closest to that is on the so-called process on iran, where so far we don't see russia being spoiler or wrecker, but that potential is there, and so there's talk and there are issues that are out there, and issues that are out there, and the discussions about possible barter deal where russia might end up marketing about half of iran's crude oil production to the tune of 500,000 barrels a day, things like that could be very damaging to the negotiation. but at the end of the day, even in the iran context, this is a negotiation between the united states and iran primarily, and russia will think about how to shore up its position. it's not a debate where the u.s. has to bring russia on board. it's a question where russia can be an enabler and a facilitator of success, but it's not the driver of success. >> but is it the spotty cooperation because of our lack of engagement, or is it because at the end of the day russian interests don't necessarily always align with u.s. interests? >> well, i think we've seen since the cold war ended these ups and downs, and this is incredibly volatile.

we've all served in government and seen both ends of that dynamic, where the highs feel pretty high and the lows feel really low. this is the lowest it gets, and there is a question about what is putin doing? his speech, when he took the formal step in crimea, created a whole set of really serious questions about what the idea that russia is the most divided nation, the vision of ethnic identity. all these things are incredibly destabilizing, and you've seen in western european embrace of some of these ideological points by the far right. so again, this is a genie being let out of the box here. >> david? >> until putin bailed us out on the chemical weapons issue, russia's role was nothing but negative and destructive t. wasn't blocking the resolutions, it was selling and providing arms and weapons for assad to slaughter syrians. russia was guilty aiding and abetting that slaughter, that massacre. and so russia has, in my view,

been so counter to our interests in syria, and the chemical weapons issue now isn't even going well because the weapons haven't even been turned over on schedule the way they were on iran. andrew has identified, i think, the problem there. russia is also talking about building more nuclear reactors in iran, which also seems to run counter to the united spirit that was supposed to present. afghanistan was 5% now reliance on northern distribution network, and it's just going to obviously keep going down and down as we withdraw from afghanistan. russia is increasingly irrelevant to our interests. russia used the phrase running out of gas. the reason is they're an authoritarian, corrupt regime, and we're a democratic society. by definition, we're going to run out of gas. our interests are just going to no longer coincide, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the way the putin regime treats its own people is indicative of how

it's going to be in foreign policy. they trample their own citizen'' human rights. they pretend to proceed force care about the human rights of ethnic russians in ukraine and elsewhere, when all they're doing is using it as a pretext and cover to destabilize and even annex neighboring countries' territory. >> we're going to open it up to questions from the audience. i'm going to ask you, if you would keep your question concise, if you have an affiliation, please acknowledge it. keep your questions to a question and not a comment. i'm going start with a question from twitter, as you think about your questions. >> we're supposed to define what that means? >> it's open to interpretation, but it plays into what you were just saying, david. consider nato undermine putin domestically? the ukraine invasion, or i think

this person means the crimea invasion, hasn't solved the human rights crisis in russia. should nato be taking steps to maybe destabilize the russian regime or to work towards better human rights in russia? it goes to the question about whether this should become an anti-russia alliance. >> is that for me? >> why don't we start with tom and andrew? a few minutes. >> look, andrew will disagree with me on this, so we can take too two minutes each. >> take one minute each, one minute each. >> look, the question is, what are we trying to achieve, and how do you get there? i think we would all like to see russia be a full-blooded democratic society with western values. it isn't. it isn't going to get there for a long time. the question is what can outsiders do that is positive and constructive in that

process? we all know, at the end of the day, it has to be something the russians do themselves. we can position ourselves in a way that narrows the space for the types of development we like to see inside russia, where we can position ourselves and try to open that. you know, my sense is i love the pressure that we put in anti-russia policy, explicitly putting pressure would, in fact, play into the fears that the kremlin has, create a much more repressive society inside, and it would also cower not necessarily the few people, who do go out on a limb, but the broader mass of people that you actually need to create a democratic society who don't want to be seen as traitors to their own country, as agents of foreign influence. there's a delicate question here we have to answer of how we go

about treating this country, how we position ourselves so that the people who are the heroes, but the people who actually make society's work over the long run have the courage in order to pursue the types of policies, the democratic types of practices that we would like to see. it's a generational type of thing. it's not something that we're going to affect dramatic natural space of a few years. >> can i disagree? >> just really fast, the one thing we also need to remember is people have a pretty fixed in time monolithic view of what russia's transformation is, and it's largely about the disappointment a lot of us feel. i think all four of us feel, about the trajectory of it and then it petered out to a democratic society. so if you look now in russia, you have their european eyes, modern society in cities of more than a million, like moscow. you have a very different russia

in the smaller urban centers, where the state is basically the deciding force and the economic vitality of those towns, largely through the defense industry. and then you have sort of huge parts of the country that are pretty atomized, where people are kind of disconnected. they don't have running water or the internet. we just need to remember that russia is ultimately a messy place, and for to us kind of sort of create a version of black and white, reform, all that has really served us poorly in the past. >> ok, david or anders, one of you? >> yeah, i'm not interested in destabilizing russia. >> not destabilizing, but forcing democratic change there. >> i don't think we can force democratic change there. i am interested in going after people who abuse human rights and engage in anti-democratic behavior. that's why i strongly support the legislation for people responsible for killing lawyers in jail. but let's remember that nato has

an obligation to its member states under article five, and nato has, over the past few years, done a decent job of contingency plan for the baltic and others, beefing up security for the baltic states, poland, other country in the region, absolutely essential. these countries are fearful, and they should be. in part, we don't know where this is going next. i think nato has an obligation to prepare and beef up and solidify the defenses of these countries. let's also not forget that nato has engaged with russia for the past, what, 15 years, 1997 was the nato signing, and russia has been, you know, prancing through the halls of nato for years. look at where it's gotten us. what good has it done? i think the problem is the nature of the regime. i hate to repeat myself. it was the nature of the regime. frankly, the term i'd rather use, tom, is not western values, but universal values.

i don't expect russia to be like a western value country. i do expect it to live up to universal values, values that it signed up to in the universal declaration of human rights, but also values it signed up to in the council of europe. it doesn't live up to or abide by these values that it committed to, and it comes back to the point i tried to raise at the beginning, which is if we say their behavior is unacceptable, what are we going to do about it? >> ok, anders, quickly. >> very brief. if i understood tom rightly, you said in order to limit putin's domestic repression, we should accept his international aggression. needless to say, i don't think so. >> ok. right here, and then right here and right here, ok? >> thank you very much. i'm benjamin. i served as a foreign service

officer in various parts of the former soviet union, including in the crimea. given that there is no solution to the ukrainian crisis without western and russian agreement and cooperation, and two, that for russia, ukraine is in a category all by itself, is there a solution that is possible to this crisis that is not along the lines of a solution or the solution that's worked very well for finland, that is, a liberal democracy, dynamic, transparent, but with a foreign policy which is essentially neutral and very attentive to russian concerns. >> very excellent question that we've been talking about a lot. anders, do you want to kick it off? two minutes. >> i think that's the democracy ideal on the finish line was a

good idea when the big regime get in, but that was long ago. i think that's impossible now, because clearly putin is not prepared to accept any democracy in ukraine, because that means that if ukraine has explained to russia that his regime is not acceptable, and that's acceptable. so i don't think that this is in the cause. that's why i want to contain russia. >> ok. tom or andrew, would you like to rebutt? >> look, i think there is a solution to the ukrainian crisis, but it is going to be one that has to take into account the interest of the ukrainians themselves in all their multitude and different opinions, but also it's just the reality of the way the world operates. the big powers that have interest, russia is a neighbor. i think you're right. for whatever reason, they have a certain attitude towards ukraine.

if it's more salient than them for many people, i see nothing wrong with some type of agreement among the united states, russia, and the european union that ukraine is not going to become part of any type of military alliance. it's something the ukrainians have talked about themselves that can be formalized in some sort of agreement. i also think if you look at the other things that have been proposed, the russians call it federalization. the ukrainian authorities in kiev are talking about decentralization. i really realize that the devil is in the detail in something like this, but it is something that one ought to talk about. why are you opposed to broader regional autonomy? go -- again, within limits, and in a country that is as diverse as ukraine. language as well, there are certain rights that can be provided that don't undermine the right of the ukrainians

themselves to determine their own future. this as an interim solution that provides a type of political space that ukraine needs in order to work out its own national consensus of what it is in society, how it rebuilds its economy, i think it's important, and that's what we ought to look at. i think at the end of the day, all crises like this are resolved diplomatically through diplomatic means. it's something along those lines, where we're going to end up. i would hope sooner as opposed to later, but that will depend on attitudes and a number of key capitals and kiev as well. just a contradiction, tom, if i heard you right. ukrainians determine their own future, but then you were talking about an agreement that would essentially make ukraine neutral. i didn't hear you say ukraine had a say in making itself neutral. >> can i answer that?

i've heard this argument 100 times, that russia doesn't have a veto over what nato does. nato needs to make its decisions in the context in which it operates. the russians have said this is a red line. so, yes, nato doesn't have to accept ukraine because a number of ukrainians say they want to come to nato. nato has to look at its own interests in a broader spectrum. so, yes, i think an agreement among nato members in russia, that ukraine will be neutral, does provide the type of political space that they need in order to focus on their domestic problems. >> nato at the bucharest summit in 2008 declared that ukraine and georgia will become members. nato has already spoken on this issue, number one. number two, for the past several years, no one has been pushing ukraine membership in nato. this is a red herring. yanukovych, oddly enough, actually increased cooperation

with nato while he was president, but he made it clear that he wasn't going to pursue membership, which is fine. nobody's pushing membership for ukraine in nato. it's not the issue right now. there are other things they need to resolve. but this is just a false issue that's being raised. >> ok, we're going to move on to this woman in the second row in the red. >> my name is anna, and i'm half russian, half ukrainian. i just want to make a comment as how people feel, because i feel like people -- i don't have much expertise on what americans have to do certainly. but i can say that both russians who are not supporters of putin and ukrainians feel hurt. for example, phil gramm said there is hardly one person in moscow who does not want aggression.

nine days ago, 50,000 people were on the streets of moscow. many were arrested, and i do not wish it on anyone to be put in russian jail. two days ago, huge demonstration, and only people are very comfortable lives, trust me, writers, actors, intelligencia, as they used to be called, intellectually elite, they were demonstrating, and it was called march of truth for freedom of press. i may be as naive as many ukrainians and russians are, but i do believe that americans support freedom of press. >> thank you. >> as for ukraine i can't say, one moment more, i'm sorry.

it is very, very insulting to hear maidan. it was the most delightful, the most admirable way of people's self-expression in ukraine. the only question i can ask is how often he travels to ukraine. >> thank you so much. thank you so much for sharing your insights, ma'am. i'm just going to -- tom, if you just to want answer that question real quick, i think we'll move on to another question and just let the woman's comments stand. >> no, nobody wants to denigrate what the people in maidan did. they were demonstrating for what they thought was their own interest. the question i am asking is to what extent are they representative of all of ukraine? we do not know the answer to that question. what i said is that as opposed to a presidential election, i think ukraine needs to conduct a new rada election.

they need to re-legitimize the elites across the board, not simply the president. for the ukrainian people, is it just maidan? do the people who did not participate in maidan have a voice? let's re-legitimize through a new election. as opposed to us sitting here deciding which voices we have heard are the genuine voice of the ukrainian people. we do not know that. >> thank you. >> i was last in ukraine a year and a half ago. >> david embed this gentleman next to him. >> good evening, david from

voice of america. i would like to ask tom and andrew about something david said. this is a question my polish friend asked me. if russian troops moved into ukraine, should the u.s. and the nato allies move more troops into the baltics? mr. putin has said he has the right to assert russian power in defense of russians who do not live in russia. there are a lot of russians who live in riga and in lithuania. a lot of people are nervous. do you favor more nato troops in the baltics in the event russians move into ukraine? >> i have no doubt we are heading in that direction. i think it is a question of what presents and what the modalities are. at this point, regardless of whether -- if the tragedy does not come to pass, which we all hope. in terms of no full-scale military intervention.

there will be any number of steps to reassure the baltic countries. as well, the romanians and bulgarians are the most exposed. >> i do worry a little bit that we in the west are setting the bar so high for triggering a response from us. full-scale invasion of ukraine. putin is able to destabilize ukraine well short of sending tanks across the border -- we are seeing it right now. we cannot set the bar so high that we may say if he does this we will not do anything. he is already doing it. there are other means for him to do it. we absolutely have to protect these countries. if we do not, the nato alliance is meaningless. israel will question our reliability. our allies around the world will question our credibility. and our enemies will also smile.

and that makes me very wary. >> we are going to go right here and then to this gentleman here. did you have a question? then i think we may be out of time. >> my name is david jackson. a lot of the discussion has been about the cost or potential cost of resisting russia. i would like to ask what would be the cost of not resisting russia? not just of the message that it sends to iran, but to china, china's neighbors, to north korea, and to democratizing former soviet republics. >> who wants to start? anders? >> this is my very point. the alternative to sanctions to stop putin is war.

we are already seeing a worse starting in ukraine. there is no reaction in europe nor here. i find that extremely dangerous. we have a situation that is worse than after the summit between khrushchev and kennedy in vienna in june 1961, which led khrushchev to come to the conclusion that the u.s. had no background. and decided to put nuclear missiles on cuba. this is worse for europe and for the u.s. >> do you want to take a quick? >> to my mind, it is hard to say that the chinese and other major global powers are going to draw a media lessons from what is going on in ukraine. they all know this is very complicated.

there is a lot of disunity and there is a reluctance to do something that leads to war. they kind of get that. there is a question about u.s. leadership and u.s. durability. and the security commitments we extend. the desire of people to whom we extend those commitments to see them are you sure. it is not surprising we see the south koreans, the japanese, and others turning to the u.s. and saying we see what is happening in ukraine, please assure us that you have our security. and that the security guarantees you have extended our meaningful. i would expect that process is going to be ongoing, regardless of who is in the white house? >> we have time for a couple more. >> my name is mike, i am from johns hopkins sais. finland's prime minister says finland is not neutral. he made it clear that if the eu would vote for sanctions,

finland would go along with sanctions. tom, you mentioned accommodating russia's interests. isn't a problem that rush's real interest would be a democratic ukraine with which it could trade and do all the normal things democratic countries do. we are talking about what putin considers to be his interest. as david said, his interest is to make it impossible for a real democracy, much less a slavic democracy on his doorstep, to function. is there a difference between what russia's interest should be for the 21st-century and what mr. putin's interest for his kleptocracy is? >> we often know what other

people want more than for ourselves. we know putin happens to be leading that country. he enjoys a tremendous amount of public support. it is not immediately obvious to me that putin's foreign policy does not enjoy support within the russian political elite, middle classes that would pay so attention to, not to speak of rotter segments of russian society. that is what we have had to deal with. yes, maybe a democratic society on their borders, why should they be opposed to that? but that is not what they see when they look at ukraine at this point. the russian leadership and a

broad segment of the russian political class sees a coup that was engineered by the west. and they asked about how legitimate this is. is this what you are planning for russia itself? there are problems of perception we have to deal with. whenever we go about our own policy, we have to think through the eyes of the others and decide what we need to do to advance our interests. is where we are now where we wanted to be in ukraine? is there something we overlooked that we should have dealt with or planned for so that we would be prepared -- if we had known that some of these things are possible, should we have articulated our own interests in a different way and achieved a result that was more stable? one that did not lead to the

type of situation we are facing now. >> ok. two minutes. if you went to split it up. >> tom, the problem in ukraine is the russian invasion. it started on the 27 of february, which was when the ukraine and the rent was appointed. this is the problem. what remains totally unclear is why putin should ask ukraine to accept all kinds of conditions he does not allow at home. such as freedom and democracy. if putin is as wonderful as everybody thinks in russia, why doesn't he allow them to speak for themselves and the for themselves? >> david, you want to add? >> i did, i forgot what i was going to say. [laughter]

rare for me. [laughter] >> i am sorry we do not have time for a lot of questions. one more in the front and we will ask the debaters to offer policy recommendation -- >> i remember -- >> quickly. >> february 17, putin announced the loan from russia to ukraine. the next day the blood started flowing in kiev. putin suggested to yanukovych, you want this money, clear the streets. >> is dangerous to diminish the crisis between russia and a particular country.

is a crisis between the free world and the remnants of the empire of evil. also wrong is to start judging or guessing what putin wants. the debate is about what we want. defined by ambassador walker in the recent cnn interview, the free world stands behind. what should be the values we are prepared to defend while facing this brutal force? what are the consequences if we want to do it now? >> andrew? >> i am not sure i hear the question. if you look at the steps the president is taking about where he stands and where his values

are. the question is -- the american people -- do people intend to have the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of ukraine? so far, we have not seen too many americans who have said -- >> he is saying it should not be only about the behalf of ukraine. if the u.s. stands for universal values of freedom and human rights, should we not put it in these small terms but be speaking on a larger, standing up for its universal values of freedom and human rights and democracy. not just in europe but in the free world. >> my impression is that is what we do. that is the nature of being americans and any administration that is in power. i think what we are seeing right now is a really coveted situation. i think we are all very worried about a war. for us to be strident and getting out there suggesting that there is a magic solution at hand would create

expectations either among the ukrainian that there is a defense commitment that does not exist or that they will be cut loose. the administration is trying to, it is going to be hard, we will see what happens on thursday in geneva, can we get a diplomatic process going. problems like this hopefully can be solved through diplomatic means. i'm not sure they can be. >> the specific question is always what do you do in a specific case? i think andrew is right. the u.s., for 240 years, has sought to promote democracy in world affairs. the argument for us has always been as a nation how do you go about doing that? what is the best way, how do you and sure that type of progress. there have been different ways and different thoughts about how we do that historically. specifically with ukraine, the question is what are you prepared to do, how do you advance that question mark and

more important, what sacrifices are all of you prepared to make so that you see freedom succeed in ukraine? is not going to be without sacrifice. it is going to be over the long term. it is not something we are going to see an end to in the next several weeks. >> david? and andrew brought up the talks in geneva on thursday. how do you think that should be approached? >> i cannot remember the last time i bought a finished russian product in the u.s.. they do not make anything i want. i am not sure what sacrifices you are talking about. it is different for europeans with energy, but there are ways of addressing that. on thursday, here we get a geneva again. syria's geneva negotiations worked really well. i have zero hope this is going to work out and to not hit the kremlin with more sanctions before thursday is a mistake.

putin thinks he is winning and he has no interest in showing compromise or negotiation. it will be a waste of time with the foreign minister who has demonstrated he has zero influence over what is happening. he has no decision-making authority, he cannot even get putin on the phone when he is meeting with john kerry. it is a delay in taking steps -- if i could, i would ban the phrase "we are considering additional sanctions." >> you do not think it should be an incremental approach, shock and awe. >> whack the hell out of them. >> ok. [applause] >> david is saying there is no sacrifice on our part, that this is easy. the argument i am making at this is not easy. if you really believe in these things, it is long time and it is going to hit us. and it has to hit us.

that is what we have to think about. in this specific case, the question is if you are president of the united states, what sacrifices are you going to ask the american people to make and for what purpose? >> i am going to wrap up. sorry we could not get more questions. this is a debate that will continue and could continue online, hashtag #midebaterussia. i will ask each participant to offer a one minute, we are running late, policy prescription. summing up what we have talked about today. we have a few people that wrote in on twitter and you can think about some of these things. "what action should the u.s. and eu take?" "what role does the un security council play?" take off a couple things you think the u.s. and the west should be doing to manage this crisis.

anders? >> i've already basically said it. i think the u.s. should go for a very tough financial sanctions. the u.s. dominates the global finance deal. russia has less than 1% of u.s. trade. it is a blip nobody will notice. >> thank you. andrew? >> people have alluded to this. we are at the beginning of this drama. everyone needs to be braced for this to go on for a long time. we are not in 1989, this is more complicated. to shun dialogue and say there is nothing to talk about is a

mistake. >> thank you. >> sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. state owned enterprises, banks, individuals, you name it. there is a long list. number two -- let ukrainians decide their own future. hard to do when russia has taken over part of their territory and tens of thousands of troops are threatening further incursion. let's not forget crimea. the whole debate these days is about eastern and southern ukraine. retrieving crimea has been lost and forgotten, that is a huge mistake. as we did with the baltic states, we did not recognize that their absorption into the soviet union. we should not recognize the referendum in crimea. push russia out of ukraine, i include crimea.

[applause] >> tom? >> we need a clear statement by the president what our interests are. what sacrifices he is prepared to ask the american people to pay to pursue those. i agree with andrew that we need to open up channels that allow us to pursue the various ways we can resolve this diplomatically, even while the threat of further violence continues. at the end of the day, the solution will be diplomatic. and we need to be creative in the way we do this so that we find a way of advancing our own interests. >> i am sorry we have to wrap it up there. thank you so much for coming. thank you to the mccain institute and for our debaters. andrew, tom, david, and anders. thank you so much.

>> one more round of applause for our fabulous moderator. [applause] >> the most recent in our series of debates, find it on mccain institute.org, our youtube channel, our itunes page. find out how you can support the institute. thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] nato says its military presence along the lines is eastern border will be increasingly evident in response to russia's aggression in ukraine. the alliances secretary says nato aircraft will fly more missions over the baltic region

and says ships will deploy to the baltic sea, eastern mediterranean, and elsewhere if needed. while congress is on break this week, we are presenting some of the supreme court's notable oral arguments this term. this evening, a case dealing with free speech and discrimination. justices look at whether secret service agents can be sued for removing protesters, an organ hotel where george w. bush was dining while supporters were not allowed to stay. we will have that oral argument at 7:00 eastern. at 8:00 eastern, first-hand stories of bombings and chemical attacks in syria as well as a pop singer leading protest in ukraine. they are part of the fifth annual women in the world summit at new york city's lincoln center. >> c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this year's student cam video documentary competition. student can is a competition that encourages students to think critically about issues.

the question we asked students to base their documentary on was -- what is the most important issue that u.s. congress should consider in 2014? second prize winner matthew shimura is a junior at punahou school in hawaii. he would like congress to consider a clean and renewable energy plan as its most important issue. >> every day the sun rises here in hawaii. every day, the waves crash upon our shores. every day, the wind blows in the mountains. every day, the lawful flows beneath the earth. even though my state has within its borders abundant renewable energy, we still rely on fossil fuels for over 80% of our needs. in 2008, hawaii recognized that our dependence on fossil fuels was threatening our most precious resources -- the land, the air, the water. our state government set up a

clear plan to move away from traditional energy sources and to move towards a greener future. ladies and gentlemen of congress, this is something we need for our whole country. a national clean energy plan is the most important issue to consider in 2014. we need your action to break the clean energy gridlock. there is a growing consensus that the use of fossil fuels contributes to climate change. especially by forming carbon dioxide. >> the evidence is overwhelming, the science is clear. the threat is real and urgent. the science behind climate change is simple. carbon dioxide makes the earth warmer and we are emitting more and more of it into the atmosphere. this increase in greenhouse gases, above all, from the combustion of fossil fuels, is affecting the climate. >> more than 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human caused climate change is occurring. if our changing climate goes

unchecked it will have a devastating impact on the u.s. and our planet. >> this year, the observatory on hawaii's big island measured 400 parts per million of carbon backside in the atmosphere. this level has not existed for thousands of years. >> the plan i put forth to protect our country from the effects of climate change is the path we need to take. if we remember what is at stake -- the world we leave to our children -- this is a challenge we will meet. >> this is not just the job of the executive branch. it is the responsibility of congress as well. the commerce clause of the constitution says congress should regulate interstate commerce and energy, whether traditional or renewable, is a form of interstate commerce. so, i met with the president of

hawaiian electric industries to learn more about our country's energy policies. >> the energy system in america has become more and more federal in nature and more national in nature. there is not regulatory bodies that regulate the bulk power system. power can be generated in one state but then exported across that state's borders and interstate commerce. >> today, renewable energy policies very from one state to the next. some states regulate the amount of greenhouse gases they will permit, other states require a certain percentage of renewable energy be produced. even more states have energy efficiency requirements for cars or buildings. right now, there is a patchwork of renewable energy policy across our country. >> the use of renewables across the u.s. really vary significantly.

because the energy picture across the u.s. varies significantly. the parts of the united states that actually have very good wind resources, primarily through the middle of the country. then when you get to the southwest you have excellent solar resources. of course, in the pacific northwest, they have hydropower. >> another reason for a federal plan is that the states might not be able to regulate renewable energy by themselves. renewable supplies have to be coordinated to meet nationwide demand. they have two feet into the national grid along with traditional energy. energy resources across the country have to be integrated with each other. a national policy for renewable energy makes sense. so far, the states taking the initiative. state action might be restricted

by the commerce clause of the constitution. >> the commerce clause was to preclude individual states from actually impacting interstate commerce. the idea was even though we are comprised of 50 states, we are one nation and we should have open borders between our states. commerce should flow freely across state batteries. and so there have been challenges to some of the state laws that have sought to restrict production facilities that were within that particular state. >> the commerce clause may prevent states from acting on their own. i understand why congress has not been able to agree on anything yet. renewable energy is more expensive than traditional energy, especially with all the natural gas we have available in our country. there is also concern about losing traditional energy jobs. and there is controversy about

the role of fossil fuels in our energy future. these problems are not insurmountable. we have faced many of them on a smaller scale in hawaii. >> in 2008, hawaii decided it really needed to reduce dependence on oil forever. and our goal is to actually move 15% to renewable sources by 2015. it goes up to 40% in 2030. in addition, to reduce consumption by 30% through energy efficiency. and that is a total of 70% clean energy by 2030. >> i am not saying congress should model its clean energy policy on the hawaii plan. i am not recommending any specific lee energy policy for you to adopt.

i am just asking you make this priority for 2014. ladies and gentlemen of congress, this is my message to you. it is time for a national clean energy plan. it is time to break the gridlock. >> to watch all the winning videos and learn more, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. post comments on facebook or tweet us. congress is on break this week and next. here is a look at what some members are doing today. pat roberts is visiting and iowa school. he tweets coming enjoyed visiting a high school assembly today.

thanks to farm bureau and community leaders. the nebraska representative lee terry says, had a great time speaking this morning. the patriots asked some great questions. m sound is millard south in omaha. visited aster tweets, rehab center in mount dora were they in -- assist individuals with postacute trauma injuries. thomas returns to capitol hill monday, april 28. former treasury secretary henry paulson spoke recently about china's economy in washington, d.c. mr. paulson said china's gains over the last 30 years were extraordinary but its economic model was not sustainable. the center for strategic and international studies hosted this hour-long discussion. >> it is a pleasure to be here. hank paulson is back from a trip to china. i asked him how many times he had been here. he said, more than 100 times.

both at goldman and the treasury and now pursuing a third career, which is, interestingly, 100% nonprofit. he has no investment to china except maybe his heart. mr. paulson i thought i would , start by remembering that you presided at the home for a horrible financial crisis. we were a country with a sophisticated financial system with the people running it. it didn't turn out to be as good as we were led to believe. in some sense, the chinese are facing what is regarded as a potential for a financial crisis. perhaps with less expertise. they do have a few resources that they need them. i wonder if you could talk about how big a risk you think there is in shadow banking or credit boom or housing.

how well prepared they are to manage it if it hits. >> thank you david. it is great to be here. that was a question i got a number of times in china. my view is, of course every economic system known to man, every economy from time to time, will have financial crises. the roots are almost always government policies and then they manifest themselves in the banking system. we have an economy like the chinese that relies on debt financing for real estate, plant investment.

the problem is inevitable. they certainly are going to have bad debts. in many ways, this is similar to what happened in 98 and in 2000. part of the bad debts are related to the financial crisis because of their fiscal stimulus program and policies. part of it is related to the shadow banking. investments that are, you know, in that market to the private sector. a lot of it, municipal funding. the way i look at it is that first of all, i don't think anyone doubts that the capacity

or commitment they have to prevent the failure of systematically important companies -- today, the problem is limited to municipalities. state owned enterprises. the public do not have the leverage. the central government has huge capacity. today, the things that i tell the chinese -- in the system with diffuse decision-making, they need clear lines of authority. they need to make some tough decisions about which institutions are systematically important and which are not. whether the losses should be shared with market participants.

they need to make it clear where the government is on the hook and where it is not. i'm not making light of the current situation. i think it is manageable. much more serious is the florida government policies that led to this -- is the flawed government policies that led to this. one is a triangle between the banks, the government, and state owned enterprises. dealing with that. the other, a very significant problem, is the system of municipal finance. which is overly reliant on real estate sales. municipal governments taking land from the farmers and selling it to developers. they need a new system. it is not sustainable. they need a new system of municipal finance. it it is easier said than done.

right now, it doesn't work. it won't work unless there is a new tax system. fiscal reform. what happens is mayors have huge obligations and do not have access to sources of revenue. enough sources of revenue. what they are doing is taking land and selling it and funding it in the shadow banking market. from banks, on a short-term basis. it will take a while to fix this. it is going to take fiscal and tax reform. the leaders understand it. they need to manage their way through this period while they do something that is going to be -- >> it sounds like you could have a few big bumps on the way to a better system. like the state of illinois.

>> i would say that the chinese economy, i wouldn't compare with the state of illinois. we have some very significant problems. china does -- has their own problems. i think they, like any economy, will have bumps on the road. to step back and look at it more broadly, there is a huge need in china to develop a new economic model. the administration is committed to doing that. they put their credibility on the line and laid out a very broad program to do that. it is easier said than done. to take the economy and

developing new economic model and rebalance it. i happen to think you can to do something like that without significant bumps along the way. >> to what extent have the reforms transformed into changes in incentives for local government? we talked about how, if you wanted to be promoted, you had to produce growth. the rhetoric at the top is for balanced growth. have they changed the incentives for the local officials? >> it will take a while to do that. the incentives are important. the environment is an area where it looks like they have changed. they don't have the institutions they need to deal with environmental issues the way we

do. they don't have a strong, you know, protection with regulations that can be enforced. the approach that the administration is using is making the environmental protection, clean air and clean water, an important part of the way the of valuing officials. it used to be -- they would go through their litany of what they had done with their gdp. job creations. now, in addition to that, they are all talking about the environment. if they believe that is going to impact their career, it is going to be a very important part of their performance. it will make a big difference. >> did they have measurable targets like reducing particulates? >> that is not clear.

that is clearly something that needs to be done. i think that the -- i am frankly encouraged. i don't believe it is rhetoric. the party needs to do this if it is going to keep its credibility. >> you have been working a lot on the environment. talk about something that convinces you this is more than just press releases. >> i have just given you, to me, the best example. to step back even further, if five or 10 years ago, somebody had told me bees are the things china is going to do in terms of investing in clean technology and shutting down dirty plants,

i would expect them to have made more progress. what has happened is despite some extraordinary steps, it has been blown away by the growth. there is a real understanding today that the quality of the growth is much more important then just ramping up gdp. the chinese people are demanding it. it is the big issue. remember, i was there at the end of february.

hardly see the sun. it was, you know, the rating is in the danger zone -- the leaders are right there in beijing breathing the same air. there is a huge need. they are doing important things on resource taxes. they are doing a lot of things. there is no doubt they are serious about it. >> one of the things you mentioned and it came up this morning is the role of the party which has changed some. talk a little bit how the role of the party is compared to the last couple. >> the party has always been predominant in china. i think some americans -- because when we talk about reform, we are thinking the chinese may be in the back of our minds. they are trying to create a system like we have.

so when they look at market-based reforms, these are reforms that are good for china and us. when you look at what they are doing a modernizing the government, it is good for china and us. it came from a very prominent and powerful family, a chinese communist party. he sees a strong party is critical to him being able to achieve successes in the reform areas he is pursuing. he sees the party is the only strong institution. he has done things and doing things -- increased the

credibility of the party. and whole lot of things including very, very strong anticorruption campaign. he is making the party -- as someone who has been going to beijing a long time, i hear in the conversation with officials, you hear the party mentioned much more frequently than in the past. >> is that a substitute for government? is he trying to break the gridlock of government? how do you build a strong government if the party is being so much -- >> that is the $64,000 question because what happens is -- if you look at the reforms, most people in the u.s. and most of the press are focused on the economic reforms which are very

broad in scope and extraordinary which is all about giving the marketed decisive role. it is good for china and us. it is also a huge agenda in terms of modernizing government. the institutions of government because china does not have the institutions, the governmental institutions that it takes to govern a country with an economy as big and diverse as china. there is work on restructuring. part of it is a structural issue. take the ministry of environmental protection. in certain areas, it is going to take more centralization which is counterintuitive to many

americans who think there is already too much authority and top-down authority. how do you regulate the environment if it is not done centrally when you have consistent rules at the local level that are enforced? part of it has to do with the legal system and where due process and the role of law and restructuring the disciplinary process who my counterpart has done. there is a catch-22 which is the party probably is the only organization in china that i strong enough to get these thing -- that is strong enough to get

these things done because there are huge vested interests. there will be a lot of resistance and she has consolidated power to an unprecedented level. i think he he is going to need that to get that done. maybe because the party is so strong, that is one of the reasons why they don't have the institutions they need. >> you mentioned the anticorruption campaign. do you look at this as a crude way for him to reward his friends and punish his enemies to say, i am sure there are plenty of people that are corrupt in china and the leadership could always target you, that could make you more loyal. or is it less about hard power and more about time to clean up the system to keep the people happy? >> just for background, and for those who haven't been following it closely, it was led by him

among the central disciplinary committee. there is a really highly publicized program to go after not just the flys, the tigers. some very senior people have been targeted, including the former standing committee member. right up there is corruption, property rights, clean air, water, food security and corruption. there is no doubt this increases

the credibility of the party for the people. no doubt about that. number two, to the extent that some of the people being targeted are senior and some of the state owned pillars of the economy, i think will lessen resistance to some of the reforms. but, i also believe they are very serious about curbing corruption for domestic and international credibility. i think they understand that although arresting people for past transgressions will strike fear in a lot of people and they will curb the behavior going further. this is a systemic issue. it is one that has to be changed

and has to be changed through sort of long-term policies emphasizing values and integrity, changing incentive systems, part of this will be -- part of which will be paying the officials to do the jobs they need to do. part of it will having clear rules on anticorruption and a legal system that is more even as it enforces the law. i think a big part of it is doing what they want to do in terms of having the market play a bigger role in the economy and government playing a smaller role because i think the current system where the government play such a big role is, again, one that spawns corruption. >> it might make the system more cleaner and work better but on the other hand, if that the week

and resistance to reforms, that is not such a bad thing either. >> well, first of all, it strengthens the party. by by credibility and also there is no doubt that i think that some of the vested interests in state owned enterprises and other places is the fact some of those people have been targeted will help get reforms. >> i think the american view was always that you cannot always have successful market focus capitalism without also having political freedom. the chinese leadership clearly does not buy that argument. do you see attention there? are they going to feel pressured to have more political freedom?

is the kind of restlessness among the chinese people or is it the alternative if they could deliver the goods and clean air and say food that -- and can get away with having that. >> first of all, i would say that right now it is very popular in china. and, most of the people, all the people i talked to are really focused on delivering the goods on these other things. it is going to be very hard to deliver on when you talk about the sorts of things that is being taken on. my own view has been for some time and it continues to be that the system is evolving and that they have ultimately as you move

to have a market economy that is as integrated as china is for the rest of the world, the system needs to evolve to become more open. it really does. so, i believe that the government will not achieve the success they expected to achieve if they move in that direction. i think there will be pressure to move in that direction. this is a pragmatic leadership. one of the reasons why i have gone to china as much as i have over the years is when they are focused on their economic objectives and reforms, they are pragmatic.

they are not locked into ideology. they are looking for what will work and again i think the system will evolve and needs to evolve. >> when you worry about china, when you think about what could go wrong, what is on your worry list? >> to me, the big picture is this. it is that this is a country that has accomplished an extraordinary amount over the last 30 years and they have done it with an economic model that has run out of steam in my judgment. it just plain isn't sustainable. you can get a bunch of economists consider on the room.

when you talk about what they need to do in terms of reforming the labor market, removing immigration restrictions, all of the various social reforms, the government reforms, the economic reforms in order to unleash the potential of the private sector, to reform the financial system. a $9 trillion economy to change is a difficult thing to do. to me, the good news is the leaders understand it. it is not like talking to u.s. politicians sometimes. it is like a problem doesn't exist the people. when you talk with them, they are very pragmatic. they know the problem exists.

the question is are they going to be able to get the things done? because, i am going to make a very big, important point -- when you look at the scope of the issue and the scale that i have taken on and the personal credibility that they have put on the line, it is very unprecedented for a general party secretary to be the one that heads up to the central reform leading group. they've taken it on, but the question is it is so complex to do this. they've done a lot. how are we going to know if they

are going to be successful or not? it comes down to competition. just plain and simple is that. i will define competition because economic competition -- the things i'm going to look at our first of all, are they going to be the key sectors the private sector how petition? -- competition? i think they will, but are they going to do that? are they going to reign the state owned enterprises and continue to reform them which is not an easy thing to do at a time they are really underperforming? you take away their special subsidies, protections and put them on a level playing field to make them compete is going to lead to unemployment in those areas. thirdly, which i think is really

important, are they going to open up to foreign competition? i think that is critically important. there are two groups of reformers in china, many of whom are the domestic companies that are all for competition as long as you let them run their own companies. that is why i have been as focused as i have been on this bilateral investment treaty because just like he used wto admission to thrive economic reforms internally, i think this is what the current government would like to do. >> use the treaty to introduce more competition within china

because that is what you have to do. >> it benefits china tremendously in terms of increasing the efficiency. i don't think the reforms will be as successful as they need to be without it. it is the only way you were going to build healthy, strong companies in china. look what happened in every industry, every country when you protect. an industry. we protected our auto industry for years and look what we got. i think it is critically important. to me, what i worry about is this is such a big agenda. there will be strong vested interests in political resistance, it is going to take some doing to get it done.

it is complex. how you sequence these reforms. >> it is going to be difficult if growth is slowing and they're worrying about not creating jobs and then you tell him to take away the protections of the state owned enterprises so they have to lay off workers. >> there will be right now -- i have been looking at what they have been saying about growth. i was very encouraged by two things that the premier said recently. he is well aware that growth is slowing down. i don't see them slipping back into old patterns of a bunch of lending stimulus, infrastructure which isn't needed.

they recognized the growth and then they announced of this really -- i looked at it as a massive pilot project program between the hong kong stock exchange and the shanghai exchange which will lead to a lot of two-way investment below into each market. i think it is something that if it works could be replicated with other markets around the world. what i think we all have to worry about is how easy is it to get done. >> one of the things i noticed when i visited china, we talked a very wealthy people, successful entrepreneurs or companies that serve these people. i think a great deal of

insecurity is that they are afraid they will be accused of corruption or they all seem to be buying a house in vancouver and making sure their kid goes to harvard and gets a green card. am i wrong about this? are the insecure about their future in china? >> i wouldn't want everybody together. it is a vibrant private sector. when i talked to my friends or with jack of ali baba. look at what they are doing in internet banking and taking on the banks. there are a whole lot of private sector people who are encouraged because they really believe that this is a government that

understands the future of the country is the private sector. ping, wherever he was, every problem, there was a big emphasis on the private sector as opposed to state owned enterprises. there are other people who have accumulated a lot of wealth and people who really benefited from the vested interests. i think anybody who is -- who understands china, i have to believe most people that are there understand it better than we do, recognize that these reforms are not going to be easy. >> what role do the people's liberation party play in the economic reforms? are they an obstacle because they have vested interests or

not? >> as you look at the state owned enterprises, the government owned enterprises, you have a group of central government owned companies. when i talk about state owned enterprises that is what i have been focusing on that there is basically 100,000 plus entities in china owned by different pieces and some of them no doubt owned by poa in addition to municipal governments and so on. those entities need to be reformed.

they are underperforming. i think that they will be and a lot of them will be broken up, be sold, be taken public because you look at the pressure on municipal governments to pay down debt right now. i think that is going to be working in their favor. >> because they own some of these enterprises. >> i think one of the things -- when municipal governments have been under pressure to fulfill their mandate, they sell the real estate to developers or bring on a local company which may own or part of infrastructure that is not commercial.

i think there will be pressure. >> let me turn to the u.s. what is it you think the u.s. should do either business or government to maximize the chances of successful reform in china that benefits them but also benefits us and the rest of the world? >> i started off with the proposition that to achieve the important things we want to achieve globally in terms of the economic objectives we have that we want china to succeed with these reforms. now, many people don't agree with me and of there are some people that always thought what is good for china economically

are beginning to question because the relationship is becoming more complex. i really believe more now than ever that we need -- because of some of the tensions in the national security area, foreign policy area, it is really important to thicken that relationship. it is quite important that we have complementary policies. the two things i would say is bilateral investment trading. we have a lot of shared interests. we have some things where we have differences. we need to figure out how to manage those differences. we are going to be competing in certain areas and in other areas we can't let that cloud cooperation. having shared interests is not enough unless you turn it into complementary policies.

i look at it and say if china identifies those areas where there is not market access, that is going to add to the transparency and predictability of the investment process. if they narrow those areas rather than carving out big parts of the economy, that is going to be really good for them in terms of helping them have a more efficient economy to speed up the reform process and build stronger companies. i think the u.s. needs to negotiate hard to recognize that is a big step forward and take a reasonable approach to transition. i believe a bilateral investment treaty will also significantly increase u.s. investment in china because it is going to increase trust and understanding. i think putting cross investment

on an international treaty basis will take it to a larger extent away or help insulate it from the political cycle or the ups and downs, of the tensions between beijing and washington. i think we should welcome chinese investment to this country. it's very important. on the mire mental area -- on the environmental area, i think this is one most people understand. part of the reason why the paulson institute work so hard, sustainable economic policies in china and the u.s. and sustainable urbanization is the next several hundred people. it is hard to get your mind around that.

going to cities around china will drive environmental outcomes. as we cannot -- it is very important -- i happen to believe climate is sort of the overriding social and economic issue of our day. that is what i believe. i don't think there was anything we could do in the u.s. by ourselves to solve this problem. having worked with a number of developing countries, i think the chinese leadership gets this to a greater extent than any other major developing country i could find. i think there is a huge opportunity as the two biggest emitters of carbon and users of energy for us to really work together and cooperate. there is a natural fit. no one innovates like we do. we can look at our universities,

look at silicon valley, look at all the financial legal infrastructure we have around that. no one can test new technologies quicker and is a fast-growing energy market than the chinese. what are we doing? we are exporting coal and expecting big quotas when they want to sell us solar panels cheap. there are a lot of policies that are hard to explain unless you look at the politics. there is a lot of room for cooperation. >> i think we could turn to questions. we have about maybe 10 minutes. there are a lot of people so tell us who you are and remember a question ends with a question mark. ma'am? the mic isn't working. >> [indiscernible]

we have difficulties narrowing the gap. do you think that ability will help benefit china for them to have potential future trade negotiations or does this agreement -- what kind of impact will this agreement have on china? >> you are referring to the transpacific partnership. the question is are the chinese threatened by this or -- >> i happen to believe it is very important dealing with china to be -- for us to be

strong economically. to be strong diplomatically and strong militarily. and it is particularly important to be strong economically, diplomatically, militarily in asia. number two, i see the tpp is very important, top priority because it is focused on economic integration. it is looking at behind the borders and some of the other restraints -- moving the other restraints the competition. i think if we get a high quality tpp, i would be surprise if the chinese don't want to become part of it. i think we should welcome the chinese. i think they would benefit and we would all benefit.

that is my view and i think we are starting to hear them talk more openly about being part of it. that is something else that would drive reform and be quite helpful. >> do you think the chinese attitude is that the u.s. has to choose between china and japan, particularly militarily or do the except we could be allies and partners with both? >> they look more broadly when it comes to that. very broadly, they absolutely accept we should -- our relationship should be based on mutual respect and there will be differences. and that those differences should be managed and preclude cooperation. this u.s.-japan, chinese-japan

conflict and tension is quite disturbing because i think the two forces that are in conflict with each other, you see it in the pacific, one is need for economic growth which china and japan needs and all of asia needs will all benefit from it. what is in conflict is that, putting that in jeopardy are the political tensions. to me, that is disturbing. it is just really, really important that we have great communication. the u.s. government keeps pushing. we have to have political level, senior level, right down to the boat captain so you don't have a conflict.

i think that is very important. there is a lot of history there. there is a lot of sentiment and nationalistic sentiment in both countries. i wouldn't underestimate the significance of it. when i talked to some of my most -- to some friends in china, people that have gone to u.s. schools, people that have had admired our system in our country and that raise that issue, they talk about the history and we were allies in world war ii. we don't get it. the fact is we have a defense treaty with japan. they are an important ally.

we have individual disputes, but we don't take sides. we try to be neutral. this tension is something i worry about. it is a concern. >> in the back. >> my name is doug. recently, the treasury issued advisory to china to not let its declining currency values get back into play when there is concern about unemployment. many independent economists say china's currency has been overvalued and needs to be make adjustments. who is right? >> i look back and say that i look forward to the day when we don't have that debate. the only time we are going to not have it is when we have a

market determined currency and they don't. it is pretty clear to me only when they have a market determined currency are they going to have really globally competitive capital markets, they are going to have an economy that is where the market is playing a decisive role. are they going to be able to move up the chain and do all the things they want to do to rebalance the economy? i am not the only one that thinks that. you can do two things. you can keep intervening in the currency market or you can speed up moving to a process of market determined currency. if you keep intervening, you're going to keep accumulating foreign exchange reserves. -you are going to be funding the structural deficits in the u.s.

and japan. you are not going to be rebalancing your economy. or you can move the had and do things for your economy. so, i clearly think that they need to take action. this is always a hot button issue in washington, d.c. one of the reasons why -- when i am outside of washington, i don't talk as much about that because it is easier to understand. i don't -- i am not downplay the importance of currency, but i think even more important are the structural issues that lead to imbalances. the structural issues cause them to over save and the issues that -- we cannot blame the chinese for the fact that we borrow too

much as a government and as a people. we have policies. >> david must be doing well. it's coming. >> thank you. you mentioned political reform. the evolution is needed. this comes at a time when china is cracking down on the flow of information, internet, media, people who even agitate in favor of government policy could find themselves in jail. is this undermining the need for diversity, transparency, working against the economic policy? >> i am an american and i love our political system. i think that i would like to see

-- i think it is important that they move through something that is more open and more inclusive. what you have seen is -- you have seen the administration, at the same time they have put out a whole set of reforms which are badly needed. they have also said we are going to deal with a number of hot button issues like the one child policy, labor reeducation camps, they have focused on the major issues of food, water, air, corruption. they have done that at the same time that they have cracked down on those things. so, they have -- i say they are

dealing with issues that the people care most about today. again, i don't think that is a winning formula. i think over time they won't be as successful as they are going to be a less they have a more open, inclusive government. >> that woman here and then the gentleman in the back near the camera. >> thank you. as china embarks on its economic reforms, i'm wondering if mr. paulson could talk about the secrecy of these reforms especially in the financial reform area.

>> the secrecy is very important -- the sequence he is very important of a reform because, for instance, if you normalize the labor market with, you know, and let everyone migrate to the big cities and take their benefits with them, you have them flooding beijing. they cannot accommodate more people. how do they do that? they are going to normalize the market for second and third tier cities first. the financial market reform, you know, they are going to need a budget responsibility.

they have to be held accountable and have sources of revenue that they can call on, but right now mayors don't have budget responsibility and they don't have financial statements that are transparent which are required to have a market. if you need a municipal finance market, they have a ways to go up because they cap fiscal reform, tax reform, give mayors the tools they need to manage a budget. these are going to be very -- that is why he has given himself seven years from the time the announced these policies which was some time ago to get them done because it is going to take a while. what i look at are what are the things that can be done soon and are they doing them?

are they doing the things they need to do right away? i focus a lot on the financial markets. the reason i do is these are things that have been studied, debated in china. they know what the issues are. they -- these reforms are very important. i start with the idea of letting foreign financial institutions come in and compete because you are going to need a world-class institutions and i have never seen a situation where i believe joint venture, institutional investors, or investment banks -- it is hard enough to run one where you have control so you're never going to get there with a joint venture. reforming the markets so that they -- capitalist allocate to

households rather than state owned enterprises. eliminating the caps on the interest rates that savers receive. there are a whole list of things. the other things i am going to look at is competition. are with a moving quickly to do the tough things with the state owned enterprises? it is not going to get easier as time goes on. i have been quite encouraged by not only what they have said about the markets playing a decisive role, but some of the steps they have taken the, the rollbacks, the red tape, and the regulatory barriers to keep their private sector from getting and competing into certain industries. they have done a lot in terms of

weighing out a very ambitious program. they have moved very quickly like in areas like anticorruption. we have to wait and see for the environment. >> you are talking to an american worker. yes, i understand that the air i breathe has something to do with the pollution that comes across the globe from china. if i am an american worker, my wages have not gone up, my company has a lot of investments in china and they tell me it is good for me but i am not so sure about that. what do you say to american workers whose wages are stagnant and see that men in cities can do business in china. what is in it for me? what you say to them? >> the american worker is struggling in manufacturing. we have eight or nine times the

output we had in 1950 with the same number of workers that we had then. when i go through plants in china, i see very similar things to what i see in the best companies in china and the u.s. which is i go through manufacturing plants, i see robotics and technology. this is inside. we need technological advances. it is driving productivity but in almost every industry i look at whether it is architecture, engineering, almost any business, technology and manufacturing is destroying jobs. we need to really focus on this and focus on having the proper training programs, etc. what i say to people in the

u.s., i think worst and most important, we need to fix our own economy. that is going to be the key to our relations with china and everything else. everything starts with our own economic strength. the things we need to do to be competitive. we can kick all these things off. there was a good number of them. the other thing i would say to a u.s. worker is we should be fighting to open up and continue to open up opportunities for u.s. products in china. right now, it is very interesting. you talk with farmers and ranchers, that is an easy sell. they look at what is happening and how fast the consumption engine is growing. it is no longer -- you mentioned wall street.

it used to be wall street and a lot of the global companies. i think right now the constituents -- clean technology companies and technology in the state and city level, there are a lot of people that are looking for chinese investment to come in. i went to a company in china last friday which wasn't that long ago. it is a leading manufacturer of auto glass. they just bought a huge plant in china -- in ohio. they are going to hire 1000 people. i think that is the case we need to make. i think it is a hard case and i sure don't want to be the one that is trying to say this

directly to someone who has lost their job in a plant. i don't think there are a lot of jobs -- products we are importing from china by and large are products we would be importing elsewhere. that is the fastest-growing area. that is why we have to fight so hard to open up these markets. >> with that, please join me in thanking hank paulson. [applause] >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you all for coming, especially on a rainy day. we will be continuing this conversation for another year at least so i hope you will join in with us. thank you. bye, bye. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

united nations security council is meeting this afternoon to discuss ukraine. pro-russian insurgents commandeered six ukrainian armored vehicles along with their crews today. meanwhile, nato announced it is moving troops and planes to the region. the u.s. is working on a package for ukraine that could include medical sub lies and clothing but not body armor or other military style equipment. we will have live coverage of the u.n. meeting this afternoon at 4:00 eastern. congress is on break this week and we are bringing you some of the supreme court's notable oral arguments this term. this evening, it's a case dealing with free speech and discrimination. justices looked at whether secret service agents can be sued for removing protesters from an oregon hotel where george w. bush was dying while

supporters were allowed to stay. we will have the organ -- we will have the oral argument at 7:30 p.m.. than the fifth annual women in the world summit at lincoln center. hillary clinton joins a pop s inger and the syrian opposition member describes what she saw in the aftermath of chemical attacks. here's a portion of her comments. day me and mike cousin were preparing some kind of activity with the kids. that ad on the internet chemical attack happened. after one hour, we heard a similar attack hit my town. missiles andng the the bombing but we did not bombings that these this night is different from any other night before.

it is carrying gases. after half an hour, we started feeling disease. our noses and eyes were running. that there was something different in the air. we rushed to the other ones and woke up all the family members and the kids. we tried to help them to put some kind of scars on their noses. we >> were your throats and eyes burning? >> yes, our noses were running. we could not see. we find some difficulty reading. imagine that it would be worse. we decided to go to the hospital to help their.

we used to be nurses at the hospital. we rushed to the hospital and tried to help. way, it usually takes five mess to get there, but because of the bombing and shelling, it took him two minutes. when we arrived in the neighborhood, isolate dozens of corpses on the streets with women and men and children. screaming andelf yelling out and sayingoh god. i was so shocked. i did not imagine i would see that view. >> you can see the entire women in the world summit tonight at 8:00 eastern. you will hear from hillary clinton along with the imf director and barbara bush. our colleagues have

reiterated factually inaccurate information i want to clear it up. the independent guardian pointed to represent terri schiavo and has said in his report that in spite of the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has said that she felt pain and laughed and cried that that is factually inaccurate. her sword broke cortex has been liquefied and that is the area of the brain that responds to emotion and reason. that is impossible what they have detailed here tonight. additionally, they talk about six virologists and eight physicians that have said she is not in a persistent vegetative state. also factually inaccurate. those physicians of only viewed terry on videotape. the five court-appointed as editions, two appointed on one side and one court did -- one court-appointed position, the

board-certified neurologist who had scientifically based and academically researched testimony, their testimony was deemed to be clear and convincing by the court that she was and is in a persistent vegetative state. the other physicians testimony was discounted as anecdotal only. in addition to that, i want to close with the commentary from the guardian. he would -- he spent 20 of 30 days with her. he put his face up close to her and tried to make eye contact, pleading desperately and trying to will her into giving him any kind of sign. he said i would occur. -- he said i would beg her. you would hope there would be a connection that she would sit up in bed. she never made eye contact. when he visited her when her parents were there, she never made eye contact with them either. for all of the pleadings and coaxing scummy he never got what he most wanted, a sign. i felt there was something distinctive about who terry is

but i'm not sure it was there inside the vessel. during the 30 days, it was a nightmare. will the gentleman yield me an additional 30 seconds? >> 15 seconds. guest: >> thank you, he concluded the medical and legal evidence behind the diagnosis as being in a persistent vegetative state was credible basil felt that for all the efficacies, the medical experts would never truly know where she was. he was dismayed to learn friday that an attorney for the schindler's claim that she tried to speak and he said she does not speak. to claim otherwise reduces her to a fiction. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor covers on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> next, a discussion on nsa intelligence corruption and surveillance.

"the washington post won a pulitzer prize for his coverage of edward snowden. "from the american university in washington dc, this is two hours. >> we are really privileged to have two people who know the nsa extremely well, from different perspectives. general michael hayden is a retired four-star general who served as the director of both the cia and nsa, among many other illustrious appointments in his nearly 40 year career of public service. he was appointed director of the nsa by president bill clinton and served 1999-2005. after his tenure at the nsa, general hayden went on to serve as the country's first principle deputy director of national

intelligence, the highest-ranking intelligence officer in the armed forces. in may 2000 six, president george w. bush appointed him director of the cia, and he served there until 2009. he is a frequent commentator at many major news outlets, as well as having been a foreign-policy adviser to mitt romney's 2012 presidential campaign. he is currently a principal of the chertoff group, a distinguished visiting professor at george mason university. barton gellman is a two-time pulitzer prize winning journalist and lead reporter on edward snowden's nsa disclosures at the washington post. he has actually met snowden several times. >> in person once. >> he spent 21 years on the staff of the washington post and has won numerous awards, which i will mention only a few. his first pulitzer was awarded in 2002 for reporting on the

september 11 attacks. the second pulitzer was awarded to him in 2008 for a series on dick cheney's vice presidency that went on to become the basis of his best-selling book. that book won the los angeles times book prize and was named a new york times best book of 2008. today he is a senior fellow at the century foundation and lecturer and author in residence at princeton's woodrow wilson school. he returned to the post temporarily in 2013 after receiving various nsa documents from edward snowden. with his colleagues he has broken stories about many of the things that we are going to be discussing tonight. so i would like to have you join me in welcoming our distinguished speakers and a national audience of c-span.

[applause] we are going to have conversation amongst ourselves for the first hour or so, and then we will open it up to questions from you all. there are two microphones, i see one in the middle and one on the side over there. it seems to me that all of the fundamental questions on the nsa and privacy rotate around balancing security and privacy. how have we done it so far? how should we do it? there is a further question of what privacy even means in a digital age. where every time you go to the