fight among normal people, suddenly the emotions take off. who can stop them? then you can have accidents. my feeling is there's a lot of urgency toward, you know lowering the tone on both sides. what i am worried about is the rule, the first rule of

diplomacy is lead an opening. if there is anything the swiss will teach you is leave an opening. i do not see an opening. i do not see it combined with a lack of trust. once you lost trust, it is hard to get it back. reaganery sorry because came such a long way. they were both hoping it would continue. i often thought that reagan was spared by god as he did not see the deterioration because i know this is an absolute fact that reagan's one hope was to get rid of all nuclear weapons. it is a tragedy that they missed by so little and we now have weapons hanging over us that we should never forget. i am not a peacemaker at all. i not saying putin is an angel.

no, i was fairly were ready about the emotional tone of his speech. those words, we have been humiliated, we have been betrayed are very hard words in russia. there is nothing calming about that. and nobody seems to be listening to what the russian people are saying the buyers way. we here and often -- a often a lot about what putin is saying. the retiring ambassador, a wise man, said he was struck by how little we listened to what putin said, what ever he said. i am not talking about in general, but the speech. he is dead on. who has an idea of what we could mean, i have kind of

given up on the higher levels. what can we do just to lower the tension? the press is, terrible. really terrible. they are not making it a better to put it that way. what can we do without making excuses for people's behavior, forgetting that for the moment. steps?ry, what positive does anybody have any idea? [indiscernible] >> they have a very different view all ukraine a ukraine being a nation. we have a strong identity. emotionallyscribing -- compared to obama or bush saying it is not really a country. said years ago that

-- [indiscernible] might find itern business as usual in a month's time. i think that is -- what should be done? i come from a generation where i remember very well right after the soviet union entered poland 1983.3 stopped -- true leader of the free world. if someone said this, unfortunately, we may find how irrelevant it is today. i do not have any prescription. not the last place where putin will stop. -- a wholeoing to

different subject. >> one phrase of ronald reagan you perhaps did not know what he always said it is better to protect people than a venture down. that was a very popular position. he was right. that is true. i met him after that. what was good about reagan was that his mind was open. i think that is very important even if one has a very strong and correct feelings. that is what he didn't do. and for me, that was the attributes of an actor. -- and that is what he did do. a second ratewas actor. actors do not look for mirror images. order to get into some body's

skin was very different. that is what he wanted from me. he wanted to know about russian people and not russian leaders. it would not be a bad idea for all of us. sayink, i think if i may you have a completely hostile attitude and not very constructive. let's think about constructive. we aren't ending about the people that we are thinking about the people of the world and not your country -- we are thinking about the people of the world and not your country or our country. littlee humility and a as i may say, love. short supplyn among politicians. reagan was a modest. andas a man of deep faith he believed that it was better to protect than avenge.

and the people in his administration felt very differently. i think honesty is the beginning of wisdom and he had that. we should all be a little modest on what has been happening in our respective countries and how little we know and no matter how high we are. constructively. ladies, you are good at this. what do you think it's constructive? >> my name is leeanne. in terms of something manyructive, there are opportunities for the united states and russia to work together as superpowers. i recognize it that, yes, russia views himself and correctly given its history and a small amount of this history as a superpower. space.tion in --ht now, we are using the

to get to the international space station as americans because we were tired of our rockets. together to eradicate the international drug trade. that was something hillary clinton and sergey lavrov were working on. we can work together on power, water, infrastructure for undeveloped regions. in america, we need nuclear power and water. 100% of the state of california is in some form of drought. that is a probably could solve if we were not so busy with hypocrisy, the wards, the foreign adventures. -- the wars, the foreign adventures. i had a question about how you do handle the whole pot received. -- hypocrisy.

saying the united states or acted first. the first 20 years of the eu and nato, we are accusing russia of intervening into the former soviet union. what was the european union doing for 20 years? i mean -- we have to somehow overcome hypocrisy. >> i happen to like and respect men very much for all you can do and cannot do. there are some things that women can do a little better. i found in my long history that men think in terms of locking horns. it is always very important to win . somebody has to win over the other. anybody who has

been a mother knows very well if you are going to have peace in a is necessary.mise compromise takes humility. compromise is not easy. , i find the word compromise seems to connote weakness. it is not weakness. it is a strength and it takes a compromise.o find a the compromise means that somehow, not going to the person , whoever, putin or maybe obama, whoever and somehow having a real sense of where that person is coming from. maybe it's coming from bad things. maybe. maybe that are huge and misunderstandings from the basic level. is to tryant thing forfind some common ground

speaking of the rest of the world. responsibility a of both mr. putin and mr. obama right now. i do not think we can do much. i am also thinking that -- out of the box. i am trying to think of things that would capture the popular imagination. that wouldould do really help to change stereotypes. those stereotypes grew up in the early 20th century and they are still there. , i see youthem is can do this about any country if you wanted to, it is said that russia's love -- i love this, they are apathetic. that means not really understanding a little bit. thingsthese kinds of

would be called racist if they were told about anybody else. every country can be accused of wanting or another. -- one thing or another. >> you kind of approach of the same question from two different sides. in this country, i see -- in the world, i see a a lot of people writing about what is russia. i kind of disagree with this putting in atin situation and russia becoming some different -- something different under putin. i can be wrong. i finished my book where i tried putin is russia and russia is putin.

unique russian leader whether you like him or not. that is the major question. mr. you are dealing with putin, are you dealing with russia or a symbol? when putin talk to obama -- you say obama does not represent america. and putin represents russia. moves are very successful. you are dealing with a political image. of course, russia is going to -- [indiscernible] adequate for the country. do you like the country or not? 85% of popularity, i cannot believe it. unfortunately, if you are dealing with russia not to with

is a's russia, it different picture. how do you build policy? it is a long story. a thousand --ike [indiscernible] some kind of small countries around russia, russia is just russia and putin represents russia. russia will go back to its al roots.assi historical ,ussian democracy is based on it will be more democratic. there is no system. russians never wanted the system. they wanted a leader. you have to deal with the country. you have to deal

the country and not the leader. that is why i do not understand of obama over putin. i think it is wrong. you have to deal with the country. you have to know the country. >> go ahead with the analysis. [indiscernible] to --anted >> can we take a second? we went over time. if you have to leave, please feel free to leave. thank you. if you have any final questions, thank you. if anybody wants to stay -- [laughter] >> people would like to stay. go ahead. of public opinion in

this. americansnk that the on foreign policy to the government or does the public have a say in things like this? i mean, there was a reason by social scientists widely discussed in america about the thately -- in the unlikely americans would put ukraine on right?, write -- the less likely americans were able to place ukraine on the map and were less likely to support active american action. military action. americans did, not want military intervention.

especially more educated americans did not want military intervention abroad. do you think the public doesn't here or -- doesn't say the public opinion have a monopoly? >> i did not hear everything you said about societies in america. where was that and what place in america? >> do you think the american public's opinion have a safe in this -- say in this? say as think it has a they do not know very much. they do not get to sites. -- two sides. in ourre gray areas country where there are no newspapers. i know because i have lectured in 48 states and i know that the

russian people, i mean the american people are terribly interested in russia. they do not -- and there was a time when their exhibitions and museums, places like jackson, mississippi and st. petersburg, florida, all of these places wanted to see. i think, myself, the public well turned to russia. but, unfortunately, there are huge, huge ignorance about the history, certainly about the history, especially since there is very little russian history taught in our country. there are only maybe two centers where there are russian studies. one and the east and one in california. what about the rest? it is hard to talk about all of

american public opinion. my experience is in -- americans are very interested toward the russian people. and they are fascinated by russia itself. it is fascinating. but the other side exists. i bet it exist in russia, too. i cannot help but think so. -- i like to be hopeful about it. i know there's a lot to be done if we're able to change this. i've talked about this for several days. what can we do to change? one of the things we have to do is to get rid of stereotypes left over from cold war. they are there and part of the language and they should not be part of the language. whether you love it or do not like it, russia is now again, russia. and all of her past and everything else.

what is it to become? how is it to become? it is still is not clear. it is in a huge transition. if we are going to try and do something, we sure have to get rid of wrong thinking. things that are not true and get rid of those and really try honestly, i look at your lovely young faces and i think you are the key. in russiae key both and the united states. and i hope that you are going to wiser ways ofome behaving that some of your adults have. >> i am usually optimistic. let's thank you. our guest for very personal, presentation.m i hope you will be back.

>> i would love to. >> i do not say you're wrong about stereotypes. >> i have a list and i could give y >> on the next "washington bade looks atel code.s to reform the tax plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. on "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> edison was a plant scientist as well as interest in the other the story is that he knew that it didn't freeze in fort myers. the interests that he had here in this area were based on his love of plants. the 1920's, the united states rubber,ing on foreign and we were headed into war. decidedat point they the plant material and the process should be done in this country. edison, ford and firestone were traveling all over the world collecting plants, and in fact had hundreds, thousands of people all over this country collecting plants and sending here to fort myers to his laboratory to find a source that couldterial produce rubber efficiently, effectively, commercially. the laboratory was put here because of that reason, because they could grow the plants here and then do the

preliminary research on site. so it's a really exciting project. the laboratory was interesting for many reasons, one was at point in american history process for patent plant, chemical patenting. so part of the reason why this was so important was that it caused the u.s. government to what wasard with called the patent, the u.s. patent law. if youhen said that invented something with plants and it was a process that was patenting, it was issued a patent. book tv andend, american history tv take a look at the history and literary life myers, florida, including a stop at thomas edison's botanical research laboratory, saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2, and sunday 2:00 on c-span 3.

>> during this month c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this year's student video documentary competition. student cam is c-span's annual encourages that middle and high school students to think critically about issues. we asked students to base their documentary on was what's the most important issue u.s. congress should consider in 2014. second prize winner madeline bowne is a sophomore at cherry hill high school from cherry jersey, she believes congress should make cell phone use while driving their most issue.nt >> the car spun around in a circle, one girl got ejected, the driver instantly wanted to phone was because it got hit out of her hand. so the first person that came up, said she was looking for her phone. i think he was in the back seat, was alive for about 45

minutes before they cut her out. >> hello, i'm madeline bowne, i'm a 16-year-old and i'm ready to start driving. i'm eager yet also scared. many drivers today are focusing their cell phones rather than the road. the specific show, that dries straked driving is incredibly dangerous. abouting needs to be done this. >> obviously we have this many people getting killed or injured, i'm a believe they're this is a serious problem that addressed. >> driving is a combination of cognitive, visual and manual

concentration. yet often you're distracted when a driver uses a phone behind the wheel. >> driving takes great concentration, it takes a lot of focus, and especially for new drivers who lack experience and knowledge behind the wheel. the driver is traveling at 55 miles per hour and looks down hea text for five seconds, or she will have traveled 120 yards, the remembering of -- a football feel, completely blind. 1.3 million accidents in 2011 were caused by cell phones. driving increases the risk of an accident 23 times. using a hand held device is to increase the chance of an accident by four times. a cell phone while driving delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol of .08%. godh, he just hit oh, my he's crossing over! >> these statistics are not just numbers. life has man whose

been tragically affect bid the driving.f distracted >> was a quiet kid, we'll shy, wouldn't talk to anybody. when she got into high school, freshman and sophomore year, her.hing clicked in she became everybody's friend, she became the most helpful that you command. she rode horses, all the other lessons, sheet could get on it and run it wild. it was amazing. people against distracted founded in honor of my daughter who was killed in this driving accident. what we want to december end distracted driving. called for signs to be placed along roads to remind drivers of the dangers of distracted driving. >> it reminds us of the need to continue to educate the public andughout our state throughout the country, to put down the phones, put down the

distractions, and pay attention. >> these laws should be adopted on the national scale? >> every state is unique, new jersey is a very congested state. several rules and laws, you --w, then they would be required to do so. and d.c., 39 states ban texting while driving. yet only 10 states and d.c. ban all use of hand held devices while driving. now, what is the other argument, why would someone disagree with use of a law banning cell phones while driving? >> it's sort of a libertarian argument that people should be guided more by their behavioral choices than by the law. to say you're putting yourself or your family at risk because you're driving

distracted, but you're also putting someone else at risk. >> because we think we -- were attached to them and think we can use them. and you can't use them and drive can't. you just >> 60% of drivers use their cell phones while driving, and 42% of are very ors somewhat confident that they can safely text and drive. drivers use their cell phones every day. at stop signs, on the highway, light.d are students generally receptive what you teach them about texting and driving? >> yes and no. cultural thing, the parents do it. >> have you ever been in a car when the driver was using a cell wheel?ehind the >> definitely. >> sure. >> yes. >> yeah. >> every day. >> yes. >> yes, i have. multiple times. >> it is easy for bad has been passed down from one generation to the next. that's why it is so important to educate the new generation of

about the dangers of distracted driving. so what can be done on the congressional level to reduce distracted driving? want to do something like the ticket campaign of the 80's where the government and different advertising agencies put up signs everywhere about click it or ticket, seat beats save lives. distracted driving is the same now. it's taking over everybody's life, kids are just growing up it. >> we should use our financial leverage, the fact that the federal government puts up a lot to build roads and operate road systems and airports and all the rest, we should use our financial leverage to encourage states to prohibiter they can to or discourage distracted driving. >> for too long americans have been under the misconception behindey can multitask the wheel. but driving is not a task, it's a responsibility.

driving under the influence of cell phones is a serious issue. livesat is claiming the of thousands of americans each year. yet congress has the power to ultimately eradicate the influence of cell phones on the road, and in doing so congress the lives of many drivers. >> hopefully you see this and you understand that it's real, it happens that people, it's not a joke, and it's not acceptable drive distracted. >> to watch all the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. and tell us what you think about the issue this student wants to consider. post your comment on student cam's facebook page or tweet us the hash tag student cam. saying thatn old victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan. surprised ift be

information is poured in in regard to the recent activities. >> we're just talking about the an interrogation last week of a committee, senator goldwater asked questions about the use of the aircraft from the essex with their markings painted out. well, we figured that somebody told him about that thing on wednesday morning therefore they're going to try to spring it in such a like the youooks were wrong and i was wrong in wasn't.here >> historic audio from the aftermath of the us backed overthrow fidel castro. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio, and washington at 90.1fm, and nationwide radio channele 120.

>> treasury secretary jack lew said there's unity within the g7. to increase sanctions against russia for its actions in ukraine. his comments came as he signed a inbillion loan agreement conjunction with the i.m.f. to help you crane. followed a meeting with ukraine's finance minister at the treasury department. >> good morning, it's a pleasure to be here today. over the last several months the people have demonstrated tremendous courage as they charted an incourse for their country and demanded a government that reflects the people.the in spring meetings i made it my counterparts -- excuse me. their strength and it commitment an inspiration to us

all, through the difficult period the united states has been at the forefront of building international support for ukraine and holding russia accountable for its destablizing actions. that's why at the recently concluded i.m.f. world bank meetings i made it clear to my counterparts including the russian finance minister that continued states will to impose costs on russia for its violation of ukrainian its illegaland for and illegitimate intervention in crimea.pation of in addition, working with our allies, we are fully prepared to additional significant sanctions on russia as it continues to escalate the situation in ukraine, including apparently through support to a concerted campaign by armed east ukraine. during the g7 meeting that took there was broad and strong unity on increasing the sanctions and costs in response to escalating action from russia. provocations,of

ukraine's leaders have acted responsibly and with remarkable economic andensure political stability. ther the leadership of prime minister, ukraine has made considerable strides on both these fronts. election nextal month is an important next step in giving the ukrainian people a their own future. at the same time i would like to minister shlapak on the progress they've made in a comprehensive economic reform program together. allow ukrainewill to tackle long standing economic challenges and unleash the country's potential much we look forward to i.m.f. approval of the program in the coming weeks. part, the united states will continue to work with the i.m.f. and other international institutions and by lateral partners to support ukraine as it takes the difficult but necessary reforms. to that end i'm very pleased that we're signing a $1 billion

loan guarantee agreement today. this agreement which was supported by the president and both chambers of congress on a bipartisan basis demonstrates states' unwavering commitment to seeing ukraine stablize and move its democracy loan guarantee agreement the ukrainian government is empowered to take cost to gain access to low financing from international capital markets and help to ease ukraine's economic transition, particularly for the most vulnerable. next week vice president biden to ukraine to deliver the message that the united states remains steadfast the ukrainian of people. since 1991 when ukraine declared independence, the people of ukraine have sought a better, brighter and stronger future. very much states wants to see ukraine prosper and we will continue to stand with the ukrainian people as they move forward to realize their as. held as pir is thank you very much. and minister shlapak.

>> secretary lew, ladies and morning., good ukrainian delegation is very honored and pleased to be in this historical building at this event.c we view today's documents and sign, as aning as a sign of support, unconditional support from the united states of america of the aspirations of people to freedom, democracy and european values. with you -- we view today's signing as the toward broad financial assistance to our

nation. we practically finished the and expect in.f. the near future the board issues.on the ukrainian days inthese several washington we held fruitful negotiations with other partners. we have practically agreed on a program of cooperation of i.m.f. with we have finished the work with union, who is also ready to support ukraine. few days, ukrainian delegation had dozens of meetings and we are very grateful to all our counterparts those who supported ukraine. the world is admiring ukraine,

dedication ofd our people. these wonderful spring days here in washington, our hearts remain in ukraine, in ukraine which now undergoes a war. not just a war against and bandits, there is also a war against war againstthe economic irresponsibility, and government is declaration to introduce economic, political and financial reform. webelieve in ourselves, believe in our partners, and most of all we believe in our people.

>> there's an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and an orphan. and i wouldn't be surprised if pouring in in regard to the recent activities.

just talking about the fact that an interrogation committee,f the senator goldwater asked questions about the use of the aircraft from the carrier essex with their markings painted out. well, we figured that somebody over there has told them about that thing on wednesday morning, that therefore they're going to try to spring it in such a that it looks like there was u.s. air cover and that you were sayingnd i was wrong in there wasn't. >> historic audio from the u.s. overthrowempt to castro,emiere fidel saturday. on xm satellite radio 120. >> monday president obama called on americans to stand united violence.tred and at the white house easter prayer

breakfast, he made remarks on sunday's shootings in a jewish community center and retirement home that left three people dead. this is 10 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] you.ank thank you so much. good morning, everybody. thank you. thank you. seat., have a thank you so much. morning, everybody.

to the white house, and welcome to our annual easter prayer breakfast. as always, we are blessed to be joined by so many good friends the country. we've got distinguished guests, leaders, members of my administration who are here. and i will once again resist the toptation to preach preachers. ( laughter ) it never works out well. of the admonition from the book of romans, do not than you are.ser ( laughter ) offers morning i want to some very brief reflections as easter season. but as i was preparing my remarks, something intervened yesterday, so i want to just devote a few words about yesterday's tragedy in kansas. this morning our prayers are the people of overland

park. and we're still learning the but this much we know. a gunman opened fire at two a communityities, center and a retirement home. killed. people were their families were devastated. has struck atnce the heart of the jewish community in kansas city. the victims, a grandfather and his teen-aged the uniteded methodist church of the ourrrect shun, led by friend reverend hamilton. during you may know that my inauguration reverend hamilton delivered the prayer service at the national cathedral, and i was grateful for his presence and his words. he joined us at our breakfast year. and at the easter service for palm sunday last night. this terriblek news to his congregation. that this occurred now, as jews

were preparing to celebrate passover, as christians were observing palm sunday, makes moretragedy all the painful. and today as passover begins, ofre seeing a number synagogues and jewish community centers take added security precautions. nobody should have to worry about their security when with their fellow believers. no one should ever have to fear safety when they go to pray. a government we're going to provide whatever assistance is

we're all children of god. we're all made in his conage. we see what happens around the world when violence can rear its ugly head. it's got no place in our society. o this easter week of course we recognize that there is a lot of pain and a lot of sin and a lot of tragedy in this world but we're also overwhelmed by the grace of an awesome god. we're reminded how he loves us so deeply that he gave his only begotten son so that we might live through him. and in these holy days we recall all that jesus endured for us, the scorn of the crowds and the pain of the cruise fix in our christian religious tradition. we celebrate the