that he has been -- targeted as being the force behind all of this. they think is ludicrous. they use stronger language who they think is behind it as well reid say a fewd days ago that he did not think this was over. this will not be resolved easily in bunkers built, nevada, and not just in congress. it will be a combination of tamping down what is exploding globally and also figuring out federally what can be done that will actually achieve the ends they want to achieve. said, this may be blown up on a scale which we have not seen in an extremely long time, if ever, but these sentiments exist every time he tried to designate a new piece of conservation land or wilderness or dealing with any a jew --

with a issue like the sagebrush or endangered species act. the ranchers are often the most frustrated. seldom do you have people saying that i filed the federal government entirely, but there is sympathy for these underlying sentiment because they, all the time. host: an social media is playing a big part in this? it plays a big role in all things. from people participating in a protest to people watching, the story blew up on the internet as of last week. it became the number one story in the country for a while. how does that happen otherwise? a small settlement in nevada turns into a huge deal because everyone is watching and staring -- sharing. that is the way it goes. thank you for adding your

perspective to the issue. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning as we do every day at 7:00 eastern time, 4:00 for those of you on the west coast. we are going to take you to virginia tech tomorrow as we focus on the role of groans. thank you for being with us on this thursday. enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> "the wall street journal" is reporting that eric cantor is leading a congressional delegation to asia next week.

congress is on a two week recess. the japaneseit prime minister and the south korean president and will also go to china to talk about economic policy. president obama will also be in asia during part of the visit. here is a look at what members of congress are doing over this recess. bob goodlatte is holding open-door meetings. connecticut representative is figuring out ways to better address the heroin epidemic in our community. yoder congressman kevin is meeting with community leaders at the jewish community centers interfaith service of unity and hope, asking people to retreat to show support. the paulus defense minister is in washington today, meeting with chuck hagel. they will be holding a brief hearing at 11:15.

then at noon eastern we will be live as former british secretary david miller band and robert ford will be discussing a military and efforts in syria. the washington institute will hold the event. afternoon,ater this supreme court justices antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg our guests at the national press club. they will be talking about freedoms that define the first amendment. live coverage starting at 6:00 eastern. >> some of the duke administrators early on who were not lawyers gave the kids dad legal advice, which was essentially, don't tell your parents, don't get lawyers, who operate with the police, and basically this will go away. -- duke thought they had legal exposure because of that. beyond that there was this desire to make this go away, to protect the duke brand, to make

, once it was decided these kids were innocent, the last thing duke wanted was to then have to litigate with them about all of what happened. the easiest course of action was just to pay them the $20 million, signed nondisclosure, non-disparaging agreements, which explains why they are not talking to anyone since they settled. but it is not exactly clear why duke felt the need to pay these kids. people unfortunately get wrongly and thereall the time are places like the innocence project who defends those kinds of people and tries to reverse the judgments that were made. examples of people wrongly convicted for murder, spending 18 years in prison and getting $20,000 payment a year as a result. , other than their

arraignment hour or two, no time in jail, and got $20 million. um williamand duke al cohan looks at the duke lacrosse scandal. sunday at 8:00. we have a defense department briefing coming up, but right now a discussion on the difficulties reporters face covering national security issues, moderated by bob woodward. this is part of the sources and secrets conference looking at post-9/11 conflicts between the government and the press. from new york city, this is about 15 minutes. -- 50 minutes. do we get a cold start here? i am bob woodward, "the washington post." let me introduce the panel. whom i havemayer,

known forever it seems, worked at "the wall street journal," " the new yorker for almost 20 years now. many journalism honors, especially for your 2008 look "the dark side." that is one of those titles where you know where you are coming from. , ahave robert dietz distinguished professor of public policy at george mason. he has been the consiglio ari to the intelligence community. not?you work for dulles or the first cia director. he was general counsel to the nsa for eight years. amazing.

he then was the counselor to the cia director your general hayden, for three years. has worked in defense department, state department, unbelievably, a law clerk to justice william o douglas, one of the great civil libertarians. we would get to the question of what douglas would think of your career path. >> [laughter] of "the newetti york times." he has worked for "the l.a. earned an award for his work in afghanistan and pakistan. i will say this from the point of view from "the washington post," covers the senate and intelligence committee better than anyone. hymn at the end is --next to him

at the end is peter maass, who writes for first look media. done a number of books, theyding the book "loveth neighbor" about the war in bosnia. do not hesitate to interrupt. i would do the same, if that is ok. the perils of covering national security. i think we will start with jane and go around. what are the perils of covering national security? ,> i think it has become harder in that i think our sources are under more pressure than they used to be. i had a source in particular, during the bush years, who was

under investigation by the justice department for violating national security and for having spoken to me. my phone number appeared on his cell phone apparently, and it ruined his life for quite a while. very expensive for him to get legal counsel. >> do we know who this is? >> i do not think i should identify him but he was falsely accused and later cleared. the point is, during that period, the cliché of what happened to the path -- russ in such situations, that it had a chilling effect, it was frozen. he could not speak, i could not be to him, i was toxic to others -- >> this was during the bush years. >> this was during the bush years. i do not think it has loosened but when there

are more legal risks for sources , there is not a clear dividing line between the sources and the journalism that comes from them. it becomes an issue for the reporters as well. we get people in trouble by interviewing them and we do not mean to -- >> when we do not need to? >> when we do not mean to. we get them in trouble, we cannot guarantee that we cannot get them out of legal risk. >> so is it tougher now? >> i think it is, for sure. >> bob dietz. >> inevitably, in conferences like this, there is a lot of talk about the risks that reporters undertake, editors undertake reporting the news.

of course, the first amendment makes clear that news is important to the american people. , whileuble i have is important, thery government also has an important goal, and that is to keep the american people safe. what we are talking about here with national security leaks, we are not talking about leaks from the fda or department of agriculture, we are talking about leaks that may, in some circumstances, in peril the united states. between those two issues, the safety of the american people wins. i understand the important role stuff thatays, but is highly classified, provided to people who swear they will not violate the confidentiality that has been provided to them, and then going ahead and leaks ,t and the press publishes it

they are imperiling -- >> have there been examples of things published, that have really endanger the american people? >> yes, i do. the principle is, in the intelligence area, the leak ends up being the harm. if something is leaked about a new military capability, that is serious, but the bad guys still have to figure out how to counter that new weapons system or defense. in the intelligence area, when you leak information about how information was acquired, the bad guys immediately know to stop using the means of communication. that is, i think, very risky. >> do you have an example? involving the leak that special nsa program during the bush years was very damaging.

>> in what way? you were there at the nsa at that time. >> yes. i was told -- and i think responsibly -- that you would get a stream of data and then all of a sudden it would stop and you would see a correlation. it was not like somebody said, they are on to us. you would get intercepts, and then they would stop, and you would see the correlation between the leak and the stopping of the communication. >> mark, what do you think is the main peril of covering intelligence security? lot what janeh a said. i do not think it is harder to do this kind of reporting. it is not only the crackdown that has taken place on uighurs, the number of investigations that create this climate that

jane talked about. also, in the wake of the revelations about surveillance last year, has created this perception among the people that surveillance is everywhere and that everything is being watched. jane,lar experience to you have people who you have developed relationships over the years who will not talk anymore because they are concerned. people who otherwise may have been on the fence, who had never dealt with reporters, who might be inclined to do it, maybe second-guess it and think, what is in it for me to do this? peoplee phone calls -- ironically talking, if anyone is listening to this call -- now people without any irony will say, to whoever is listening to this call, i am not listening to classified -- it is accepted that somebody is listening to this phone call. >> do you think they are? >> possibly.

over the last year, whether it is people listening to my calls think,ources, i increasingly, we have to be under suspicion -- >> but you are still able to function and work. >> definitely. more careful, certainly, about electronic communication, phone calls. it is less efficient, i suppose. especially at a daily paper that can be hard. >> so how do you communicate, do you move the flowerpot? >> you meet in parking garages. >> [laughter] have more to first-person meetings. >> but to set those up? >> it is hard. you have to set them up by some means. there are people who go into encrypted communications now.

if you do that, both sides have to be doing this. you are an is, when reporter, and you want to get somebody to be comfortable and talk to you, and you have never met the person, the first person you say is, i want to talk to you, and you have to use this phone, otherwise you are going to go to jail. who is going to want to talk? >> do you use encrypted communication? >> i do not know how much i should say, but yes. it is more recent. you are talking to somebody for the first time, or the 20th time, and you say, let's go encrypted, aren't they smart enough to realize that automatically that is an admission that there is some sort of transaction going on that people are surveilling? z they find out x, y, and have established encrypted

communications with intelligence reporter for "the new york times," that is somewhat incriminating, right, mr. dietz? right. >> [laughter] >> maybe we are just talking about sports. here?t is the main peril >> i would respectfully disagree with what bob said here about leaks being the harm. in many cases, the lack of leaks were the harm. if there were more about the intelligence upon which those decisions were made, our national security would have been better rather than harmed. that is a basic point that we can talk more about perhaps. fors more difficult everyone up here, people in the audience, people watching. one example i can give is, a number of months ago,

somebody contacted me through a friend, had something that this person wanted to talk about relating to iraq. it was not monumental but interesting. i said to this person, ok. not throughing phones that could be traced to me at least. don't send it to me by e-mail. print it out, and send it to me by mail. at this moment in time, i think they'll is more secure than e-mail for certain things. workaround, which did not work, because i never received the material. either it was presented or never sent. having to set up that security operation, obviously, affected the fact that this person did not provide the material. that is a tax in a way on this new era we are in. sources will not come forward. but i would say, on the other hand -- and that is why i do not like the framing of this in such

a dirge-lie way. as journalists, we are challenged with a challenging story. >> what is that story? >> challenges to the first and fourth amendment of the constitution. which involves a crackdown on journalists ourselves, and sources. i think we have this incredible role to play to expose what is going on, to prevent it from continuing to go on. most of my life, i covered overseas complex. -- conflicts. i made my name in bosnia. that was a story that people here did not care much about, but it was also difficult to cover because it was hard to make people understand why it would affect this country and their lives. i could not make a very

persuasive argument about that, but when you are talking about challenges to the first and fourth amendment of the constitution, you are talking about how our democracy exists, with the future of our children is as members of a free society. that is a much easier argument to make, and a more important one, then the slaughter of people in the balkans. i find myself as passionate about this story as i did about genocide in the balkans. what i was going to say is, what is hard, one of the things that is difficult from the , is thent of the press way that the national security definese -- community what is protecting the american public. it is not as if the press is trying to harm the american public. defined it as a stronger country when there is a free flow of ideas, when there is

consent of the government, because they understand that the programs are you are implementing in their name. and we feel, even bad news, sometimes drink in the country because the rest of the world just to see our transparency and accountability system. and so it is a larger framing of what national security is. the way that the executive branch has a monopoly on defining what national security is, you get to put your own parameters around it and define us as outside of it sometimes. we are not trying to harm the country by writing these stories. in fact, i think most reporters feel they are really helping my getting this information out to the voters. >> i accept most of what you said. agree that reporters are not out to undermine the country, but i'm also clear in

my mind that reporters do not often understand why something can be harmful, or why certain things could be guarded. one of the arguments that is always dragged out in these kinds of meetings is the overclassification of materials. i am sure they are. except that. -- i accept that. is is not caused generally by evil intentions. when people are writing reports, there are three different classification levels. most people put the default, top-secret. there ought to be a way to address that, for sure. >> ok, but reporters are not helpless in this. you are saying, reporters do not understand the implications of publishing some .f this stuff mark, peter, jane, i am sure you can testify, when you find out something, you go to the government and you engage in,

let's be honest, a negotiation --sorts, and a listening like one of hillary clinton's listening tour's -- you listen and you say what is the argument that this will cause harm? case, look at the snowden in my own newspaper, "the have been post," we extremely careful about what we publish, always going to the government, and the government making their case, and i think, erring on the side of, let's listen, does it make sense. so there is a lot left out. the adjustingf that the reporters are up -- you are kind of suggesting that the reporters are rushing in and reporting willy-nilly, but that is not the way it works.

beat you cover, you will call for comments, you will go to the agency you are writing about. it is happening far more than it used to, where the government pushes back now to try to get you to not publish. i think we keep pretty high standards for what we would not publish, and there are different standards. if the government is making a case that this does pacific harm to specific individuals, that is one thing. we listen to that seriously. if the argument, as was the case in many of the wikileaks arguments, this is going to be really in there sing for us, the government, that is a lower standard. usually that is not a reason to not publish. >> and when you go to the government, you learn all kinds of things. first of all, you get a second or third source, if you can get them to validate what you have, which makes sleep much easier at

night. matter ofnot just a calling and saying, i want your one sentence comment. it is meeting with people, having serious discussions. sometimes weeks or months go by before some of these stories are published. >> i think we are beginning to learn what bob woodward does. the inside story. sense., it just makes office,een in the oval the seventh floor of the cia, and other places, where people --, if you publish this recently, somebody said if you publish this, we could lose a war. that gets your attention and you listen very carefully. >> i agree. pre-much everything i wrote in ran by theide" i

authorities at the cia to make sure it was correct, which is incredibly important, and see, basically, if it would cause undue harm. we did not always agree, but at least i was able to weigh their arguments and whether or not i thought it made sense. a i do not think it is just question of whether something is over classified. we all agree that generally things are. i do not think there is a period --the country's history entire wards are conducted in a classified manner. there were the wars of iraqi and afghanistan, but so much of it is intelligence, wars carried out clandestinely, and they are still secret, even though they should not be, like the drone strikes. >> which by the way, they are not secret. >> but still technically classified. >> there are people in the

government who will officially validate and discuss that. >> but after a strike they will not say this is what happened. some people would like that to happen. they think they would be able to explain it better. therefore, it has never been more important, because this is the conduct of the war, it is all secret, the national security reporters tell people what is going on. think of what do you that, going to the government, here is what i understand happened, what do you say? >> that is a useful and generally necessary step. we have a story out this morning that i co-authored on the intercept of one of the first nsas, which is about some documents that relate to us by snowden. >> summarize the story. the nsa is hacking into the computers of system administrators who are not themselves suspected of doing

anything wrong, but control computer systems that the nsa was to infiltrate. these are innocent people being targeted by the nsa because they have, as one of the documents said, the keys to the kingdom. in this case, we said, is there any harm involved in publishing this? the answer was no. so we have gone to them and asked. i would say, however, in terms of the usefulness of talking to officials, of course, but right now, i trust documents more than officials. say a lot more and tell me a lot more -- >> and they are a potent tool when you go to the government and you say i have this document and it says the following. >> my personal feeling is, i'm not using these as tools. i'm publishing them -- we are publishing them. the greatest tools or instruments. i think these documents operate

best not as instruments in terms of leverage with government officials, but instruments to inform the public. tool, yes, as a publish them, but when you go in to see someone in the government and you say i have these notes of this meeting, i understand the following is occurring -- that gets their attention. >> but it does not necessarily get much truth out of them. >> sometimes it does. don't you find that to be the case? >> sometimes. the national security part of the government has a credibility problem at this point. when you look at cases like the case of tom drake, and nsa official former who was prosecuted under the espionage act, facing potentially 35 years in prison. whateveryears old --

age she was at the time -- rest of his life in prison. the case fell apart. the reason was, it was complete overkill. the judge himself eventually through most of it out. >> even general hayden said, publicly, that it was a case of prosecutorial overrule. quoted, thenel judge said it was unconscionable what happened to his life in that period. there were five documents that he was alleged with taking them are unauthorized. three of them have to do with a complaint that he had made to an inspector general and he was told to take the documents home. the other two, one was classified as plain office items. the other was declassified three months after he was prosecuted for having it. eventually, the case ended up with him pleading to a misdemeanor.

the idea that that could have been portrayed as a huge national security case under the espionage act, and that he could have faced potentially life in prison, suggests there is a judgment issue sometimes on these calls about what national security entails. >> bob dietz, how come that was not stopped earlier? >> i do not know. i know drake, some of the people he's dealt with, but i do not know the facts of the case. let me ask this general question, which i think is important. said quite panel directly that the obama .dministration is anti-press actually, it was said earlier that the effort to get jim from "the new york times" to testify

is a persecution. do you think the obama administration is anti-press? peter? >> i wish you could've started with somebody else. >> [laughter] >> anti-press is a broad phrase. i would like to get away from that maybe. specifics, how many have been prosecuted as leakers under the obama administration compared to previous administrations? the previous panel went over it and it is more than any other administration by several factors. that is rather concerning to me. what i was listening to in the previous panel, one of the there was people said that jim rising case, but that is really it. yes, you do not need more than one case to make your message. that is the point of that case. that case is equivalent to 100 cases to me because the impact is the same.

>> mark, do you think the obama administration is anti-press? >> like peter, i will punt that term. to answer your question, we have had trouble digging into what are the origins of this incredibly large number of investigations. >> they are not just investigations, they are prosecutions. >> tools available to the investigators are far better than they used to be, so prosecutors want to make cases, so they can be better than they used to be. that is part of it. at the very least, you see supervisors telling investigators not to go in certain directions. least, the aggressive prosecutors making their case against leakers are not being stopped. yet, some of these cases are holdovers from the bush administration.

there are conscious decisions being made not to stop them. youthat is, i think, where see the continuity between bush and obama. >> bureaucratically, being realistic about the way the justice department works, people start a case,evel they get very aggressive, and it is just like one of your editors at the "new york times" hesitating to tell you, don't pursue that story. it might appear that they are stopping you from a legitimate inquiry. the chain, if you talk to these people, there is a lot of reluctance to stop it a read the difficulty is, they are not setting the policy at the very top and saying -- from my point of view, i think they are either themselves by declaring or appearing to declare a war on the press. >> what frustrates me a little

bit about the way this discussion is categorized -- my hypothesis, all of these cases involve somebody who committed a felony. >> maybe. prima facie case. just like the police investigate robberies and white-collar crimes and so forth, it is hard for me to understand the argument that says this felony should not be investigated. if you are trying to put together a case -- archie cox, the watergate prosecutor, until he was bounced, in one of his , thes, start out by saying grand jury is intended to every man's evidence. he was quoting some british jurist. how is it that you put a line around this felony and do not

worry about it, but pursue other felonies? every time a white house official gets some comment about classified drone strikes, isn't that a federal felony, too? your point, and every time i have been involved in these discussions, i point makesw the official leaks the administration lose the high ground, for sure. it is so hard to explain rationally why a senior official can leak, but what happens at el, the world is about to end. >> but that is a really big problem. youhe earlier panel -- cannot talk with people about national security issues and not discuss classified information. that is just the reality. you know that. >> i agree with you.

>> so the idea that these few cases where they seem to have evidence, and they pursue them with this zeal and these tools may have, somebody at the top -- and i think this is a commonsense solution to say -- come on, let's get real. >> in this case. >> is it really worth it? the idea that the obama administration -- do you think the obama administration is anti-press? >> i think every administration is anti-press. >> i have known some. >> some more than others. >> i think there is a continuity here. >> is what the framers of the constitution understood. power has a certain tendency to make people want to hold onto power. aks, particularly of

unflattering information, are not welcome by people in power. the problem with the prosecutions, there is this sense that they are arbitrary because there are authorized leaks that are favorable and push one particular line, and then some that are unfavorable, and then prosecuted. is, who gets to define and decide what the american public should hear about what the intelligence community is doing? should the intelligence community get to decide only? should the press get to decide also? and what do you do with dissidents in your ranks who are critics, who feel maybe what they are seeing has crossed some lines, and is wrong, and they want to speak out about it? such an american act to sort of speak up in dissent.

everyone, toe, not use the legal term, bob dietz, admission against interest. if you can find people to talk to for a long time, they may say something that is against their interest that is true. just in the last 10 or so minutes, what is the remedy for the press, in terms of how we operate? is it to go in crete did -- e ncrypted? snowden told you, peter -- an amazing quote --unencrypted journalist communication is unforgivably reckless. encryption is required. not every communication i have requires encryption. not every relationship requires it. when it is required and you do

not do it, it is reckless. do you do as a reporter, mark, in this environment? what kind of frame of mind do you go into? now i have an excuse, i can tell my editors, i talked to six people and they all hung up on me. >> that sounds pretty good, actually. >> [laughter] >> as i said, a lot of it is less efficient. i think you have to be conscious of the security of your sources. .ou are entering into a trust i think, when you are dealing with people who have been involved in government, as your sources, you are inclined to think, they know how to keep themselves secure. they know better than i do the state of the surveillance. but i do not think that gets you off the hook.

i think that means that you have to be very careful, increasingly because that it is not of something that you have done that get your sources in trouble. this is notlso say a big mystery to me. this thing that we all carry around, sometimes you do not carry it around. that is an important measure of protection and is easy to take. for a very long time, reporters managed to do well without these devices. >> i remember i talked to the first time to somebody who was an important position in the intelligence world and he got out his black hairy, and took out the battery. i thought, what the hell are you doing? he said, then they cannot listen. in 1999, when i was covering the balkans, during the milosevic era, cell phones have just entered society there.

conversation about politics, you would not only take out the battery of your phone, but you would put it on the table, the phone and battery, not just to show that other person that the government was not listening, but that you are not recording their call with your phone. this was 1999. it is not so new in many ways. >> the question you asked a minute ago about what is the well, the solution is the american people. the american people, through their representatives, have decided that there are some things that are sufficiently important, that they ought not to be discussed in the open press. there are plenty of ways of addressing that. the american people agreeing to a shield wall. that is not going to happen.

i would be surprised if that ever happened. >> sometimes, the representatives of the people get it wrong. >> of course they do. >> we are on the outside. i do not buy that. i think part of the remedy is to be more aggressive, frankly. as a reporter. you have to work harder. i remember working on the fourth bush book i did, and there was a general who would not talk. e-mails, phone messages, intermediaries, nothing. so i found out where he lived, it was in the washington area. -- what is the best time when is the best time to visit a four-star general without an appointment? 8:00 p.m. on a tuesday, they will have eaten, are not in bed, not getting close to friday, so i knock on the door. he opens the door and looks at me and says, are you still doing

this shit? >> [laughter] >> and he meant it. he looked at me and just kind of had a disappointed look on his face, disappointed in himself and said, come on in. set for two hours, answered most of the questions, why? because i showed up. we do not show up enough. drop-incredible, the if you are worried about security and so forth. i have been two books on the obama administration trying to understand, and i think there is a lot of ambivalence about the press, as there always is, and you can deal with them. persistust show up and and you say i have got this, we can do our job. the tragedy of this is if we pack up and say, it is too hard.

the snowden era and the prosecution era has created a new world for us. i think it is really kind of the old world. eraarted in this index and -- in the nixon era. you are not on their christmas card list. it always is tough. we should remember that. work eight hours a day, maybe you need to work 10 or 12. cul-de-sacs, by curves way for people to come home. it was not the grand life that i thought it would be that "the new yorker." are honest with yourself, you probably do not sit on the curbs enough. >> i will say one thing from

your standpoint, what i imagine would be your standpoint. also,k the press needs, to make sure that when we do push hard and make our calls or something important enough to publish when the national security community says don't omit it really should be important enough to publish. should think about something that serves public interest. not every secret is equal. just because you find it out does not mean you need to put it in the newspaper or the magazine. anyway, there has to be an important public purpose when you take that on. >> peter. >> following up on your point about sitting on curbs. it depends on who's curb you are sitting on. generals have told you useful things, which is helpful for everyone. covering iraq and afghanistan, i

have found, being with generals, kernels, lance corporal's, that actually the people whose doorsteps i sit on, the better ones are the lower levels. the generals i have talked to -- i had an off the record talk with petraeus. taking notes, thinking this was great. i looked at my notes afterwards and there was really nothing in there whatsoever. one of his geniuses. >> he is very good at that. >> and so is michael hayden, by the way. >> that happened again and again with the senior officers that i would talk with. whereas, when i was hanging out with the specialists, the lance wasoral's, the captains, i finding out a heck of a lot more of what was really going on. >> but then you move up the food chain. i agree with you, sometimes the best sources are names that we

never hear about and no one else but then, if you are ultimately trying to write about decision making, you need to get to the generals and the white house or pentagon who are making these decisions, or the cia. >> i do not have the bob woodward special sauce to get that access. >> what gets people to respond is information. if you have the document or the notes or the details. if you go in and say, i understand you are launching operation pink starling tomorrow. pink starling is a protected code word. people will say, ok we will deal with this. >> actually, higher lever people may not know what that is. we are just talking about the nsa. there are so many there, and they are so technical, i would be really surprised if the high-level people know the number more than a small

of the most major of programs. >> i think you could be wrong about that. i think so. many could not describe the engineering details, but i would be surprised if there were more than a handful of programs -- >> i suspect a handful, you are right. but impossible to count how many programs there are in the nsa. we could save thousands and probably more than that. i just imagine it is beyond the capacity of any individual to have significant knowledge about more than a handful of the thousands of programs. , and iree with bob dietz agree with you, but the answer the low-level to mid-level, and then the top, if you can. then you get a total universe tortured. -- portrait.

we have a couple of minutes here before there is a coffee and martini break. maybe not martinis. deitz, you are the historian of this. what is going on here. when historians look back on this era, what will they say, the snowden era, prosecutors and of jim risen? >> i do not have an apocalyptic vision. unlike some members of the first panel, i do not in the west is about to end. civilization as we know it is disappearing. i think there are new challenges. the tension that jane was describing between administrations and the press, -- i worked in the carter administration. the wailings that went on in there about the stuff in the newspapers. i do not think that stock will ever end.

i would like to mention one more thing, if i may. in these discussions, there is often a lot of talk, as peter did, reference to the fourth amendment. -- tworeme court has cases that address fourth amendment issues in the criminal context that may touch on national security. they have always drawn a line between, on the one hand, domestic security, stuff that involves criminality in this country. on the other hand, dividing that from national security involving threats abroad. in the two major cases on this, the supreme court went out of their way to say we are not talking about foreign intelligence here, we are talking about domestic intelligence. my experience at nsa is that line was rigorously drawn and observe.

i think most reporters should rest easy about whether there will be an attack. i do not believe there is necessarily a fourth amendment rights when you are talking about conducting foreign intelligence. who covert reporters issues like terrorism, for instance, have many overseas own calls -- >> from terrorists? >> from as close as you can get to do reporting. they would try to get in there and understand what is going on. john miller,s -- who has worked in and out of the government, was famous for going in and interviewing bin laden. is that a crime, should that have been eu jobs on? >> if somebody is speaking with bin laden on the phone and we are not picking it up, the head of nsa ought to be tossed. >> [laughter] >> but under nsa rules, if that was the case, if it were jane

mayer, an american citizen, her name would have to be minimized. you are right. it would have to be minimized. andy minimization rules are religiously followed. >> i think we are done, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] in a few short months, the capitol visitor center will be completed. in that center, the work of this congress will be described to future generations. visitors will view an

introductory film entitled "out , e pluribus unum." in my first speech as your speaker, i said solutions to problems cannot be found in a pool of bitterness. the framers expected the floor of this has to be a place of passionate debate, a place where competing ideas and philosophies clash, a crucible where many ideas can be blended together to forge a strong nation. but this floor should also be a place of civility and mutual respect, and a place where statesmanship and not just elect oriel politics guide our decisions. .resident reagan was right there is no limit to what we can accomplish if you do not mind who gets the credit. eight years ago, i broke with

tradition, and gave my inaugural speech on this microphone in the well of the house, and not from the speaker's chair. i did so because i said my legislative home is here on this floor, with so many of you, and so is my heart. sitting in the speaker's chair is an honor i will always cherish, but i believe there is actually an even greater honor. there is one that each of you share with me. it is bestowed upon us by the citizens of this country, one by one, as they go into the voting booths, and elect us with their sacred ballot. it is the honor of raising our hands and taking the oath as a member of this house of representatives, and then to sit on one of these benches. so, on january 4, i will be privileged to rejoin you on these benches, where my heart is

, here on the floor of this great house. find more highlights of 35 years of house coverage on our facebook page. by americanted cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cap -- cable or satellite provider. during this month, c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this year's student cam documentary competition. competitionannual that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. the question we asked students to base a documentary on was, what is the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014. these are eighth-graders from beverly clearly school in portland, oregon. they want congress to make uncontrolled their most important issue.

>> violent killers. >> the national rifle association. in this past year, there have been numerous mass shootings. >> these shootings have left americans frightened and unsettled. issuenk the biggest congress should address in 2014 is gun control. to dr. frankalked palestra, a criminal psychologist about his opinion on gun control. psychologistiminal has caused me both to be involved in criminal cases involving firearms, and has cost me, they be more importantly, to study carefully literature that violence involving

firearms. in the course of all the wasstigations, what i found , among other things, one, our society regulates firearms just fine, in much the way they regulate motor vehicles. even though there is not a constitutional amendment that we have a right to have a car, and there is one that says we have the right to have a firearm, they are treated more as a privilege than a right. ownmajority of people who them use them responsibly. the people that use them irresponsibly or criminally, at the very least, they do not get to have them at all, usually whenever a sentence [inaudible] is greater because firearms is used.

bottom line is, firearms do not cause violence. while the people caused pilots. >> correct the compromise, i would say -- >> the compromise, i would say, is to make background checks a little lengthier, maybe for someone who has had mental illness or domestic violence, restraining orders, thing like that will stop -- things like that. although they do compromise right now, i think that we should make it a little harder to get a firearm in the future. >> i support gun control and i support it because the number of gun deaths and the number of injuries in this country is .ompletely unacceptable the way we handle guns come of those deaths will continue. those that make the paper that you read about, the big

shooting, they are horrifying. but the number of young people twoare accidentally shot or tragically take their own lives -- or who tragically take their own lives, the number of people who commit suicide in the country is horrifying. and people really need to .nderstand people die by0 firearms each year. in january, 2013, president barack obama presented his plan to prevent gun violence in the u.s. his plans include, improving the system, banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines of ammunition , creating stricter trafficking for the gun violence epidemic. >> i guess, my priority, i feel

strongly about assault weapons and others that have military applications, not things that people need for hunting or if they want to use it for self-defense in their home. the irony is, and those of you who have studied it know that people with guns in their home are more likely to be subjected to gun violence. and the victims are very often family and friends. a firearm with a large magazine capacity or that can hold a higher capacity is not one that the particular gun is anymore dangerous or vicious or any more of a problem than any other firearm that can hold a single round. the issue is with the person behind the gun and what their intent is. >> i do think that you can respect the second amendment and allow people to have a weapon to hunt, or if they feel despite the evidence if they think they

are safer if they have a gun in the house, even though they are likelier to have a family member die if you have a gun in the house, that is their choice. but i do think that we need to firearmsthe range of that we allow people to have, how much they buy them, and what they do with them. violenced to treat gun like a medical issue. >> the major county sheriff's association felt that gun control in and of itself would not solve the complex problems of extreme gun violence that are happening across this country everyday. >> a dozen more killers, 100 more -- how can we possibly even guess how many? >> the nra proposal for armed guards in schools may be helpful in some instances, but it falls far short of the strong,

serious, conference of action needed to stop the kind of horrific tragedy that occurred in newtown last week. ♪ >> the second amendment is a very controversial topic in the u.s. it states that people have the butt to keep and bear arms, is this still relevant in the 21st century? ♪ >> to watch all of the winning

videos and learn more about our competition, go to www.c-span.org and cook on student cam. and tell us what you think about the issues you -- these students want congress to consider. poster comments on the facebook page, or tweet us. the polish defense minister is here in washington, d.c. today and he is meeting with defense secretary chuck hagel. the two defense chiefs are holding a joint briefing scheduled for 11:15 a.m. eastern. we will have live coverage when he gets underway. while we wait, a look at the state of the global economy after the financial crisis from this morning's "washington journal." host: our next guest is michael mandelbaum, professor at johns hopkins university. "economic activity does not occur in a vacuum. it requires a stable political

framework, one that protects against disruptive intrusions from the outside and assures that economic life can precede -- proceed dependably." it makes sense. not always a reality. always a reality, and particularly difficult for the global economy, because order and stability at the local and national level is provided by government. but of course, there is no world government, and yet there is a world economy. forprovides the framework the global economy echoed the answer is, we do, the united states does. -- for the global economy? is, we do, the united states does. it is a service that the united states provides for the world. it is not as if the world is grateful or pays us for it, but we do it for a variety of reasons. one example is the fact that the american navy patrols the sea ways over which most trade passes. without the american navy, trade would be a lot more difficult.

the u.s. is crucial for the smooth functioning of the global economy, which of course benefits the united states, but a lot of other countries as well. host: you look at the tensions in ukraine and the story this morning saying that russia is having problems in particular with crimea. problems inlot of the structure there that are only compounded throughout russia. guest: crimea, ukraine, and what is really russian aggression toward ukraine is an interesting and important test of one of the basic propositions of the book, which is that in the 21st century, global economics is much more important than ever, especially for global politics and security. the russian economy is old -- is vulnerable to actions by other countries, such as the united states and the countries of western europe.

as should we, that is, the countries of the west, mobilize economice new sanctions on russia, that would make it very difficult for mr. prudent to continue his policies on ukraine. where weve in a world have economic tools to deal with the kinds of policies that vladimir putin is carrying out, which were not really available in the past. and the reason is, the enormous importance of the global economy, even to a country such as russia. host: we have spent a fair amount of time discussing the 20th century. about 25 years since the end of the cold war. you say people and their government have discovered that they can do far better economically by trading and investing with their neighbors than by attempting to conquer them. is, in a way, the great lesson of the second half of the 20th century. and that lesson was learned most

profoundly in western europe, the countries of western europe fighting each other and terrible and bloody ways in the first half of the century. and in the second half of the century, he began cooperating, now through the auspices of the european union, and they are doing much better. not every country in the world, unfortunately, is as peaceful and commercially minded as the countries of western europe are. in the western european category, and unfortunately, neither is china. but both russia and china are affected by the example of western europe and by the rising importance of economics, especially global economics. that is a hopeful sign for the future. it does make major war far less likely. it does not abolish war completely, nothing will do that. economy,se the global the subject of this book, is so important, war has become comparatively less important. big question and

to so-called rogue nations, north korea and iran, you say this, "neither has any commitment to integrate with the global economy. north korea stand entirely outside it, and an aversion to war plays no part in the thinking of the leaders of either country." north korea and iran. guest: those are the two most aggressive and dangerous company -- countries in the world because they are seeking nuclear weapons. they could make a lot of mischief and do a lot of damage. economic korea is an basket case kept alive by chinese shipments of fuel and food. at alllly, is not responsive to economic sanctions. but iran has resigned -- responded to economic sanctions. the islamic republic and the clerical dictatorship in iran relies on the sale of its oil to keep itself in power and the west has managed to reduce, to

some extent, the sale of oil, and put pressure on the iranian government and brought it to the bargaining table to try to negotiate it into its nuclear weapon program. whether it will work, we don't know. but it does, once again, show what is the premise of this book, and that is, the political power and not just the economic power of the global economy. host: i wanted to respond to some comments made earlier this week by hank paulson. you said that china is so integrated in the global economy, more than any other country except the u.s., that the future of the global economy depends on how fast china can continue to grow. earlier this week, the former treasury secretary hank paulson speaking here in washington and discussed growth at about 7.3% now. here is his assessment. [video clip] >> the big picture 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. sustainable. isn't we can get a bunch of economists in a room and talk about this, that, and the other thing. when you talk about what they need to do in terms of reforming the labor market, or moving migration restrictions, all of various social reforms, the government reforms, the economic reforms in order to unleash the potential in the private sector, to rein in the state owned enterprises, to reform the financial system -- you know, a $9 trillion economy.

to change the model is a difficult thing to do. is thethe good news leaders understand it. it is not like talking to u.s. politicians. sometimes, guess what, the problem doesn't exist to people. when you talk with them, they are very pragmatic. they know the problem exists. formerhe comments of treasury secretary hank paulson he served in the bush administration. that entire event is available at our website www.c-span.org. your reaction? guest: i agree with secretary paulson. china does need a better economic model to sustain high growth. but this is an important thing with my discussion of china in the book. in order to change its economic model, it will have to make in port and political changes and changes that, if they are made, will make china maybe not a full-fledged western democracy, but more democratic.

it is in china's economic interest to become more democratic politically. there was a report this past week that china by the year 2020, available on the c-span website, will surpass the u.s. as the number one global economy. guest: china may surpass the united states in total output, but china has four times as many people as the u.s. china could have an economy bigger than that of the united states, but still have its people with about one quarter the per capita income of china -- in china, and the political pressure in china is all in the direction of boosting the per capita income of the chinese people, making them better off. and that, i think, is going to dry -- drive the chinese leader, against their will probably, to implement some democratizing reforms for the sake of sustained economic growth. host: our guest is the author of more than a dozen books and also

a professor at johns hopkins university. his latest is called open quote -- is called "the road to global prosperity ergo we want to get your comments -- "the road to global prosperity." we want to get your comments. our first color is joining us from flushing, new york. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i don't buy this argument that economic prosperity or global trade will decrease the likelihood of war. look what is going on in russia. in china,forget, growth is increasing at double-digit, and at the same time, the letter edition of china is also growing -- the militarization of china is also growing. subjugated taiwan and other small islands by force.

.ake africa in africa, there is no global trade. thanks for the call. we will get a response. guest: it is true that war has not been abolished forever, cannot be abolished forever, and will not be abolished forever. increasing economic interdependence create disincentives for war on all countries, including russia and china. after all, china has claimed that taiwan is part of its territory to him ever since the founding of the people's republican 1949. and yet, it has not for many years and launched any new military initiatives to try to capture recapture taiwan. clearly anrussia has aggressive government that is not completely unwilling to use force. let's wait to see how this whole situation between russia and

ukraine plays out. we are at their early stages and have not yet seen russia incur real economic cost, as it may. if the western countries use their economic leverage on russia, i think we will see a real change in russian behavior. we don't know whether that will happen, but let's wait and see. host: this question from one of our viewers. is the world economy at risk when the international banks take such large risks? guest: as i note in my chapter on global finance in "the road to global prosperity," the global financial system is the key -- the achilles' heel of the global economy. to huge shocks, like the one we saw the fall of 2008 with the near meltdown of the american financial system, which have wide repercussions around the world. and unfortunately, that is built into the nature of finance in a free-market economy. in a free-market economy, there is a tendency toward bubbles,

which can then burst and do enormous economic harm. that is why it is important to thelate finance, and in wake of the great near meltdown of 2008, we've had a lot of financial -- >> good morning. i appreciate very much the opportunity to welcome my friend, the polish defense to ther tomasz siemoniak --tagon and to washington dc washington, d.c., and in particular to reciprocate for his very warm and gracious hospitality, and the hospitality of the polish people during my visit to poland in january. welcome.emoniak, we are glad you are here.

today was focused on reinforcing our solidarity and our partnership for the future of the polish-u.s. defense relationship, especially in light of the situation in ukraine and its impact on european security. you all know secretary kerry is meeting now in geneva with his counterpart from russia, ukraine, and the eu support these efforts to find a political solution and remain deeply sick -- deeply concerned about russia's ongoing activities in eastern ukraine. focusalation has been our , and russia must take steps to make that happen. the united states continues to stand with ukraine, and earlier this morning i called ukraine's acting defense minister to tell approveddent obama has additional nonlethal military assistance for health and

welfare items and other supplies. these supplies include medical , sleepinghelmets mats, and water. occasion units for ukraine's armed forces -- water ukraine'son units for armed forces as well as units for the border guards. the united states will continue to review additional support that we can provide to ukraine. in our meeting today, minister tomasz siemoniak and i agreed that russia has renewed its aggression to the nato alliance. and as you know, the nato secretary-general rasmussen announced a series of measures yesterday that the alliance will undertake to demonstrate this resolved. these measures, developed by allied commander breedlove, will vessels over the baltic,

more allied ship in the eastern and mediterranean seas, as well as enhanced readiness training and exercises. nato is also updating its defense plans and the united states has offered additional planners to help with that effort. we are also assessing what additional contributions we can offer to support our allies in central and eastern europe. these measures are not meant to provoke or threaten russia, but instead to demonstrate nato's continued dedication to collective defense. article five is clear that in -- an attack against anyone nato ally will be considered an attack against all members of nato. the united states is fully committed to meeting its article five response of the the. this is a critical time for the nato alliance. and for the polish-u.s. bilateral relationship.

is also an opportunity to capitalize on the strong relationship that our two countries have built together over the past 25 years. the solidarity and partnership we discussed today will identify new areas we can work together, including special operations ,orces, air force cooperation and additional exercises and training. it will also look at how we can our jointild on to aviation detachment and air missile defense collaboration. in recent weeks, the united states has significantly augmented the aviation andchment with 12 f-16's 200 support personnel from the air base in italy. we are committed to maintaining that augmented presence through the end of the year. this is a clear demonstration of america's bilateral commitment to poland. nato allies inr

the region. the united states is also encouraging other nato allies to contribute to the detachment. and i agreedoniak that it would be useful to open up the aviation detachment so that other detachment in the region can participate. one example would be romania, which is the latest nato member to acquire f-16's. willregionalized approach help strengthen both poland and its neighbors. our air and missile defense, i poland explores its options for its own new capabilities, he should take advantage of the opportunity to work together more closely, -- we should take advantage of the opportunity to work together more closely, leveraging our hands capability. this will benefit the entire transatlantic alliance. inpoland continues to invest modernization, the u.s. will increasingly look to poland as a leader in the region, and in

nato. the polish-u.s. relationship and -- ourred commitment shared commitment to nato remain an anchor of stability in europe. our alliance and the commitment to that alliance are important. thank you. i will ask minister siemoniak for his comments. we will be pleased then to take some questions. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. ice -- i talked with secretary chuck hagel on the phone. rising, crisis was a and we decided it was worth while talking about our cooperation. hagels why secretary invited me to washington and why i am here today. thank very much

the position taken by the united states. it has been a very decisive and clear position taken. and for the very specific decision secretary hagel talked , the american and polish f-16 pilots will exercise together. i would like very much to thank you for the declaration that american aircraft will stay in poland, at least until the current year's end. as far as cooperation between: and the united states, in our commerce -- the cooperation between poland and the united states, in our conversation crisishat, the current faster ands act

fuller. today, we agreed that we are going to take up work under the solidarity and partnership program between poland and the united states that is deepening military cooperation. that includes the context of the american installation in poland for 2018. and in aviation detachment with the presence of american aircraft in poland, and the opening of exercises with our partners in the region. we are involved in the acquisition of missiles. we want to see special operations cooperation. about american troops in poland. we are talking about cyber defense. these are the main elements that we talked about today and they will be included in the solidarity and partnership program.

muchso would like very poland to become an organizer and leader of the regional cooperation with them members -- the members of the regional alliance. lafayette, estonia, and others -- latvia, estonia, and others under the guidance of the united states. we would like the september summit to bring a transformation of the role of nato, and in particular we would like the increase engagement in the defense related. that we will cooperate closely in the run-up to the summit. ukraine.alked about

convergent.e operations for the u.s. for ukraine's will be coordinated by us. thank you. >> we have time for questions. >> the polish press is calling of nato.ge presence what do you make of these demand? have you decided? thank you. as the minister noted, and as i full we had a very discussion about an entire range of measures and options, starting with what general

breedlove offered to all of our nato partners. i don't see it as the demand. demand. i think it falls in the scope of where we can cooperate more fully, and cooperate in new areas of my new opportunities. as general breedlove noted, there may be some new opportunities for a rotational basis of forces. but no decisions have been made and we will continue to discuss these issues as nato is discussing these issues. >> this is for secretary hagel. askuld like to [indiscernible]

today in washington, we will , but also details within the framework of solidarity and partnership. we are interested in long-term solutions as well. with whatappy secretary hagel today expresses. >> for both of you. mr., now that a russian fighter jet has a essentially buzzed a u.s. navy warship, and your own aggressive and provocative, what options does the united states navy have when the russians do this? call theou not russians and tell them to cut it out and not do it again? what sort of self-defense does

the navy have against russia? and for the minister, sir, the bottom line for poland right now -- poland has been through the 90's and the soviets. how concerned -- has been and thethe nazis soviets. how concerned is your country that russia could march on poland? know thati think you our military did raise this .ssue with the russian military we have many instruments in our government to deal with these things. as to the question of what right , our ship was in international waters, the black sea. nations have a right to defend themselves, and we take that right very seriously and always have. >> can you tell me what was sent to the russians? >> like i said, we have communicated with the russian

military. >> did you tell them you're happy about this? >> we did not tell them we were happy. [laughter] thank you. that the history poland.k 100 years in it makes those in poland concerned about what is happening now. on the anniversary of our independence that we will [indiscernible] things must not be taken for granted. it shows how important alliances are, first, our presence in nato, and also with the united states.

they indicate very much how much we appreciate our membership in much peoplew very of poland expect a military presence in poland. our response to the current , he wants to thwart our interests. and we are making a significant to be a part of the alliance and we want to cooperate as closely as possible with nato and the united states. it is essential for our own security. >> mr. secretary and mr. keepser, vladimir putin repeating over and over again the building a missile defense system in poland, but also other countries of our region, will start a news -- a new arms race. in fact, he said it again today.

good indicator that ups program should be split before 2014? first, nato has made it very clear that the missile defense system in europe is not a threat to russia. it is a defense system. defense institution. i think that is the first point. continuing with with the enhanced adaptive approach to fulfill the anditments that we've made in the interest of poland, romania, and nato partners on missile defense. we will adjust where we need to adjust.

aboutsly, the whole point missile defense is about real threats, not about theory. casell always in any adjust where we need to adjust on timelines or any part of that system. >> but as far as the arms race, do you see it as an arms race? that is what putin is saying. says manynt putin things. that is ridiculous. it is not an arms race. it is a missile defense system and we've made that very clear. we have welcomed the russians to participate in that. >> for us in poland, we agree with the united states. and today, the secretary of defense reconfirmed that. i would like to note that the

construction is going to be ready in 2015. the installation will cover a significant part of the european territory and the poland -- polish territory. secretary hagel talked about the nature of this installation. it will be seen in the -- it is not in the context of an arms race. that is not the context of the current situation. hagel, did you say troopse presence of u.s. on the ground in poland, that you are considering that now? and i have another question for

the was of you if you say yes or no. >> what i said is that general breedlove made a number of recommendations to nato. there is an entire range of possibilities and measures that are being considered. rotational basis of training and exercises are always part of that. that is what i said. ground troops. what about aviation? >> all forces, yes. i was notbeyond that, specific. we will see what nato response to and what they come back with, based on the recommendations of general breedlove. >> a question for both of you in the context of the ukraine looking -- stop crisis. looking beyond the day-to-day events, if you look at the broader case of western europe, have you considered a longer-term campaign by the

russians to retake the soviet by means of military force? >> we have to be alert to all possibilities. the actions of the russians over are not onlymonths irresponsible and violate territorial integrity and sovereignty of a sovereign nation, but dangerously irresponsible. the focus of collective security , in particular nato, or any region and nation is to participate and protect themselves and think through what the possibilities are, what could happen. at -- based to look on past actions, we have to look at every possibility.

>> the president of russia, by the annexation of crimea, while that was taking place, the president spoke to crimea and any developed a dock -- and then he developed a doctrine. president putin talked about the needs of the russian minority in different countries, and there are a number of countries in the region. president putin also is value weighted the different actions that took place after the collapse of the soviet union -- evaluated the different actions that took place after the collapse of the soviet union. among our concerns is also the nato isthat the -- that being rejected.

as far as the installation in its member states. and also, what is happening in the east of ukraine, a situation over concern with the threatened rise of the minority and intervention is taking place. it is true that we are concerned by this. and the activity of the united states and the whole international community, we are looking forward to the meeting in geneva should there be escalation. we are concerned it will get out of control. >> thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we will have more on the humanitarian efforts in syria. that is at noon eastern. today, we spoke with a reporter giving us an on the ground perspective on the situation in ukraine. phonening us live on the from ukraine is andrew kramer. the headline this morning, ukraine push against rebels grinding to a halt. thank you for being with us on this thursday. guest: thank you for having me on. host: there is so much talk about. i want to get to these negotiations in geneva and what, if anything, they are doing in ukraine. what have you been seeing from your vantage point in the past couple of days? is overhat i have seen the weekend, the pro-russian have been in the

eastern ukraine, particularly this region north of donetsk in the city i am now. they announced a major military operation to confront the militants. the first real evidence of an .ffort to do that failed [inaudible] humiliatingly yesterday when an armored car was sent to this town and [no audio] separatist. they prefer to call themselves pro-russian activists. russian did hear from president putin today who said, yes, russians were involved in the situation from crimea, but we are getting conflicting reports from russian officials on what role, if anything, they are playing in eastern ukraine. we now hear from the administration as many as 40,000 russian troops are situated

along the border, and many of those are interest training -- are infiltrating without russian say. what are you seeing? guest: we see lots of soldiers in this town wearing uniforms without insignia. they wear a black ribbon on their sleeve, which is a symbol of the soviet victory in world war ii, and a signal of russian ideas. menof them are local man -- with rifles i came out of the armory of the local police station or some other source. it is quite clear that some of them are very professional and armed with weapons you would not find, mostly like rocket launchers andade radios, and they prepay -- they behave quite professionally.

many are saying they could be russian trained soldiers. there is quite a mystery around this, but it is quite clear that they are quite well-organized and well armed. secretary-general spoke of beefing up military forces in the region. do you think that will have any effect where you are? guest: no, i don't. nato troops will most likely not come here. it is an issue being decided between the crimean and russians. are talking with andrew kramer. i apologize for that slight delay. he is joining us from ukraine. these are negotiations going on already in geneva. the white house is saying it is prepared for another round of sanctions if these negotiations fall through. according to cnn earlier today, expectations were quite low in terms of any really -- resolution to this situation. if yet another round of

sanctions are put in place, from your standpoint, what is next? i think another round of sanctions would be unfortunate for the russians. depending on exactly what form they take, they could discourage foreign investment in russia and might hamper the ability of russian companies to access international capital. what they might do here is unclear. but what may have caused them is quite clear and this is the increasingly obvious military .resence in eastern ukraine i was on the square of this town yesterday and a group of soldiers were out gaping at them. they had captured military vehicles and appeared quite professional. felt it was a russian

-- operation. if there was a russian flag asing over, it might be seen justification for sanctions. herehether it will affect is difficult to say. the goal of the russians -- host: please continue. guest: the stated goal is to have [no audio] more local autonomy. if this can be obtained in talks in geneva, then i would expect that people here and there wouldle russian backers be ready to de-escalate the situation. the: one final point on economic situation in russia, because your colleague has a story adjacent to yours this ,"rning in the "new york times on the russian economy worsening even before sanctions hit.

putin hasis that already spent $50 billion on the x and has action in crimea, olympics and has action in crimea, which has its own economic issues. the question is, with these sanctions and the additional cost, how long can the russian economy sustain all of this? the economy is lifted by a tremendous flow of oil and gas revenues, about $1 billion a day. they werem had been trying to diversify outside of oil and gas. it comeshis is where in, because it would depend on foreign investment for interest rates insight russia, and inflation. .hat is of concern i think that is a real problem.

they are looking at protracted growth, or no growth, because of sanctions because they have failed to diversify in the last several years when energy prices were high, but not writing. andrew kramer, who is joining us from ukraine in the eastern part of the country. his story appears this morning push at the' moment grinding to a halt. it is available online at the new york times. we appreciate you very much. guest: thanks for having me on. represented ast to geneva to talk with ukraine and the european union about agreement on ukraine. officials say the goal is to de-escalate that situation. secretary of state kerry is there and the associated report asked if he is seeing any progress and secretary kerry shrugged.

vladimir putin rejected the idea that russian troops were in eastern ukraine. haveg up live, we will remarks from british foreign secretary david milbank, and ambassador to serious robert ford. -- two syria robert ford. the event starts in about 10 minutes at about noon eastern here on c-span. to get us there, i will show you an update on the land-use conflict that was taking place on a nevada ranch recently. it included the deployment of federal officers. this is from this morning's "washington journal." we are joined by the washington correspondent for the las vegas sun. i want to talk about this gentleman, clive and monday, and his ranch in nevada. cliven bundy and his ranch in

nevada. >> he is a 68-year-old rancher who has been grazing his cap -- grazing his cattle in an area of public lands and the government wants him to stop. his argument is that his family has been doing this since the 1870's and that the federal government has no jurisdiction to tell him to stop taking his cows wherever he wants to let them eat. last weekesulted in a armed standoff in the nevada sagebrush land where they tried to forcibly remove his cattle, accusing them of having trespassed. a bunch of militia members came in and they eventually stood down. legally, what is going to happen? because there are all of these court orders against him and he could lose his cows. but the federal government does not seem to want to get into an actual firefight just to remove some cattle.

really, been going on, for over 20 years. will he, won't he? can he flout federal laws? will there be some kind of justice meted out and maybe his cattle taken away? host: i want to share with our audience this map. as you move west of the , 80%ssippi, nevada alone of the land is under federal control. > [captioning performed by national captioning institute] -- guest: estimates range up to 80%, to 87%, depending on who you talk to. it is not very organized. most of the state is federal land. when you're on federal land, you're subject to federal regulations. when you are rancher, you're going to be quite frustrated. of beta federal laws and are just disgruntled. they do not go as far as to do what bundy does and take in

armed stand and say the federal government has no legitimacy here. that is a situation we've seen in the last few weeks with the standoff. now the question is, where do we go from here with this case, and what does this mean -- will people take advantage of -- will people take example from monday? >> the bureau of land management is in charge of about 245 , about acres of land half the land in 11 western states, including alaska. about 157 million of that 245 million in balls grazing, -- involves grazing, ranchers in some way. and there are these renewable applications that one has to make if one wants to have their cattle graze on federal lands.

you pay a usage fee, basically. it is the major piece of what the bureau of land management does. host: this is courtesy of vap. as people had gathered outside ofs nevada ranch in support there has been renewed support for harry reid. how so? guest: the latest one is that there have been a number of theories raised as to why this has happened now. there are a few component parts. harry reid's public lands eight was just confirmed as the director of the blm. that led to more speculation among some of the bundy supporters, especially in conservative media, that this is being done because harry reid is --ing to leave the land clear the land to build projects that have been dead for over a year now. there are all kinds of theory

circulating about why harry reid's guy at the blm, that this favor soim doing a they can put eighth solar our innt -- a solar power plant the manufacturing plant deal there. it doesn't really hold water, but it shows you how politically charged of an atmosphere this is and how anybody is looking for a finger to point and somebody else to blame the situation. when you get down to it, this becomes a very mundane and boring case about cattle's -- cows grazing on federal lands and a court decision going back to the mid-1990's. but it has gone on for so long that it has spiraled out of control and now we have a situation where there are fingers being pointed at the highest levels of federal government for why this is happening. host: and there is a lot from the web, including from the website info wars as far as the results you write -- as far as

theories. one of the faxed you point out is that the land identified for the solar land is about 90 miles west of las vegas and not near this particular ranch. >> it is actually about 200 miles away. the plant in question is a project where there is supposed to be chinese money coming in for it. the company, the chinese company pulled out in 2013. this is supposed to be at the very southern tip of nevada. if you look at a map of southern 's land,it is not bundy but the land he is trying to graze on is at the northeastern tip of the county. that much about grazing cows, but i'm pretty sure they cannot go quite that are in a single afternoon. host: bottom line, what is the next step? guest: that is a good question. you have these issues come up every time there's a public

lands bill in congress. right now in the state of nevada, and basically every state in the west, they are dealing with major issues about trying to regulate the territory more because they have this potential endangered species designation coming up for the sagebrush. you will probably have more regulations coming on federal land, not fewer. the ranchers are not happy about this. they are not advocating taking the bundy strategy and saying, forget the federal government, but they are sympathetic to the sentiment behind opposition -- that position. which is, this is too much. we cannot continue having our land for grazing trunk. you are not sympathetic to us and we are going to go out of business. and in a way, they have a point. these days, when they talk about new public lands legislation, the trade-off is usually, well, if you want to get rid of the federal government ownership of land for federal government -- federal government ownership of land, you have to do some

conservation, too. out and feeling left like they are getting boxed out, basically, as things go forward. we will see if anybody takes an example from the page of bundy, because he did get the federal government to step down. but as they just said a few days ago, this is not over. we will see what happens next. host: the recipient of a paul miller reporting fellowship, our guest is a graduate of harvard. she began her career with the chicago tribune, the cq, and the associated press. and now she is a washington correspondent for the las vegas sun. we would like your comments. muriel is joining us from

brookfield, florida. good morning. caller: isn't it the taxpayers money that buys the land? why can't we, when it is not in use, why can't it be used for the people who help us and feed people? i don't understand that. i would like an answer. i mean, i had more, to, but i can't think of the other part of the question. but that is mainly what it is all about. .e purchased this land the taxpayers are the ones that purchased the land they have. host: think you, muriel. guest: how can i get this without adding too much history? if you want to talk about whose land it is and the land exchange is, you have to go back to the 1800s when the government was french off land -- offload this land to people. they were pretty cheap sales

going on for quite a while. that did not flip until the beginning of the 20th century, which is when we got the idea that we had to do something to make sure the quality of the land stays solid. you're talking right now about an area of the west that is sagebrush land. eye, i thoughtd it was kind of like desert. there is a lot of vegetation, though, this short, bushy types of plans that animals can feed off of and there are natural habitats and a lot of different species. it is our land, the taxpayers land. and yes, that is the case. and there are many times when people are able to use the public lands for a lot of different functions. everything from camping to recreation to offloading -- offloading and hiking and grazing, too. it is a situation where public land is more closely regulate it.

it varies and is not uniform across public lands. there is also the regulation that asks the ranchers to pay a fee per head of cattle per month they are going to be grazing. something everyone is supposed to be paying attention to. as taxpayers, we have a right to public lands, but in another sense, you could argue that bundy is freeloading a little bit. there are rules for when you take your cattle to certain places you have to pay for that , right and he is not. other ranchers are. it is a very murky thing. most taxpayers are not ranchers. most taxpayers -- if you want to walk around that land, that is a lot easier to do. host: just to be clear, this case with cliven bundy is not