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 new, it has been going on for 21

years? guest: his family pay for permits and leases. in the 1960's and 1970's. then in 1993, there was a change to the regulations based on the regulations adopted to protect habitats. that was around the time that the desert tortoise issue came up in the west. bundy's last lease ran out and if hely 1993, blm asked was going to remove. he said no, he said i do not like the fact that you're making the regulations more restrictive. the government has the right to do that. that is when he said i am not paying this anymore and i don't see this as legitimate anymore. this is been going since then. host: i want to go back to this. it is fascinating to look at nevada alone. just how much is federal land. guest: all that orange. host: at what point did we start buying up this land?

how long have we owned it? guest: the government did own the west back in the day. it has been changing ever since the late 1800's. nevada became a state in 1864. the federal government has had a pretty open policy for decades, then they decided to buy up some of the federal land and regulate it more tightly. in the 20th century it became more conservation minded. i cannot give you a certain date as to when parts belonged to whom -- that would require a level of expertise far superior to mine. this has been the way of life in nevada for a long time. it is been an issue with ranchers and miners and people who want to develop geothermal energy sources underneath the ground. it comes up every time you talk about switching or selling or changing in some way the

authority of who is in charge or the ownership. that does change all the time, through acts of congress but it , is never easy. host: our guest is the washington reporter for the las vegas sun. joe is the next caller from covington, georgia. caller: how are you? i just want to ask -- tell us a little bit about sustainable development. c-40us a little bit about cities. the four history service and the land development is -- the the landservice and development is all coming out of the epa. i have been following this since 1992, i am an air inspector. we use machines to do our testing on automobiles. we are not seeing co2. none of this. we got in touch with them. it do not make any sense.

it sounds like there are a few issues in play there. sustainability of public lands, energy sources. clean environment issues. i'm sure they all dovetail together. host: this is one of the photographs for the ranch we are focusing on. this is near cliven bundy's ranch. can you comment on plans to resolve this? is the government taking a different avenue of approach? guest: there has been criticism. they started gearing up last year, giving him final notices. they started moving in in late march and early april. the criticisms have ranged around the fact that the bureau of land management created a first amendment zone. that made everyone quite angry. saying you cannot ask us only to protest in one area.

then they had armed law enforcement members of the federal government come in. there were not any shots fired. a few people got tazed. there were physical altercations. then, the roundups started. you did not try the softer approach first, how can you go for a harder approach? the hard approach only brought in a hodgepodge of militia automaticoting semioti rifles. they have this standoff out of control. what do you do? do try to sweet talk people who do not want to recognize the federal government? do you go in with bigger guns and potentially kill people? or do you let it go? for another 20 years. i do not think there is an answer yet. host: we have been looking at some of the photographs, many courtesy of the associated press. kevin is joining us from woodbridge, virginia.

caller: my question is -- you go back to the 1800s. when the europeans conquered united states of america, this land was taken for the native americans. my next question is -- i understand that the government owns land. isn't the land the land that american people cannot go on. like area 51. how is it that the government can decide what land we can go on and not? guest: that is getting into a whole other level of security and clearance issues. you are right -- this is not a clean history in this country. who took what from whom or what war was fought with what neighboring country. parcels of land that people took by force. this is been the history of much of the world, unfortunately. when we get to things like area 51, which is always a fun topic when you cover it nevada issues, it is a little outside the realm

of this. now we're getting into areas that have nothing to do with the bureau of land management. or cattle grazing, unfortunately. this is like a whole other level of defense policy, security planning, and things like that. that's a little outside the round. host: let me show you the headline from politico. there telling the sheriffs to disarm the bureau of land management. saying they are overstepping their bounds. guest: he has criticism for everybody. he is accusing reid of playing political games. he says that blm are overstepping their bounds. he refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the federal government in this area. he now criticizes the county because he says that county sheriff should have come in and intervened. the county sheriff says this is a federal issue. now he is saying i will recognize the authority of the state of nevada and the constitution of the state, but not the federal government.

it is very messy. the state of nevada recognizes the federal government. the constitution recognizes the federal government. it is not clear -- i do not believe that bundy is in a position, given the number of years he has been fighting this, where he will start to say ok, we will sit down and play nice and shake hands. that makes it that much more complicated. host: senator rand paul is also chiming in. in the washington times, he says that the bureau of land management has used bully techniques. guest: they did come in with armed law enforcement officials. you could say that for sure. you can also say that after 20 years, what are they going to do? he has not responded to anything else. even deals they tried to make that says we will take your

cattle away and sell them because you broke the law but give you all the profit from it. the calls are incredibly popular. they have a very strong libertarian streak. it was one of ron paul's biggest ground swells of support -- it does not surprise me that they are jumping in. this is part of their base. host: let me share with you this e-mail from mike in colorado. he says there is a long-term squatter worth millions of dollars who refuses to pay his rent despite losing all court disputes. guest: yes, and those millions of dollars, too. before we got to the standoff from last week, the federal government already said that he owes over $1 million in back taxes and obligations. he will also have to pay for the cost of the round up of cattle. it did not fulfill its goals that it did certainly cost a

pretty penny to have that transpire. our next karoun, caller is nancy from ohio. welcome. caller: how are you? it was my understanding that mr. bundy did not invite the crowd on horses or brandishing guns. he was not happy to have them there. am i wrong in thinking that i heard the federal government has euthanized some tortoises that live in that area? or was that just a rumor? host: thank you. guest: i do not know anything about euthanized tortoises. i do know that this did not start out with the supporters from across the country coming in. it was bundy and his large family hunkered down at his ranch at the beginning of the month. that was where this began. our reporters in nevada, they talked to a number of people who

said that they heard the news and got in their trucks and drove from idaho -- we saw one person from new hampshire. to lend their support. the support, i do not know whether bundy called for it himself, but it has not been refused. it seems to be what staved off the federal government, which is what he wanted. it might be a happy coincidence for people on that side of the dispute. but that is where we stand. many of the people who can, there were a few hundred people who came and are still there. this is not done and the protests are still happening. host: this is a photograph. it has become a gathering spot. also a political focal point. guest: that is basically -- bunkerville,e

nevada was before this? it has become a huge national focal point. it has hit a nerve with a lot of people in the country. that means that the frustration with the federal government over these regulatory issues runs pretty deep, even when you are not a rancher yourself. you find a common cause with a razor in touch with a rancher. that raises the question of what is next? even if nobody does step up, what will happen with the federal government asserting its authority? host: tom from california. caller: i would like to make a comment on the endangered species. this has been used for many years to control land and people. the folks in nevada, it seems they could have a win-win situation. a bureaucrat someplace has made a decision that the land is more important than the people. there could be a win-win situation -- i don't know why everything has escalated. to put this man and another man

losing their property. they are worried about an endangered species, have them raise tortoises. that would be great. work together. this is a bureaucracy run amuck. i have seen it in the santa monica mountains for years. it is nothing new, it is a national tragedy and i would love to hear what you have to say. host: thank you for the call. guest: you've raised a very important point. the threat of endangered species designation plays a major role. like it or not, the law says that if you declare an endangered species and then you infringe on its habitats, that becomes a crime. the state nevada was faced with that back in the 1990's, it was a question of the desert tortoise being listed as an endangered species. the west is dealing with that right now. in september 15 -- and september 2015, the department of interior had to make a judgment call on

whether to lift the ban. if it does, it shuts down the state. why doesn't the government favor the land over the people? they tied the lands to the species. if people want to retain an authority, the freedom to run as they want, they have the ability -- some sort of ability to not let their livelihood jeopardize these species, based on the mitigation of that habitat destruction. that is paramount. this is strange that we're having this come up right now, as the same players are involved right now in trying to create a way to make sure that these same sagebrush areas where these cattle are grazing, is not -- the quality stays to a level where it will not be regulated. that involves a whole host of reasons.

at the end of the day, the endangered species issue is a major crunch point. if you live in these areas, it is the worst thing that can happen. you are usually willing to play ball with the government in designing ways to mitigate that happening because it is a better deal for you. host: have you talked to senator reid? guest: not since he left for d.c. i have talked to his staff. about the swirling crisis and yes, certainly about fingers pointed at him. they are frustrated with the bundy situation and the fact that he has been targeted as -- that senator reed has been targeted as being the force behind all this. they think it is ludicrous and they have used stronger language than that to describe it. we heard senator reid say a few

days ago that he did not think this was over. this will not be resolved easily in bunkersville, nevada, and not just in congress. it will be a combination of tamping down what is exploding locally and also figuring out federally what can be done that will actually achieve the ends they want to achieve. as i 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 you try to designate a new piece of conservation land or wilderness or dealing with an issue like the sagebrush or endangered species act. the ranchers are often the most frustrated. very seldom do you have people saying that i defied the federal government entirely, but there is sympathy for these underlying sentiments because they come up all the time.

host: and social media is playing a big part in this? guest: 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 sharing. that is the way it goes. host: her work is available online at las vegas sun.com. thank you for adding your perspective to the issue. >> the ap is reporting the number of people seeking u.s. toloyment benefits rose 300-4000. the current level of claims suggests employers are holding onto workers with the expectation of stronger economic

growth. house party leaders had these remarks. house minority leader nancy pelosi tweeting "agreed with these governors. it is unconscionable how the gop has not acted to renew unemployment insurance. this from john boehner, roughly 10.5 million americans looking for work but only 4 million job openings. a reminder that coming up live, remarks from david miliband and former u.s. ambassador to syria robert ford. they will be talking about humanitarian efforts in syria at the washington institute for near east policy. scheduled to get underway at 12:30 eastern on c-span. discussion on medicare payouts to doctors from washington journal. host: joining us from new york city is reed abelson on the health care beat for the new york times.

guest: thank you and good morning. host: much of your reporting in recent days shows how much doctors have been getting in the cure payments. did you get, how this data, how difficult was to get released, and what did you learn? guest: it is very interesting, i ate to credit my colleagues dow jones and the wall street journal. they fought the good fight to the americandata medical association had spent decades blocking the release of this data. they are arguing that it would be misinterpreted there were privacy concerns for physicians. a federal judge ruled recently that the public right to know our way of these concerns and ordered medicare to release the data.

medicare tried to figure out how to do it. rather than doing it piece mail, they would release the data to the public overall. anyone who wanted could go into their database and search for the information. we were finally given, after decades, a view into individual physician payments, which is amazing. it is the first time we have been able to see how individual doctors practice medicare. host: here are some of the findings you wrote about. a sliver of medicare doctors get a big share of the payout. about 880,000 doctors and other health-care providers who take medicare accounted for nearly a quarter of the roughly $77 billion payment, billion with a b. you found that 100 doctors received a total of $610 million.

guest: it shows you how concentrated the position -- the physician payments are. it is why the enforcement part is so interested in looking very carefully through those payments to make sure there is no overbilling or inappropriate billing. it is fascinating, it gives you a window into what are the most --ensive specialties oncology, surprisingly, ophthalmology. ophthalmologists are using expensive drugs to treat .atients they ended up getting the highest payments. host: why is that? guest: the data shows you what .he payments are to the doctor

when they perform an office procedures where they might give chemotherapy or special eye drugs, they buy the drugs and medicare. some of those are just the cost of the drug, which are very expensive. this i will share statement from the american medical association. "the american medical association is committed to forsparency and the ability patients to make informed decisions. we believe the broad data dump by cms has shortcomings regarding the accuracy and value .f the medical services releasing the data without context will lead to misinterpretations, false conclusions, and other unintended consequences. payments or costs are not the only metric to evaluate medical

care. value, and outcomes are critical. the information released by cms orl not allow patients payers to draw conclusions about the value or quality of care. the ama is disappointed that the centers for medicare and medicaid services did not include safeguards that would help the public understand the limitations of this data. that is the statement from the ama. your thoughts? guest: the ama has some legitimate concerns but it is the beginning of a conversation. without the data you have no idea what questions to ask. idea really about the practice patterns of individual physicians. i think it is a fair question to ask why this orthopedic surgeon had so many more scans or mris and his colleagues.

is the data of this data. it does not tell you everything all at once. it does not give you a clean ranking of physicians or tell you that much about quality. it is a starting point. host: you write about the off the mall just say their profits are -- you write that the ophthalmologists say their profits are actually smaller than what it looks like. if you could explain that? guest: one of the things that physicians argue, and it's true, is that they represent revenues. they represent what the doctors are taking in. they don't at all take into account overhead, the cost of doing business, whether it is buying drugs, having sophisticated equipment. but that is true generally of any business. the revenue is not a profit figure. we didn't suggest that that is what the physicians were taking home in salaries or profits.

instead, these are the medicare payments to these physicians or in some cases the medical groups. there is some concern about the quality of the data, but we found generally, especially according to ophthalmologists, is that it uncovered other issues. the fact that one drug was more lucrative than another for physicians. all of these questions, you know, come to light from this data, and certainly it is a starting point, but it is a fair point to have physicians have their medicare -- this is government money, what is paid to them, and follow up on what that means. host: let me follow-up on two points. we put some information for our -- on the screen. but for our radio audience, i want to share with them as well that most of these ophthalmologists based in florida, texas, california, new york. look at these numbers -- $1 billion for eye drugs, $929

million for cataract surgery, over $700 for eye exams. reed abelson, do you want to go through those numbers and explain? guest: sure. i think it makes sense -- one of the things to think about, again, in terms of ophthalmology, is because of the aging process, nearly everyone is going to need an ophthalmologist in some fashion. cataract surgery is very common, and medicare is paying a lot to these physicians to do cataracts. the price of the drugs and the fact that the drugs are treatments for very serious eye disease is something that the data actually illustrates. similarly, you have lots of folks who are having trouble with their eyes and the eye exam is another big expense. again, having a dialogue on are we spending too much money on drugs? are we not spending enough?

what exactly are the eye doctors that is generating such large bills for the medicare program? host: as you sift through these numbers, was patient information included by cms? guest: not at all. obviously, cms is very concerned about patient privacy. that is a big drawback with the data. you cannot tell whether -- you can't follow the patient so you don't know exactly the pattern of practice for the individual patient or even a group of patients. there is no patient data. that is a clear limitation and it is hard to generalize about what physicians may be doing. host: reed abelson is health-care industry reporter, she writes for "the new york times," and she joins us today from new york city. we want to get to your calls and comments. we have a line set aside for those of you who are medicare patients.

(202) 585-5883. you can also send us an e-mail. host: let's go to john, joining us from savanna, georgia. caller: good morning. i believe that the docs are being paid more than they should be. the example i have -- i took my mother to the orthopedic doctor because her knee was bothering her. he gave her an x-ray. we got the bill, and -- she also needed a knee brace -- we got the bill, and something came in for the knee brace and they charged me $2200 for the knee brace. i think that is outrageous. comment, please. guest: i think it is hard to know on an individual case, and i would also caution that sometimes what the physician charges isn't what the physician is paid. but that is exactly why we need this kind of data, we need this kind of conversation.

there are pockets within the medicare program where it seems that even for a specific kind of procedure, or kind of equipment, or, for example, a brace, the prices don't make sense. that is the kind of dialogue that this data should actually spark. i certainly appreciate your concern on that. host: your colleagues over at "the wall street journal" have broken down what they call doctors pay. much of this, reed abelson, you have alluded to. a nephrology dr. with about 7500 providers taking in an average of $224,000. the ophthalmology, leading the list of the number of providers, amount paid out is $327,000. the list goes on. this data is available online on "the wall street journal" website. marcia is joining us from decatur, illinois. >> we will leave this discussion

to go live to the washington institute for near east policy for a discussion on humanitarian efforts in syria with former british foreign secretary david miliband and former u.s. ambassador to syria robert ford. among otherria, things. syria and everything in effects in the region. the discussion today is about the syrian conflict and where strategic interests and humanitarian intersect. with over 160,000 people killed, countless thousands injured, missing, or detained, the syrian uprising continues to make a grizzly an indelible mark not only on syria but on the middle east as a whole. over 40% of syria's 23 million population is displaced internally or as refugees during three years of a bloody uprising. seriously ever taught -- syria recently overtook afghanistan in

leading amount of forcibly displaced persons. attempts to brin about a settlement have alluded you cash attempts to bring about a settlement have yielded little. noted that ther regime's bombardment o marked the most concentrated killing to date. during those peace talks. following the breakdown of those assad regime'se unwillingness for discussion. assad is holding out for another transition to his third term, which could be announced next week. if this occurs, it is extremely unlikely diplomatic efforts would put the pieces of syria back together anytime soon or

resembling a functioning state. while this situation has brought misery for the syrian people, it has increased regional and international security concerns. many have compared syria's of the former yugoslavia. it now looks more like somalia, where a civil war has created a sanctuary for criminals and terrorists. fractured intody three barely contiguous areas in which u.s. designated terrorist organizations are now ascended. . the regime that holds sway in western syria, fighters from has followed, a shiite group backed by iran, regularly cross the border. shiaare bolstered by militia, leading some to refer to the region as iran's.

underr region has come the control of al-nusra and the islamic state of iraq in the levant. ofthe north, an offshoot the pkk operates freely. statess by neighboring and world powers to contain the crisis are under stress. car bombs have rocked lebanon jordan suffers under the stress of 615,000 refugees. what is sometimes called the region's security architecture, the post-world war i boundaries, as well as the people within that architecture, are under st

ress. this has implications for stability. to help us understand how the humanitarian crisis in syria and ar intersects with the west, i am joined by two guests. the president is and ceo of international rescue committee. he oversees the relief and development operations in over 40 countries. irc's advocacy efforts. of the world's most honorable persons. mr. miliband had a political career and the u.k., serving between 2007 and 2010 as the youngest u.k. foreign secretary was aee decades, he strident advocate for human rights. as secretary of state for the environment, he pioneered's the emissionirst

requirements. he served as minister of communities and local governments, and the head of 10ning street's number policy unit. mr. miliband's parents fled their home in belgium in the 1940's. son of refugees, he brings a personal commitment. he has a reputation, in the words of bill clinton, as one of the most creative public servants of our time. an advocate for the world's uprooted. he is joined today by ambassador robert ford. ambassador ford is a 30 year veteran of the u.s. department of state and peace corps. recently he finished his career as the u.s. a messenger to syria, where he served from 2011 to 2014. this is not ambassador for's first appearance, it is his first time "in the flesh."

injoined me via skype october 2011 from damascus. for his leadership of the american embassy in damascus, including his july 2011 trip to support peaceful protesters. he received a presidential honor award and the english servant award, the state department's highest achievement. for his defense of human rights in syria, the jfk library awarded him a profile in courage award. enchant for dealing with the middle east started as a member of the peace corps in morocco. many, he learned arabic fluently and he often landed in the hot seat and hot places. he served three times in iraq, including as the ambassador's political advisor during the

elections. later, as deputy ambassador to iraq, he assembled a government team that devised security plans the administration used to set up to my posts and iraq. ambassador to as algeria, deputy ambassador in bahrain, and was posted in egypt, turkey, and cameroon. we will start with mr. miliband, then ambassador ford. >> thank you. it is a realn, pleasure to be here at the washington institute, which has a well-deserved reputation as a critical forum for public debate and dialogue. issues. unfashionable it is a source of enormous sadness to me that this area

crisis, the regional crisis that is engulfing a large part of the middle east should become a crisis that many people don't want to talk about. i am grateful to the institute for putting this event together. i am particularly delighted to share a platform with ambassador really deserves much more than i do your very fine introduction. has earned it through some extraordinary public service. i am looking forward to our conversation. when we first talked about having this event, we wanted to tease out the interdependence between politics and the oranitarian challenge agenda. obviously, traditionally -- i have moved from being someone who dedicated my career to using politics and government to solve problems. i have now moved to dealing with

situation where governments or politics are the problem. i am looking at issues from the other end of the telescope. traditionally, the humanitarian sector sees itself dealing with the consequences of political --lure or government failure most obviously that is civil war. what is really interesting about the serious crisis and emblematic of whiter humanitarian challenges -- of wi der humanitarian challenges. it is not just political instability, is that humanitarian crises cause political instability. true inself evidently the countries of the middle east that are afflicted by the syrian crisis. afghanistanrue in large parts of africa. i hope we can tease that out in

this discussion. a few things about how things look for us as a humanitarian organization that is now dedicating about 20% of its global budget to the syrian crisis. say, in short, is that the serial emergency has become the defining humanitarian crisis of our time. it is being defined for all the wrong reasons. above all, the failure of the riseitarian community to to the huge challenge that is cocktailthe terrible of dictatorship, religious amity , communal sectarianism, interregional power plays, global power plays, that is at the heart of the syria conflict. we were expelled from syria in

2009. we are not officially recognized in the country. we are working inside syria on a cross-border basis and in the neighboring countries of turkey, jordan, lebanon, and iraq. about 60% of our work is cross-border. background, given that we are in washington, we are headquartered in the u.s. a plurality of our funding for the syria crisis now comes from europe. which is interesting, an indication of the relative priority of the syria crisis. a bit about why the collective response looks more like a defining failure than a defining success for the humanitarian enterprise. humbled andsly

proud, humble in the face of the efforts of irc's staff. we think we have helped about .5 million syrians access medical aid. inside the country. n partners, some of whom are in the room today. half a million more syrians have had access to nonmedical aid. winterization kits and other help. refugees haveof had help from us in neighboring countries. what is the response look more like a failure? it is about the mismatch of need and help. million people are homes.ed from their

we want to try and capture a sense of the dynamism. if i had been giving this speech or these remarks a couple months ago, we would have talked about 2.4 million syrians and the seized areas -- cities that are cut off from aid. the u.n. now talks about 3.5 million syrians cut off from aid in the seized areas. a one million increase over the last two or three months. of course, inside syria it is a failure. the very notion of a civilian has been lost. that has wide consequences for those of us who are concerned about international law or humanitarian law around the world. the president that has been set in this area crisis is that there is no such thing as a civilian, there are only -- whether you are an aid worker or a civilian, you are presumed to be on one side. the mismatch extends to neighboring countries. , 5 million people, one

million refugees -- that is likable whole of britain coming to america in the space of three years. you might like as, but not that much. found a way to dramatize what it means for countries like lebanon. also for close allies of the u.s., like jordan, 650,000 registered refugees. the jordanian ambassador talked about an equal number of unregistered refugees. 5.5 million, it is the equivalent of the whole of poland coming to america in two or three years. refugees are- the the victims of multiple displacements. they have not just come straight into onembarded city of our centers. they have been displaced around syria before making it out of

the country. the education issue is getting some play in terms of refugees in neighboring countries, women and kids. now there are 80,000 kids in lebanon who are going to school in the afternoon. that still leaves about 300,000 syrian children in lebanon who have no education for three years. the estimates are by the end of the year there will be 500,000 kids not getting any education. that kind of mismatch we are talking about. any of you who have been in -- the emergence of , 1000 lebanese towns and villages have had their population more than double. the shelter issue is enormous. billion appeal, $5.5 asked for on a regional basis, $1 billion received, a 16% achievement rate. that is evidence of the

mismatch. obviously, the crisis is getting work but the political process has stalled. let me give you a bit -- since the un security council resolution, something that organizations have worked hard for. it is pretty shocking indictment of division within the security council that it took three years to get a resolution solely on the politically neutral question of humanitarian help. twoe then, there have been border openings from turkey into syria. convoys of food have come in for 4000 people. them for one year, that is feeding them once. it is important not to get this -- out of sure should proportion. temporary improvements and aleppo allowed supplies. these restrictions on the u.n. and ngo's inside syria are

hampering aid in 12 of the 14 governartes. in terms of where this is going, we are very concerned with increased summer, risk of disease. lio outbreak last november. people are not talking about measles. the danger of drought in the northeast of syria is very significant over the summer months. a food crisis. continuing destabilization of the neighbors given the thousands who are arriving every day. it is the resilience of the neighboring states that has been extraordinary over the last three years. i do not think we should be complacent about it. i just want to pick up something that andrew referred to. someone said to us, president

assad has got the war that he wanted. it is a war in which his enemies are described by some people in times of making them as bad as him. in that sense it is the war he wanted. you used the example of somalia. morenk it is on most serious -- i think it is almost more serious. i thought about the afghanization of the center and east of the country. in the sensetion it is no man's land in governing terms. there was an interesting piece in the london review of books this month by professor who talks about a cradle for a resurgent al qaeda in part of syria. is notion of afghanization appropriate. let me finish with the following reflection.

we and the humanitarian sector talk about campaigning for more access. we talk about access issues that making it difficult to get humanitarian aid through. it makes the problems almost seem like an unfortunate accident. it is almost as us -- the example i give, if someone is notg strangled, you do say they have problems accessing air. it is an active process, not a passive byproduct of your arteries or something. situation inian syria is not the accidental byproduct, the unfortunate byproduct of a war. it is the strategic product of a war without law. really important to understand that and try to think

to what extent can the humanitarian sector be helped? we have the ability to staunch mitigate the suffering. but not the ability to stop killing. to stop politics killing. if you are interested in stanching the dying or relieving the suffering, i can report that we have the capacity to do more. the funding constraint is bigger than the security constraint at the moment. how can we break that cycle? one, with the best will in the world, john kerry has a lot on his plate. he cannot get anything other thistemporary attention to area crisis. we are doing that every permanent member of the security council and all interested appoint aould

humanitarian envoy to be a full-time focus on the humanitarian crisis. a diplomat of distinction and of theirth the support head of government to give a localengagement at level and also an international level to the humanitarian situation. recurring cease-fires and opening up to public scrutiny the abuse that is going on. it is very important that we legitimize and talk about and emphasize the centrality of cross-border operations. to do not need a resolution legitimize cross-border operations, governments have a responsibility to facilitate a cross-border effort. at the u.s., it is important not to lose sight of that. thirdly, one of the important parts of any humanitarian agenda has to be to put pressure on the supporters of the parties of the

conflict. so they have to be held accountable. fourthly, the mandate for the , the image ofria , two cars coming out of the middle of homs with civilians between the being shot at. it is a tribute to the bravery of the u.n. they need to be supported and the work that they are doing. if we have been having this and ig three years ago had said look, my fear is that in three years' time, there will be 160,000 and 6 million displaced within the country, 3 million next door, 1500 kids assassinated, polio on the list. after saying it cannot be that

bad, i think we would have said my goodness, we have a responsibility to do something. that kind ofaving perspective. otherwise, our senses are going to be doled to what is an extraordinary crisis that is not going to be contained within the boundaries of one country. thank you very much indeed. [applause] >> good afternoon. andrew, let me thank you. patrick, who is here somewhere. for the invitation to come today. i'm very flattered to be with david miliband. i have huge respect for the work that the international rescue committee has done on behalf of syrian's. it is a big honor for me to be up with a table with you. i want to say i see a number of

familiar faces here. i just want to say hello. me at cummings was with the embassy in damascus. the state department sent her to work in yemen. [applause] glad to see you home safely. did you ever do paris? connie mayer is here from the state department, she and i have noodled the syria-lebanon conundrum. jeremy shapiro is here. it is a tragedy. i see basam here. 2011, we had hopes that the regime would actually engage seriously with the opposition, i , trying lot with basam to get the dialog started. it ended when the regime went

into a couple of places and arrested everyone. its intent was clear by july 2011. what can i say? david did a brilliant job. a couple points i would like to make. the united states is hugely concerned about this. at the state team department and the u.s. agency for international settlement cash for international development who work on this. donor the largest single to the syrian relief efforts. billion.ow of $1.7 that is a lot of money in this budget climate. 1.7 billion got to $ after secretary kerry went to a conference in kuwait in january

a $380d announced million increase, which brought our total funds available for syrian relief efforts up. that is going in part to million, and.6 particularly in turkey and lebanon. in lebanon it is almost a third of the population. jordan and iraq. a large part of that is going to help people in need inside syria . part of that is distributed through the united nations. signal a huge thanks to the united nations for their efforts in syria. there are a lot of heroes working inside syria. doingnd valerie amos are

their utmost. in addition to the 1.7 million dollars, there is additional money we are providing to areas where the syrian regime has lost control. this is the north and northwest, eppo, a bit to the east. we are providing rescue equipment, food, and now paying salaries for police and even teachers to keep communities going. in the end, as stated so eloquently said, the crisis is not getting better. the crisis is getting worse. the people in the refugee camps where other people are directing assistance. to me, they are the lucky ones. the ones that are really

suffering and the ones i want to spend a couple minutes talking about are still inside syria and are under blockade. which i find outrageous. according to the latest u.n. estimates, the syrian government forces have under blockade approximately 175,000 civilians. 200,000down from about at the start of the year. they are mainly located in the damascus suburbs. there are some other places like homs where there has been an uptick in fighting over the last few days. aid action, blockading convoys, namely u.n. convoys and red crescent. this blockade contravenes the geneva convention, it is illegal and outrageous. we have to be honest about it.

it is a regime tactic of war. the regime basically is doing sensitive areas it is trying to recapture. often the places they are trying to retake our near highways or just outside damascus. they don't have enough troops to go in, the regime is now suffering from a manpower shortage. that is why the hezbollah intervention and iraqi shia militia intervention is becoming more martin. -- more important. they do not have enough troops for a full-scale assault, they surround communities they are trying to recapture and shut down traffic in and out. what that has created in the last few months are efforts by people inside, civilians who are literally starving to death, for local cease-fires whereby in return for armed opposition elements turning over heavy

weaponry that regime will let food supplies in. in some places, these local cease-fires have been respected and observed for a time. in some places, they collapsed almost immediately. what is important for people to understand is these blockades are conscious government tactical war, and it is not going to change as long as the regime is fighting for its life. even in places where the regime has allowed cross-border voys, basically they allow them to go in in places thep the kurdish militia, pkk's militia is in control, so the the convoys pass and went largely to its friends.

the resolution passed in february was a great step forward, but it is not being intimate that on the ground. we can talk about the russian reactions to this, if there are questions from this audience. let me finish my remarks quickly by just talking about the opposition and its role in blockades. country say some both sides are doing this. i have heard that quite a bit in places like geneva. the reality is that there are some small towns which the opposition also has blockaded, and in particular, two that you have heard about regularly. and another. thee are not what like regime has inflicted. airtighte are not

blockades. intosupplies could come these places from the north. these are places which have been shelling opposition site inside aleppo, which is why they have attracted attention from the opposition. i do not justify the blockade. theseposition has imposed on places. it is nowhere near the scale of what the regime is doing. to equate the two misses the broader point of what is going on in syria in terms of human rights violations and violations of international norms. remarks last week from the united nations human rights commissioner were spot on. say, it isi want to important as we deal with the opposition, and we talk to them

about humanitarian law and access, they have themselves, they are very splintered. i remember it was said to me u.n. try to run convoys last winter they had to go through 53 roadblocks between damascus and aleppo. they were roughly half-and-half, half regime and half opposition. as we the americans think about the opposition and how to encourage the moderates, one of the things we need to do is find ways to bring the opposition to work in a more coordinated fashion. there needs to be some color say -- some consolidation among their ranks. openl stop there so we can up for questions. thank you very much for this invitation. [applause] >> thank you, robert. thank you, david. i am going to start off with the first question for this

conversation, and it is a bit of a conversation, i think. i think both of you did an excellent job of outlining a lot of the symptoms of this crisis. any humanitarian sense, oftentimes the policy response ,s about dealing with symptoms numbers of displaced persons, a food packets, these kinds of issues. from both your presentations, but particularly from david's, there was a sense that dealing with the symptoms of the disease was no longer adequate in that the conflict was obviously growing in scale, while it has fallen off the television screens of americans the tragic due to plane that seems to have gone down in the southeast indian osha or crimea. room is filled with

people who are concerned about this. by your been done organization and by the united states government, as robert outlined, to deal with the symptoms, but how do we come about and deal with the disease itself? trydo we get on a track to to deal with and bring about an that theyjust an end to t can end up with its however he sees far, but where syria can begin to rebuild the future? look, there are two inhibitions in answering that question. it is a remarkably difficult question. i am running an international humanitarian

areorization where people in daily dangers from so there can limit about how i speculate about taking over the line into politics. to understand where we are before you can figure out where to go to come and it is easier for me to talk about then perhaps what might happen next. the moment of maximum weakness of the regime was shortly after ambassador , the second half of unity of thehe opposition forces with us not degradedntly and the sense of alliance of

government forces was weaker. second point, i think that i am allowed to say that many of the arguments are being put against the greater involvement by the st gotthat if the we involved, there would be more al qaeda, more chemical weapons, that that would happen anyway. it is worth rebutting that over the course of that, the last two years, where western governments have undoubtedly reflected that caution and the leery miss of their populations in getting their fingers in another middle eastern mangel and that caution that has been brought to bear in that. many of the things we most feared that would be triggered by further western engagement are happening anyway, and that is worth reflecting on. thedly, i think that atential of this to become

regional crisis is now very potent. report in january syria, a regional crisis. one has to understand the extent to which the regional players have got involved. --t the inns to speak to the if you take those three points, you can draw implications about the way in which you might need to address it in the future. >> ok, robert? from the beginning, we have seen the only way out of this conflict is they would ultimately -- there would automatically have to be a negotiation between the opposition and the regime. that is why we worked so hard to

get to a geneva conference, but to be honest, that did not go anywhere. the regime is not interested in the initiating any kind of a transition government, and that was made abundantly clear in geneva. what was also interesting was that the russians either could not or did not exert enough pressure on the regime to evenlly make it discussed, put on an agenda for discussion of a transitional government. the opposition did actually table and interesting initial proposal for a transitional government. you can read it on the internet for those who are so inclined. thehe root cause of hasation is assad who generated huge opposition against many communities inside syria. the fate of him is tied not to the fate of the nation. announcement of

running for reelection, the regime said it will announce a date in the next week, and bra special envoy will company that setting up of the transitional government. it is not a surprise, there needs to be more pressure on the regime. that is part of it. another part of it is there is going to have to be diplomatic parts in terms of getting an agreement with the various players in the region and internationally. i mean in part russia and iran. iour interests are not being continuationad's of this war. in addition to the regional instability that david was just talking about, there is also a very real security threat. there are lots of chechens now learning tricks of the trade in

syria, fighting on behalf of the opposition. they are all over the youtube. represent the majority of the fighters against assad, but they are absolutely there. and that cannot be good for russian internal security. the iranians also should be -- beware of a large where ald space that qaeda and their friends have a great deal of room to organize. is now a symbol that is attracting jihadis. we will need pressure on the regime and we are going to need to find some kind of international consensus in order to restart a political initiation. i do not think that is today or tomorrow. follow up,

currently we have a huge number of sanctions on the assad regime including individuals, energy exports. we have also support for the opposition itself. what kinds of pressure are we talking about? are we talking about ramping up current pressure, pressure that has been exuded so far? go into detail about that. >> i think the question is for you. [laughter] >> to me, andrew, there are three kinds of pressure that will be important. and sost is it is a war, assistance to moderates on the ground really matters. the state department is providing a lot of nonlethal

assistance to elements of the free syrian army, and i think that assistance is vital to helping them carry forward the fight. second, there is also a different kind of pressure on the regime, which matters, and i spoke about this recently at the wilson center. it is important for the opposition to find ways to reach out to those communities in syria that still support bashar and explained that they have a vision that does not include large-scaled retaliation or any retaliation against those communities, minority or otherwise, that have supported the regime. there is a genuine fear -- read the immediate reports -- in damascus that if the opposition wins, long bearded extremists are going to go through and cut throats. it is incumbent on the moderate

opposition to explain that they do not represent that, they are taking steps to forestall that, and thereby give those communities which have supported bush are -- and not very enthusiastically in many cases -- give them an alternative. that is the second kind of pressure, undermining the regime politically. third is undermining their foreign support, the support that russia and iran have absolutelyr instrumental. i just today read a blog posting from a reddish journalists come up in -- a british journalist up in a lentil, and they were talking about how they were hanging on in aleppo. the regime is losing ground little by little up there. the syrianing about regime soldiers who moved away from the fighting for a day or two, and they mentioned that hezbollah had just sent in 250

new troops, very good trips, and they do not drink like we do, which i thought was very interesting. [laughter] so getting, convincing the foreign supporters of the assad regime that there has to be a better way is also important. i think all three of those tracks have to be pursued at the same time. >> let me pick up a second point that the investor made that is worth drawing out. politics, policy is much easier when you're not in it. you see what mistakes your successors are making. as to actually do the right thing when you're there, one thing that has struck me about the last three years, and this speaks to what role the friends of syria play, for the last three years, now in all the

debate about military in scale, yes or no, the absence of a clear political whatr to the question of we are talking about a transition to, what comes after president assad, the vacuum when it comes to political security, constitutional, economic ofrantees, and underpinnings a functioning state, the absence of that political settlement about the distribution of power has been very striking. and i think the absence of that elliptical -- it is not about political vision, political settlement speaks more strongly to the lessons we should have learned from iraq and afghanistan -- the absence of that political settlement, you do not get the affections from inside the regime, you do not get the rallying of public opinion, you do not get the context within the military to

and fro takes place. i do think that without that kind of political orientation, it is very hard to see words post-compromise and comingnt bashar assad up. >> we will begin with questions. yes, just one. we will go one by one. >> thank you, andrew. my question is a to a master ford and to the extent mr. miller band wants to chime in, please. i want to pick up on your last point about reggie -- about engaging regime supporters. the attempt as it comes to the russians in the past, but there are ongoing talks with iran as it relates to its nuclear program.

statede publicly position has been that these talks have been focused on nuclear issues. credible been reporting in which i'm sure you are aware that there are some back channel initiations that have taken place. my question to you is, a two-part question, your personal assessment as to whether that would be helpful at all in trying to get a political resolution to the problem in syria, and, second, is whether you think that might be ongoing if you are at liberty to discuss that. thank you. since i retired, i actually cannot tell you what we are doing with iran today. let me say couple of things. number one, i ran is an -- iran is an important country in that region, and it has interest in ant, so they are going to have to be engaged some point. there was quite a discussion about whether or not they should be invited to the january 22

conference come and in the end they were not because they themselves would not come out and publicly say they accepted 20 geneva communique of june 11, and the invitation to montrose, said acceptance of the communique and negotiation to stand up a transition government. it is actually what david was talking about as well, and the day she ate the division of power within the transition government and a longer-term plan for a settlement. but we have always said for us that even if iran was not at that conference and was not in that initial event that there needed to be a way for iran to be included in discussions in some manner. but i am not aware that that has ever actually been agreed upon, and how that would be done, i

can imagine lots of different models for that, and i am not sure what would be acceptable not only to iran, but the other countries in the region who are extremely sensitive about iran and not to mention the syrian opposition itself. to figuring out a way to deal with iran, but cannot exactly say how or when we are going to do that. ambassador for, you and i crossed paths in iraq. ambassador boss, crocker, who was also in series, said it is unwise not to have any engagement with the regime. in fact, he suggested recently that perhaps you ought to together,ys especially on the humanitarian issue. how can you facilitate all the ways that you need to go through

throughout syria without engaging the regime, and perhaps without gasping for air, as you iband.ted, mr. mille thank you. matter, thereef are a number of ngo's who are present in damascus, although heavily service tried -- heavily circumscribed in what they are able to do. we were expelled in two for reasons that remain unclear. for humanitarian organizations the pledge is you will help people in need ir respective of their political affiliation. that is how we work and obviously the u.n. is engaging with the regime. enormouse a source of distress, but also significance

securitye the u.n. council resolution has changed the actions of the regime in respect to the humanitarian situation. and the word that has been ringing through my head the last 10 or 15 minutes is accountability. there has not been accountability for actions even when they are legal. that is a serious indictment of the u.n., but could be a serious mockery of the u.n. that is the context in which you need to think about the question you have asked. point.quick there may or may not be a regime.in engaging the but it is really kind of a sterile conversation if you say to them the geneva conventions require you to allow humanitarian assistance to civilians to go through.

if the regime then wants to negotiate that, place by place by place by place, that is an unending gay. we actually saw that happen in the former yugoslavia. that is not a good road to go down. when you talk about engaging the regime on humanitarian assistance, i think what we tolly want is the regime recognize that it has an obligation under the geneva conventions to allow that to go through. they have very good lawyers. i met a number of them at the foreign ministry. they can read the conventions just as well as we can hear. i am not sure exactly what the conversation is going to be like. withnathan, and then dan cbs. jonathan is here. >> mcclatchy newspapers. i spent a couple weeks on the regime side in january,

february, and i want to talk about your point about the need for the moderate opposition to reach out to these communities that support the ones that are fence,assad side of the that they need reassurance. there is another part of that equation, and that is i spoke to louites, and christians who support suassad being the lesser of two evils. they do not see an opposition that is armed to be credible, and nor do they see any kind of policy from the western allies or its arab allies. how do you -- how does the moderate opposition gain the kind of communities' confidence

-- how do you address their perceptions of the disunity and weakness of the moderate opposition in order to achieve what you're talking about? >> let's take jonathan's question as well as with dan's. it fits with jonathan's. i was wondering, and maybe ambassador for would be best for would be best for this, what is the level for the passion for the fight? there has been mentioned that the syrian armed forces are having a manpower problem, but what about the other factions? more broadly, is everyone getting tired? do they want it to end? how much of a will is there to lay down arms? >> let's get those two questions. the second, let me answer. i think people in syria are far more tired than they were in

2011 or 2012. infinitely more tired. you look at the scenes of destruction. you were there, you thought yourself. some of the cities are just shattered. but that does not seem to be enough to actually compel the regime to sit down or have a serious conversation. instead, bashar is going forard unilaterally reelection, in a country where either 1/3 of the population are internally displaced. i cannot imagine how they will do a voter registration process. no one has ever won an election except an assad. your question is a really good one about what can the moderate opposition due to reassure. let me throw out some comments. i mentioned they put forward a proposal in geneva, and by the

way, we did not see it in advance. we learn about it after they put it on the table. so much for iran's ties fo with the opposition. it is a starting point for the negotiation, and they need to highlight that. it is actually not as important what the national coalition says as what the armed groups say. there is a real need to tie together the political opposition and the armed opposition behind a political vision at least for the short transition period, and after that there should be and there must be real competition between different political forces inside syria him up but hopefully political competition onhin boundaries negotiated some kind of transition towards

a more representative system. the armed interest is opposition and its political attitudes, and can those be tied back to the political opposition. encouraged that some members of the armed opposition blessed to geneva and what the political opposition was trying to do in terms of a political negotiation, and more effort needs to be extended to bring the remainder of the armed opposition -- i am not talking about al qaeda, they are never going to negotiated -- but there are elements of the opposition that never actually blessed that, and it would have to be an effort to convince them that there has to be a negotiation. once you can get a broader segment of the armed opposition to follow that, i think that will at least address some of the concerns.

there are a lot of other things that have to be done as well, but that is a starting point. >> ok. the microphone up here, please. it -- andll to take we will take it with daniel's question. >> thank you. ambassador ford, as you know there were people in the past, spenting yourself, who days of their regime back then were numbered. how would you apply for that phrase to the regime now even in the most that affordable manner -- most metaphorical manner? you talk about the vacuum that would result if the regime were to topple tomorrow. how many of the refugees, syrian refugees in syria, lebanon,

jordan, are worried about the opposite of a vacuum, are worried about if he makes a run and becomes president again? >> and take it together with question. microphone over here. these raise your hand. -- please raise your hand. >> thank you. i think you might have hit on band's notion that things have gotten worse the last three years. the next three years, if this goes on, what kind of humanitarian crisis to we face, what kind of political crisis do we face for syrian state structures, and what kind of situation do we face with respect to extremist? is the mainbe that u.s. interest. on the refugee

experience, this is anecdotal rather than scientific. that what is the most striking thing to me when i talk to my sit in rooms in lebanon or turkey or jordan and talked refugees, talk in our community centers and meet 35 women who were in one of our health -- they will tell you unbelievable orror and loss. the only time they will smile is when you ask them, you ever think you will go back. extraordinarily strikingly, their face changes and they say yes. and that is someone who 30 seconds before was talking about her house being bombed and her son and husband being lost.

none of them expected to back anytime soon. i think that is the other side of the coin. it is a very technologically enabled and connected population. they are reading the -- in the same way we are. they see to news reports. they know that assad will not be topple tomorrow. they can see the war lengthening very they go backwards and forwards. lot of traffic back and forth. it will go back and check out what is the situation with their house or family, and then they come out again. there is more of that than i would have guessed. but i think no one is expecting this.ck resolution to the question as to what it needs to reform the straight and we found communities has not even started. just in terms of the next -- we

have been so good at predicting the last three years, we are obviously in a good position to predict the next 3 -- i think a couple of things that i can reflect. the dangers of communicable disease obviously rise in the length of time that you have a crisis like this. there was an article by public health researcher which explained, from umass, she was estimating there are 19,000 polio carriers. article.in a february although the official figure was 15 had been resented to the who, she estimated there were 19,000 carriers. that is a tinderbox, really. when i look at some of the conditions in lebanon of these tented settlements where people

talked openly about the rats around, this is within shouting distance of towns, the public health risks are massive even if you can get food supplies and other support. it is worth pointing out people that this is a different refugee population, that is not just connected, and the thing about a middle-class refugee population it has savings to draw on. over the past few years there are certain refugees outside and inside the country that are drawing on their savings. those savings have run out. you can see the obvious dangers of humanitarian explosions. the second thing is the danger of the political explosion, even greater than has happened. that is obviously something that people follow very carefully in the neighboring countries. if you ask yourself, what is the capacity of lebanon to hold more refugees?

it is now a million and is being added by numbers every day. so lebanese are asking themselves the question, what gives? the billions of dollar figures that are thrown about it is important to remember that that world bank's estimate is the hit on the 7.5 billionnomy is dollars. when you talk about the aid going in, it is going to have a sense of what is the magnitude of the hit. anyinal point, i do not see incentive for the regime with the upper hand or the opposition in a struggle at the moment to make the compromises that are necessary. that is a very, very bleak situation. and it speaks to the necessary debate that the ambassador has talked about about what is the role of regional and global powers.

>> let me run through a couple points real quick. that theid say days of the regime were numbered. what changed that was a big increase in hezbollah assistance. i did not imagine hezbollah was to 7000 send 5000 soldiers, and now they are all the way up into aleppo and damascus. is something we did not predict and that has bolstered the regime. iraqi militias are now going in larger numbers. russia has increased its existence as well. so what that has done from my point of view is it has given the regime a longer lease to hold the space between damascus, latakia.s, and over to

circumstances in the short or medium term where the armed opposition is going to be able to change that. in the short to medium term. what that means, what we are seeing is the country is little the armed- groups that hold the area in the northwest are the armed groups aleppo are not necessarily the same groups, so you get a situation where different factions have different territories. that goes to a situation on the iraqi border. i cannot foresee circumstances where hezbollah is going to march hundreds of miles across the syrian desert to go fight in raqqah. the defect a result is we are ntonization already. if you think long term about

this is, if you june way out, this is still a war of attrition. the war of attrition inside syria between basically minority and majority. and it is a war of attrition regionally between sunni and shia state. i do not think assad's regime is on the majority side on either of those. to yourpect, dan, question about what is going to happen to the state structures and extremists, with respect to extremists, this canonization defect that i mentioned is a real problem because it leads vast areas of the country governed either by no one in particular or by bad guys. we are very happy that elements of the free syrian army have chosen to fight the very worst of the out qaeda groups. groups.eda

if moderates do not prevail against them, and the regime is not fighting them, they're just letting them go, there is a huge raqqah.rters in they have never bombed that the camcorders. if syrian intelligence needs help finding it, i wish they would contact me. [laughter] prevailoderates do not in that site, then we are going to have a more serious extremism problem, such as we have seen in places like afghanistan in the past. , the folks get the message. you would be surprised who watches these events on live streaming. perhaps there's someone from the syrian military intelligence who was watching. i'm sorry i have to end. d has an appointment

after. please help me in thanking ambassador ford and mr. milli band. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> as we leave this discussion, the ap reports new development on the situation in ukraine. there is an agreement in geneva on immediate steps to ease the crisis. the cream it was reached by top moments from the u.s., eu, russia, and ukraine requiring

all sides to refrain from provocative actions. allalls for disarming of illegally armed groups. also this from the ap, russian president putin has rejected claims that special forces are fomenting unrest in ukraine and recognize for the first time that troops in unmarked uniforms who had overtaken crimea before its annexation by moscow were russian soldiers. putin expressed hope for a solution for the worst yeast-west crisis since the end of the cold war. presshagel conducted a conference. focusedeading today was -- our meeting today was focused on reinforcing our solidarity and 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 counterparts from russia, ukraine, and the eu. we fully support these efforts to find a political solution and remain deeply concerned about russia's ongoing destabilizing activities in eastern ukraine. focusalation has been our on 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 him that president obama has approved additional nonlethal military as its for health and welfare items and other supplies. these supplies include medical matsies, helmets, sleeping , and waterford purification units for ukraine's armed forces

as well as shelters, small power generators, and hand fuel pumps. the united states will continue to review additional support that we can provide to the ukraine. theur meeting today, minister and i agreed that russia's aggression has renewed our resolve to strengthen the nato allies, and as you know, the nato secretary-general announced a series of measures yesterday that the alliance want to take to demonstrate this resolved. include more air policing sorties over the baltics, more allied ships in the all takes and the eastern mediterranean seas, as well as military staff deployments to enhance 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 reinforce our allies in central and eastern europe. these measures are not and to provoke or threaten russia, but instead to demonstrate nato's continued dedication to collective defense. article five is clear, that an attack against anyone nato ally ne nato allyny o will be considered an attack against all members of nato. the united states is fully committed to meeting its responsibilities. this is a critical time for the nato alliance, and for the polis i should u.s. bilateral lesion ship -- bilateral relationship. is an opportunity to capitalize on the relationship our countries have built together over the last 25 years. the solidarity and partnership

roadmap we discussed today will identify new areas where we can work together, including special operations forces, air force cooperation, and additional exercises and training. it will look at how we can further build on to our joint aviation detachment and air missile defense collaboration. in recent weeks the united states has significantly augmented the aviation detachment with 12 f-16's and fromupport personnel italy. we are committed to maintaining that augmented presence through the end of the year. >> you can see that reading in its entirety at www.c-span.org in our video library. also coming up at 3:15, jay carney will have more on the situation in ukraine as he meets with reporters. we will have live coverage at 3:15 eastern. antoninis afternoon,

scalia and ruth bader ginsburg will be guests at the national press club. they will talk about freedoms that define the first amendment. this again that 6:00 eastern. then the future of conservatism and the republican party. >> some administrators early on gave the kids bad legal advice, which was essentially do not tell your parents, do not get lawyers, cooperate with the police, and this is basically going to go away. dukehat gave duke -- thought they had legal exposure because of that. the on that there was this desire to make this go away, to protected duke brand, to make sure that once it was decided these kids were innocent that the last thing duke wanted was to try to have to litigate with

them about all of what had happened. so the easiest course of action was to a them this $20 million, have them sign nondisclosure, non-disparagement agreements, which explains why they have not talked to me or anybody since they settled, but it is not exactly clear why duke felt the need to pay these kids. people unfortunately get wrongly convicted all the time, and there 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 spent 18 years in prison, 18 years, and get a $20,000 payment a year as a result. these kids spent other than their arraignment hour or tow, no time in prison and got

$20 million. >> william cohan looks at the duke across scandal of 2006, sunday night. liam fox spoke about programst surveillance in washington recently. he called the snowden leaks treason and said his actions have done damage for u.s. security and allies. he said the u.s. debate is putting too much emphasis on civilian interception and not on the criminal acts of mr. snowden in the newspapers that covers the classified information. >> good morning.

welcome to the american enterprise institute. we are pleased to welcome dr. liam fox, a member of the british parliament. he was the shadow foreign secretary, shadow defense secretary, and then when cameron came into power, became the actual defense secretary. he was the champion of a robust national defense and a champion of the american men and women intelligence services. that is what we're here to talk about today, one of the most damaging leaks in the history of american and british intelligence. dr. fox had a fantastic piece yesterday in which he declared edward snowden thinks of himself as a girl a warrior, but in reality he is a narcissist. he did not expose anything illegal, did not attempt to limit any damage. that us call treason by its --

let us call treason by its name. we are pleased to welcome you this morning. >> thank you. glad to be back. >> the former head of dchq, called the snowden leaks the tot catastrophic loss british intelligence ever. what is your assessment of the damage that has been done and to both our national security and yours? >> it is huge and you can see it at a number of different levels. first of all, we know that 58,000 pieces of very britishtial and secret information was leaked by snowden. that is damaging to our security interests in themselves, and we can discuss that. it was also calculated to damage america's standing with its allies and damage the american diplomatic process, which is in line with what i described as

the anti-american and anti-western views of both glenn greenwald and snowden himself. mr. snowden, who did not want to live in the world where everything was under surveillance and everything he said and did was recorded, but was happy to live in a safe house and cozying up to mr. putin's closest friends. >> james clapper, director of national security, the terrorists are going to school on intelligence tactics. they are making our jobs harder. you wrote about how there are instances where we have seen chatter where terrorists are changing their operating mode and talking about how to avoid certain things based on the sin document to avoid -- based on the snowden documents to avoid surveillance. inwe have seen how groups south asia and some of the terrorist groups who we know

pose a threat to us have been delighted to be told by snowden how the services went about intercepting the communications, and armed with that information they have made sure they are in to less exploitable ways of talking amongst each other. there are different elements talking about the snowden disclosures. there was the extent of nsa disclosures. if that was done within the law and the limitations imposed, that is a legitimate debate in a democratic society. i think it would be hard to argue if it's stuck within those parameters that that was not a useful function. but the second element to go into what you just described, which is the means and the mechanics by which the intelligence services go about their business, is extraordinarily irresponsible and damage, and to go into the details on the actual names of

the agents and operatives, it is criminally irresponsible and a crime. total doesis showing regard for the people who actually involved on the sharp end the decent people who put their lives on the line for our countries to disclose their names in public, and we already know that has done damage in terms of not only the threats to them but our ability to deploy them freely overseas. there are a whole range of areas. if you on that second, tell the enemies of your country how you go about listening to their communications, the first thing they are going to do is find a different way. it is not just terrorist groups. this is a think that that this is a point that has been missed in the debate. this is also about the ability of economic elements to steal our intellectual properties and, in the long term, damage our national prosperity. it is also about dealing with

pedophile rings, being able to break them up. the next time you get a bomb going off in the subway or a marathon, when someone's child who is abducted by a pedophile ring, you might want to thank those who made it easier for those people to do those things. >> one of the secrets you pointed out was that not all of this has to deal with surveillance and civil liberties implications, and a particularly damaging leak was the revelation that they have broken the communications systems of the russian presidency during the g20 summit in london. it was reported by "the washington post" that right before the russian invasion of ukraine we did not have intelligence to indicate something was about to happen. do you see a connection between those things? has edward snowden damaged our ability to figure out what russia is doing in the ukraine?

>> let's put it in the general terms. if you make it very clear that you have been able to get signal intelligence about particular ways in which communications take place, then it is very obvious that if that is compromised, you have to close down those channels and that will limit how much information you get in the future. so, we should not be surprised if we are less able to get an idea of what is going on in the world in terms of the information that we can get to understand or preempt activities elsewhere if we have not closed down as a result of the compromises by snowden. why would anyone be surprised at that? >> mike rogers, the house intelligence committee chairman, has said that he believes that no one in the intelligence community doubts that edward snowden is now under the influence of russian intelligence.

the only question is when he became effectively an agent of russian intelligence. do you agree with him? what is your assessment? >> i think that that is very hard to say. i would not want to speculate on that, i am not sure it is helpful. but what is clear is to look at his motivations, to say that, as i mentioned earlier, you don't want to live in a world of surveillance where what you say and what you do is scrutinized. the first place you go is china. and when you regard the chinese embrace as insufficient to your taste, you head to moscow to be close to the fsb. this is a russia which not only invaded georgia, but let's look at it from a journalistic perspective -- this is a place

where journalists who criticize in the press disappear. to have accidents and elevators. where the enemies of vladimir putin have terrible chances of having a premature accidents. in the united kingdom and seen u.k. citizens murdered by the fsb. this is where showden chooses to go. rather than living in the united states, he chooses to make his nest with the fsb. that is again a speculative matter, but what you can at least say is that his choices are very clear. i remind you, those are deeply perverse choices. >> not all the snowden documents have been publicly released yet. we are getting this in dribs and drabs. we will talk more about that in a minute. the chinese, do you think the chinese and russians basically

know everything that he knew? is the damage done? is the counterintelligence much deeper than we realized? >> edward snowden was carrying these documents with him. if he was wheeling them around to the guardian and the united kingdom, and they were being transferred -- let's just talk about some of the security. when glenn greenwald's partner, maranda, was arrested, not only was he carrying a memory stick with 58,000 u.k. secret files on it, in his pocket he carried a piece of paper with one of the codes for the encrypted files area, and that was the level of security by which they were doing this. not only did i think they had particularly ulterior motives, but it was more like james bond in the way that they were carrying it out, which would be comical if it were not so tragic and dangerous. i think we therefore have to

assume that the places he chose to visit, china and russia, must have access to those particular documents, given that their own security was superior. >> one of the instances reported from "the new york times," where greenwald travel to hong kong, they were walking up and down discussing the contents of these secure documents so freely that they would disturb in passengers around them. they were asking them to keep their voices down. these are some of the national secrets that we expect governments and its employees to protect for us. i think we have to assume that a great deal, if not all of this information was completely compromised. that has a lot of implications for the ways in which we carry out our security services, which are ultimately protection of everyone in this room and in our respective countries. >> glenn greenwald was very upset about his partner being