i think are the most part, the majority of those that are constantly trying to change it or eliminate it are sincere in their feeling. aid pinocchio alert. >> that is what i am sensing rom the heartland. >> i think it illustrates the fundamental primary issue why we are all here. the process isn't working. i gave it my level best. >> i know that for a fact. >> former chief of staff asked me do you know where this is going and i didn't. you have to take it to the and then decide. you have to draw that line and decide what you can support and

what you couldn't and i couldn't. that's why the process matters. you have both sides weighing in on significant issue. it's the largest domestic initiative in our history. sitting at the table working for it -- you think about the civil rights act and how it passed, that was bipartisan. social security and medicare, how to gratify the constitution, giving the women are the right to vote. it is because the united states congress's willingness to work on landmark initiatives and that is not happening with the affordable care act. it should have been a process in which everybody was engaged on both sides. i won't get into the why it didn't, but unfortunately it

didn't. ultimately, people are paying the price today. that's why i think so many people are saying, you know what, i prefer gridlock. with so many problems of the implementation, they say. not that there wouldn't be as your problems with an initiative of this kind, but it would be less awesome because you have more interest to make sure it works when you have both sides working on a major roposition of this kind. >> i know i have already spoken but i can't -- i have to tell you the story. senator wyden and i in the previous congress put together a bipartisan health-care bill. we called it the healthy americans act. and mary landrieu called it the noah's ark built because you go -- noah's ark bill because you go about it to buy two. we got up to 19 cosponsors. had 10 and he had nine.

trent lott, lamar alexander, ok, the election occurs. president obama is elected. health care is on the agenda. i get a call from don -- from tom daschle and says will you help us? and i said of course. but i said, tom, i want a seat at the table. he said, absolutely, you have a seat at the table. and tom daschle ran afoul of the confirmation process. did not get to be the secretary of hhs. a new team came in. i got a phone call -- i will not tell you the name -- i want to visit with you about health care. great, come on in. the individual came in. he said, i appreciate -- we appreciate all the work you have done on health care. love to have your support as we

ork to get this bill done. be glad to do it. but i want to make it clear, it's not going to be the american health act. is not going to be your bill. i am here to to tell you that i want you to support our bill. but there are some things in this bill i really believe in. well, we are going to write the bill. i said, do you mind if i tell ron wyden? and he said, that is why i'm ere. ok, so i picked up the phone and i called senator wyden and said i've just been told i x that our bill is dead on arrival. yeah, they have been working on me to get me to abandon it and i won't so he figures, if you works on you and you will tell me to abandon it, i will abandon it. we had 19 cosponsors, including

10 republicans, including two members of leadership who were willing to work on a bipartisan solution because we believed that the current health care structure was impossible, terrible, bad for americans, needed to be changed. and we were frozen out of the conversation and told to go away. and it was passed with 60 democratic votes and not a single one of the 10 republican cosponsors was ever asked to participate in the process of putting it together. so this was one place where i chalk it up not to anything evil. i am not rush limbaugh. i am not summit who says he hopes the president will fail. i think this is an example of the president's in experience in dealing with the congress. he had a great opportunity and he muffed it.

>> i don't know how many times i hear if ted had been in united states senate at the time he would have worked it out because he is a master at writing legislation and understands the give-and-take of the legislative process. our day began with a profound -- visiting the kennedy institute and seeing what the senate was all about and what it is going to be about and the interaction and what inspires so many young people to run for public office knowing how that process works and how he made it work. >> i have to chime in for just a second. even in the house, there was tremendous respect on both sides for ted kennedy because of the way he operated. i guess in speaking in broader terms of out people that used to be in the senate and the house that operated from that vantage point, where they really wanted to get the right thing done and, if they couldn't get their way, they were not going to lay on the

tracks and call a news conference and stomp their feet and try to get you in their next election. he never did that. and i think that is best just to build on what olympia is saying -- was one of the great hings about him. >> someone who is kind of a master legislator respected on both sides, has a strong point of view but is willing to work -- is there a young senator or someone who seems like a prospective ted kennedy igure? >> lamar alexander. >> i would agree with that. >> any other nominees? no. no. . . >> he was certainly a very -- >> it would be easier if we had a list to look at. >> certainly a very singular figure. >> can i give you a name that will surprise everybody?

chuck schumer. i was the ranking member of the rules committee when chuck was the chairman. and everybody said to me this is going to be terrible. i mean, before it was diane feinstein and diane is a -- everything we worked out without any problems. die yan has moved on to intelligence and you've got chuck schumer and he's a tough, hard partisan. oh, it's going to be awful. i never asked chuck for anything that he didn't give me. i've made sure all of my requests were reasonable, but, ok, this is reasonable and i would go to chuck and sit down and chuck would say, yeah, ok. we can work that out. and i know he has a reputation back-alley uckles

fighter. and he's a tough a partisan as you're going to come across. but chuck is transactional. he can make a deal. and i think if chuck were the majority leader -- i prefer minority leader -- and lamar alexander was the majority leader, i think you would see a very different senate. >> a couple more quick names now that i'm thinking more clearly. oirn hatch is one in the house, bill shuster. hall rogers. they may not be household names but they are within the institution itself respected as people who really want to work with you to try to accomplish. >> well, it's interesting that senator schumer and senator alexander were mentioned because they happen to be working to get things going. let's report on the results of our second question. would you support a two-year budget so that congress can focus on budget issues half as

often leaving time to conduct real oversight? what did you tell us? 87% yes, 13% no in favor of a two-year budget. let's ask our third and final audience poll question, which is this. would congress be more productive if members and their families spent more time in washington? you can vote at our website bipartisan policy.org back slash engage u.s.a. vicky kennedy, i've heard a lot of people talk about the need for people to -- members to spend more time in washington. but in our poll, we asked if members of congress should move their families to washington or leave them in the district. and by 6-1, americans said they should leave their families in the district. there was much more concern about members losing touch with what the constituents wanted than there was about forging relationships that would help in washington. i wonder if that's a hurdle that you can't overcome when it comes to sbending more time in

washington or moving your family there when voters have such a consensus about it. >> i think the notion of leaving your family back home is a relatively new phenomenon. historicically fam plizz always moved to washington. certainly it was expected. in the senate, for a six-year term the idea that your family would be someplace else and the senate was in, teddy used to talk about it, they were in five days a week. so the idea that your family would be someplace else was just unthinkable. and it was a chance as well for your -- to have a chance to have dinner with your family if you could. he talked about -- and he did this really with my children as well. we would go down and have pick nicks on the capitol lawn. the senate would be in session. sometimes there would be a band in those very old days, the marine band would play on the capitol lawn on the certain day of the week. do you remember that? and we would sit under the tree and have a pick nick. and then he would go back in,

have for a vote. it was the idea that you could have a civilized life but you also had the sense of normal family life. but it also allowed you to meet other senators, to meet their families, to meet their spouses. in the senate spouse club we would have regular lunches. i had wonderful across the aisle -- wonderful relationship with senator bennett's wife. other spouses. and that made a difference in how our spouses interacted with each other on the floor. all of those things make a difference. you get to know each other as human beings. so i think it's a terrific idea to spend time in washington. you're there to do a job. and it's to represent your constituents in washington. that's what the job is. and the more you think about being in a workplace if you're not getting along with your coworkers how productive can you be? and if you don't know their names how productive can you

be? so i'm very, very much in favor of it. >> i think it must be -- for this audience agrees with you. and i think it must be really hard on a member of congress not having their family living in washington. but when your constituents are very suspicious, what do you do? can you buck them and say no it's really important for me to have them there snr >> first there's a distinction and big difference. the term of a senator and the term of a u.s. house of representatives member, tchs two years. you win in november in -- in texas you win in november, a year later you're filing for office again. and my dad was elected to congress in 1961. mom and dad had eight kids. we were lucky to have a home back in san antonio much less one in san antonio, one in d.c. we would visit dad in the summer, two at a time because he lived in an apartment. but i'm just saying when i was

in congress i still remember the congresswoman from new mexico was in charge of taking a survey or a poll, 75% of the members of the house did not have their families in washington. it's not that you don't want them there. one, i think it's a financial situation. it's really difficult. secondly, you are running for office and you will be back home whether you like it or not during that campaign year, which is every other year. so as much as i would like to see it because it does make for a more complete member to have family there, it just makes you a better person and able to get along and you will see other members. henry and i, we once doubled with my step kids and your kids and such. but they were just visiting back then. so i can see the advantages. just the practicalities of it with a two-year term and the financial constraints and challenges would make it

really, really difficult. >> charlie and i are good examples. conservative, liberal. we get along great. we didn't agree on a whole lot of things. but when we were in congress. but we always got along. and i probably got mad at him a couple times and vice versa. but we did have opportunities to hang out like that. and it really helps when you're trying to work on something and it -- maybe it's two out of ten issues that you might agree on but it's more than you have now in washington. so those kind of things do matter. i think if you're for continuing dysfunction in washington and gridlock then you probably don't want members to spend more time in washington. if you want them to work together and get along more, you'll want them to be in washington more. because you do build those relationships that make it harder to just be ugly for political purposes. and just lends itself to more

compromise. >> here's a question from our audience. from kate from the harvard kennedy school of government. what message do you have for the millennial generation both as voters and individual whose might run for office or otherwise engage with government? what responsibilities and incentives do they have to get involved and how should they get involved? i wonder also if there might be some attitude among some young people that why would they want to get involved in a political system where it's so hard to get things done and where there's such a personal cost? >> i think the millenials have already proven, if you look at the last presidential campaign, that they are interested. they want to be involved. they want to be engaged. they don't necessarily know fully what all of that means. but what they do know is who they want to be seated in the white house or in the congress representing them and their particular communities and particular areas. and i do believe that as they

grow and particularly in this age where they have access to all of this hardware to communicate with each other, i believe that you are going to see some turns very soon in terms of how they connect to one another and how they go to the polls and how they see themselves in relationship to other people who are surrounding them. and i do believe that you will see a much greater turnout in the future because they see themselves as the future and i think if we cooperate with them, push them, help them to understand politics better than they do, i think that we will find that this will be a generation that may really change the whole scope of politics as we know it today. >> will millenials -- with millennials are elected to office and increasingly taking positions of authority will they be different from the

current generation in terms of how they work? >> i think they will. >> they will be. they think different, talk differently. >> what will be different? well, i think they come out of institutions, universities, and other places. they have a different mindset about what life is about. and most of them are relatively mature. they have exceptional communication skills. they will be able to speak in such ways that they can present themselves and people understand what they mean by what they say. i do believe that we're going to see a drament crick change in the next two or -- dramatic change in the next two or three years. and i'm just using populations of young people because i deal with them so much. their ideas are great ideas. but at this point they need to find a way to get people to listen. >> senator snow, when millennials rule the world how

will it be different? >> i think they will learn not to take their cues from the current climate in washington. i have definitely gotten that impression from young people as i've traveled across the country speaking on college campuses and talked to so many. and they constantly ask me the question about what they can do to change it and how best can they contribute. and they do wonder whether or not they should participate in running for public office or in public service. and i tell them absolutely must. because they always ask me the tricky question, well, if you left the united states senate, why are you asking us to get involved? i said, well, that is a good question. but i said i'm in another stage in life and i think i can best contribute this way in convincing people that you can change the current dynamics. but they're early in their lives and they have an entire lifetime ahead of them as well as the country. so they need to make, be involved and to make an impact.

because of what's at stake. and the added -- they ought to demand results now from those in public office because it will have profound implications on them given the debt and other problems that have been long deferred. i'm so impressed with so many. they are problem solvers and they are looking at the world around them. they are aware. and they want to change the political system. so i would encourage them to run for office keeping that in mind as one of the options, engage in public service. as i did in my generation i was inspired by president kennedy. and we need to have a whole new generation of young people thinking about it. and especially at these times when there are so many issues that could have a tremendous impact on their futures as we know. >> let's look at the results from the third question we posed to our online audience. would congress be more productive if members and their

families spend more time in washington. here's what we heard from you. yes, 61%, no 39%. so a little at odds with what we found with our nationwide survey of americans. we've gotten several e-mails and comments that go to campaign finance and what kind of factor that plays in dysfunction. here's one from robert of oklahoma city. he wrote us. can we get money out of politics and by the way also integrate seating in each house, keep members of congress over weekend and reduce vacations? so he has a lot of things to suggest. and from pam of porter, maine. obscene amounts of money are squandered to buy media sound bytes.

senator bennett, what do you think? ok. here we go. if i could wave a magic wand i would repeal mccain-feingold. think of the presidents we elected under the old system starting here with john f. kennedy, whose father had all the money in the world. the kennedy quip. when his election was very close and he said my father said he would buy me the presidency but he was not going o buy a landslide. can you get money out of politics? the answer is no. you cannot. and it's like trying to stop water from running down a hill. you can build a dam that can store a little of it in a place for a while and can divert

where it comes but it's going to run down the hill one way or the other. and what we have done with campaign finance reform -- i realize i'm very much alone on this but here we go. what we've done with campaign in the name of campaign finance reform is weakened the parties and take the control of the campaign away from the candidates. because it's improper to give that much money to the party. it's improper to give that much money to the candidate. but since we have something pesky in the constitution called the first amendment, you can express yourself in a political campaign. and if you can't give the money to the party as much as you want and you can't give the money to the candidate as much as you want, then you become she woulden aidleson and you buy your own ad. and pretty soon the outside expenditures take over the scam pain and distort the campaign. the people who buy those ads

are, a, nasty. nd, b, bad marketters. they produce bad ads. and that's part of the whole circumstance where everybody is turned off about politics and don't want to have anything to do with it. the woman in new hampshire was asked who are you going to vote for? she said i am not going to vote for any of them. it only encourages them. if we could go back to the old days where the parties that were professional, that knew how to do right kind of campaigns and innocent kind of ads and candidates that could say no, you're not going to run that ad in my campaign because t's going to make me look bad, i think we would have a whole better situation than we have now. because now it's all get money out of politics. you're not going to get money out of politics. all we're doing is distorting

the direction in which the money goes. and empowering people who otherwise would have their influence tampled down by the power of the parties themselves. the parties are weaker now than they have ever been in american history. and i look back at the candidates that were elected before we started campaign finance reform, people like franklin roosevelt and dwight eisenhower and jack kennedy. and we did pretty well in those days. we -- the final passage of mccain-feingold occurred. they said now this will get big money out of politics. and the first election fought after that was between al gore and george w. bush and yeah that was an election where there was not very much big money. isn't it? that was an election where we saw all of the benefits that came out of that. didn't we? so you've touched a hot button with me and i appreciate the opportunity.

now you can boo and hiss all you want. that's the position that i take. >> well, it's unfortunate you don't have any positions to share with us. but we have a system now where we control money to parties but we don't control the spending by billionaires who have particular points of view. should we loosen the restrictions on party or eliminate them altogether so that to strengthen the parties as senator bennett said? what do others think about that? >> the supreme court is going to probably be dealing with that because there are restrictions of what we can raise as an individual in the prime pri and in the general. the parties are restricted to a certain amount. but super pacs are not. and that's where all this is heading. you're not going to get the money out of politics or elections. it's going to find its way in some fashion. i mean, you're just going to find a way of doing it. the question is can you do some things that might level the

playing field as such? i'm not real crazy about just saying no limits at all. you should be able to give me $5 million to run or such. and no restrictions. i don't know that's the solution. st because a super pac can created and you don't even know the donors. but i do think disclosure would be an important item. we could be doing those things so at least you would know where that money was coming from for that multimillion dollar ad. but we can't even do that in congress. but you just don't get rid of the money. it's going to -- it's going to find its way in one way or another. >> i think it's an important issue for us at the bipartisan policy center as well and looking at various recommendations that obviously given the supreme court decision that's a higher hurdle now. and citizens united which did unleash the force of the super pacs, which i hate to bring up

a sore subject bob but mccane feingold and my position was in mccain feingold attempting to address issue advocacy and drawing distinction between ads hat were electioning ads and those were purely advocating a position on an issue. and it survived the first supreme court challenge did not survive the second which was citizens united and then the court took another 100 years back and said that corporations were people. and that ultimately led to the super pacs. i think it is important to demand accountability and disclosure of donors to these organizations. because that is one way. of having transparency. and so many of these organizations that have one donor or thousands. and i think that would help to some degree. short of a constitutional

amendment to get around citizens united you have to look at other ways. get rid of leadership pacs. i think i was down to three, one of three in the senate when i left, maybe five, but that would be it who did not have a leadership pac. i wasn't there to raise money per pet yullly. and leadership packs are designed to give more money in addition to your own election committee, to give to colleagues who are running and so forth. so a lot of pressure is placed on individual senators and members of the house, more than half had leadership pacs as well. so it's more money and it's more time commitment on the part of members of congress to go out and raise money beyond their own reelection campaign. so there are some things we can do. and then looking at others for the -- emif a sidesing small donors and maybe get through tax credits and that sort of thing to help bring in smaller to have greater emphasis on

their participation. >> they spend up to half of their time in washington raising money. >> for most of my campaign, the for i can ask someone was $1000. it is because of

mccain-feingold. >> it was indexed though. >> we have indexed it. now it is $2500. ,he example of eugene mccarthy who probably took out lyndon ,ohnson in the 1968 election eugene mccarthy 125 people, raised $100,000 -- went to five $100,000, went to new hampshire and did a good enough job to frighten lyndon johnson from running for reelection. today, he cannot of done that. he would have had to raise , every0 from 500 people week on the phone.

you could not do it the way you use to do it and we have changed politics. fundraising is a direct result of the campaign-finance activity. i did not hear you. >> the public financing, he is saying. do you want to respond to that? >> i talk too much. >> having fewer donors? >> eliminating limits. debt was growing exponentially even before mccain-feingold. loopholes in the existing campaign law of the time. is notb is referring to allowing political parties to accept soft money. it leveraged other groups. the sphere of influence went to the outside organizations, as

opposed to the political parties , who could not get leverage with candidates running for political office. maybe that is something we have to look at again, whether or not you allow political parties to accept certain contributions. we really have to look at that. the question is more money in the system. the floodgates opened with citizens united. it struck down my provision, which was attempting to digest these organizations. addressidentified -- these organizations. if they identified, they would be restricted to the amounts of money they could receive and unfortunately that was struck down.

if they did not identify me by name, it would not be considered an election ad and they would not have to perform a -- form a political action committee. >> this is such a complicated issue. the problem with allowing unlimited contributions to a candidate is exactly the problem we are seeing with the super pacs right now. it would allow wealthy individuals to bankroll candidates that would absolutely stack the deck and you would have only their candidates able to run for office. we are talking about gerrymandering and are concerned and districts that do not represent the face of america or the face of their state and this have theanother way potential to corrupt the process.

i think we need to think about other ways. i do think there have been unintended consequences from campaign-finance reform. we need to think of other ways. maybe television time gets donated. why does it cost so much? this is a public service. maybe there is some sort of contribution back to the public good or other kinds of things. i'm very concerned with unlimited. i couldn't let that go. [laughter] [applause] >> a complicated topic. we are almost out of time. women are better consensus makers than men, would electing more women help relieve gridlock? [laughter] [applause] >> that is the way it is, you know? >> we have a record number of

women in the senate. -- not seem to behave that they are conservatives or liberals, they disagree on things -- they do seem to behave in a different way than the men do. what is your perspective? they get together for dinner once a month. >> and they still do. they get to know each other very well. we have regular dinners. personal dinners. we have never had a disclosure. on occasion, we invite the women justices of the supreme court and they invite us to the supreme court for dinner. it is more personal. we can talk about families, friends, what is going on, issues, whatever the case may be -- there is no personal agenda. it builds a collaborative environment in which you can build on, when you are looking

at issues down the road. shutdownhis during the , when the women decided to take matters into their own hands and change the direction. we had that camaraderie built from years of working together and also having time, personally, to spend together. raymondal comment from of lumber town, north carolina. the main reason there was a divide is because half the people believe government is the problem and the other half believe it is the solution. i want to thank the bipartisan policy center, the members of the commission on political reform, the edward m kennedy institute, the john f. kennedy library, and our great audience here. thank you so much for being with us. [applause]

hope to see you on june 24 for the release of the commission's final recommendation. i would ask the panelists to stay seated. i asked dan glickman for the stage -- to the stage for closing thoughts. >> these panelists were outstanding. senator, i wish you had strong views on something. it disturbs me. [laughter] i want to thank the kennedy institute, the kennedy library, the harvard institute of politics, and our great moderator, susan page. i served in the house for 18 years. there are words inscribed above the speaker's chair by daniel webster. i used to look at this periodically. let us develop the resources of

our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, to see whether we also, in our day and in our generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. that is the point of government. that is the point why we are here. to perform something worthy to be remembered. disagreement and a vibrant democracy, the goal is aways to engage the issues in way that our descendents would be proud and get the job done do it for the and ancestors who were in it for the right reasons. these are not abstract issues. atrica's leadership is stake. our ability to be the beacon of hope, the city on the hill, and do the right thing for our citizens is very much dependent upon a strong and effective system of government at all levels.

today we have talked about congressional reform. over the past year, we talked about political polarization, ways that we vote, how to increase opportunities for public service to develop the next generation of leaders. we have been hard at work behind the scenes as most of the folks up your have talked about, to figure out recommendations for the future. we need the input of the public. feedback oninued twitter, facebook, instagram, or just the old snail mail way to let us know what you think constructively we can do to help our political system, our democracy become more resilient. we will continue to discuss these issues with your input. the commission will reconvene in washington on june 24 to announce recommendations and report to the nation, the congress, and the white house, reforms to improve our political

system and the follow-up necessary to actually get things done. commission releases out recommendations, we need your continued support to urge our leaders to implement our solutions. you can sign up on the bipartisan policy center's website as a citizen for political reform and help advocate for political reform across the country. as we close, i remember what john f. kennedy wrote. that the stories of past courage can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration, but they cannot supply carriage itself. courage itself. each man, each person must look into his own soul. it will take plenty of courage to make change. i hope we will find it to strengthen democracy and ensure can continue to do things to be remembered. thank you for being here. i appreciate it. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tonight on c-span, a political discussion with anna navaro. and david bender. they were at the university of colorado at boulder to discuss congress and potential presidential candidates. here is a little bit of that. >> people who tell you that they think they know what is going to areen in 2016 really smoking something that is not legal here in colorado. [laughter] legal here in colorado.

[laughter] there are some clues. i will debit the sheldon adelson primary. [laughter] it was held a few weeks ago in las vegas. you can tell by who chose to participate in the primary, who is looking at 2016. these are people who went to a forum sponsored by the world's eighth richest man, sheldon adelson, whose principal interests are two -- israel and the prevention of internet intoing, which will cut the fact that he is the world's eighth richest man, largely based on casino gambling in las vegas and macau. the people who went to las vegas to see sheldon adelson included chris christie, the governor of

new jersey. anyone hear of them? [laughter] he has been out of the news a lot lately. he is the governor of new jersey, which includes part of the george washington bridge. only half of it t. [laughter] not the new york half, which has behaved a little better. a number of other people went to participate in the sheldon adelson primary. scott walker, the governor of wisconsin. john kasich, the governor of ohio. they did not go because they needed a trip to las vegas. did not explain what the hebrew pronunciation of name is because he was uninterested in sheldon adelson's support -- that is

what we call shameless pandering. that is what was going on in las vegas. they understood that this was, as was the case four years ago when people came to visit donald sheldonhat they needed adelson's support. in a few short months, the capitol visitor center will be completed. the work of this congress will be described to future generations. visitors will view an introductory film. in my first speeches your speaker, i said that solutions to problems cannot be found in a pool of bitterness. the framers expected the floor of this house to be a place of passionate debate, a place where

competing ideas and philosophies clashed, a crucible where many ideas can be blended together to form a strong nation. but this floor should also be a place of civility and mutual respect and a place where statesmanship and not just electoral politics guide our decisions. president reagan was right. there is no limit to what we can accomplish, if we don't mind who gets the credit. eight years ago i broke with tradition and gave my inaugural speech from 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 the floor with so many of you and so is my heart. sitting in the speaker's chair

is an honor i will always cherish. i believe there is actual greater honor. it 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 booth and elect us with their sacred ballot. it is the honor of raising our hands and taking be oath as a member of this house of representatives and then to sit at one of these benches. 4, i will bey privileged to rejoin you on these benches, where my heart is , here on the floor of this great house. fromnd more highlights house coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. real signatures of

this boom is how quickly it has moved. there is good about that come up but then there's also some bad. we were 10 years into this boom before regulators and the companies themselves started asking tough questions. what exactly is going on with air emissions? what about all of this water we are using? isn't some of this wastewater helping earthquakes? one of the mistakes we made is that we were so far into the boom before we started asking questions. these,u start looking at there are answers, there are solutions, ways to do this better. >> russell gold on the good news and bad of fracking. c-span 2 coverage starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern.

taylor, he writes about a little-known episode in the history of slavery. "the internal enemy." it is on our book club. bing west. on the next "washington journal," we will focus on research into drones. beginning with brian fung. we will take you live to virginia tech, one of six federally approved research and testing sites. "washington journal" is live on c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the conversation on

facebook and twitter. annual call in program thursday, russian president vladimir putin was asked about ukraine, crimea, and foreign policy questions. he was also asked about edward snowden. [applause] >> hello, everyone.

you can call us at the number you see on your television screen. s from welcome to phone u the moscow region for free. for those abroad, you can see the telephone number on the screen. we have received over 2 million questions so far. we are going to hit a new record. lots of messages are simple. like thank you for crimea. you can send your question by computer.your acceptingtwo websites your messages. you still have time to do it. i would like to bring your attention to the fact that we are going to provide

transmission for people with hearing disabilities today. we are going to talk about ukraine, where events are unfolding at a very dramatic pace. on the 17th of february, no one would think that crimea would be part of russia and that people have to thank, in the east of would be sent from the kiev government. what would you say about events unfolding in eastern ukraine? events,aracterize these let me go back a step and look at what happens in ukraine in the recent past.

when viktor yanukovych chose not to sign this document on the association with the european union, it was not an abandonment. he said that would deteriorate the social and economic situation in ukraine. he wanted to think about and work on the document. this led to unconstitutional takeover of power. that, othersiked don't. ukraine,utheast of people began to get worried about the future of their haveren, meaning that they -- there was a desire

to cancel russian minority that is even though not exactly a minority in that part of ukraine. they are an indigenous population. the attempt was made to cancel early decisions about the use of their native tongue. what began happening is that instead of setting up and helping these people, the , the local oligarchs, timeonaires, and by that there was additional discontent and people began to offer the wrong reasons.

what did the kiev authorities do? they put them in prison. they were threatening to use force in the east. the east began to arm themselves. instead of starting attempts to start a dialogue on monday began -- a dialogue, they began threatening. is one of the serious crimes of today's authorities in kiev. i hope you will be able to pitchtand what kind of the situation is turning to with authorities dram a -- dragging their country down that road with them.

it is critical today to think together about how we can come out of this situation to offer to people this real, not artificial, dialogue. whom do they meet in the west? they meet their own representatives. you just call them into kiev. you need to talk to people, to their real representatives. though some people have elected. elected.eople have kiev, they -- in talk about d federal a safe and. federalization. talking about democratic

procedures, not the use of force. that is how you can put your country to order. have a dialogue between the diplomats and the meeting has opened that is going to feature four party talks in geneva. could you explain russia's stance at these talks. >> we believe this should not just be a showcase of all those people for themselves. they should have this dialogue with the people, searching for compromise. respond to theou statements coming from the west and kiev that claim that russia is behind the uprisings in the eastern part of ukraine, that russia is allegedly sponsoring and financing these uprisings? >> it is nonsense.

no russian units in the east of ukraine, no instructors, no special forces. those are all local residents. is that proof of that people removed their masks. they are the masters of that land. let's move over to crimea and the decision you took on crimea. throughout your whole political career, you never made any mention of reunification with crimea. you never spoke about it directly. how do you take that decision? did anyone speak against it? what were the potential risks that you evaluated? >> the risks were that the russian speed sharing --

speaking population were quite thrilled. the people of crimea, the residence of crimea, think about their future and turned to russia for help. and this is what we were governed by. i mentioned during my speech in the kremlin that russia never planned any annexation or military actions in crimea. we wanted to build our relations with ukraine based on the current geopolitical situation. , that ourped for russian speaking people in were in a comfortable political situation and would not be threatened. a situation came up with potential threats, when the people of crimea began saying

that they wanted self-determination. then we began thinking about, what should we do? not 5, 10, 20 years ago, did we make the decision to support representation in crimea. nobody on the security council objected, everybody supported my decision. i am pleased to admit that. everything was followed in a highly professional manner. it was done quickly and decisively. this has been really unprecedented, i would say. just as the referendum was organized in a really speedy way for the security issues, the way

in which they were solved, the ukrainian military bases being stormed -- i had the feeling that something had been prepared. >> it was not prepared in advance. we were acting based on the situation and the spur of the moments. it was and very professionally. with ourwas not to act armed forces in the true sense of the word. it was to ensure the residents were safe and they can express their will. that is what we did. the support of the crimean stem cells, that would not be possible. moreover, until the very last the crimeans

themselves, that would not be possible. moreover, until the very last day, i never wrote the very last line that i would send to the federal assembly on reunification with crimea because i was waiting for the results of the referendum. it is one thing when you have surveys. yous a different thing when are looking at the will of the entire population. it is important to feel and see what their will is. 86% and 96%nout was plus voted for joining with the russian federation, it was clear that it was an overwhelming majority, pretty much the entire crimean population. right. ts to invite the residen

join us. we have our film crew working there. [applause] >> hello, mr. president. i'm really happy to see my colleagues. from the heartg of the city. we have hundreds of people here

from all walks of life. n, have navy sea me white-collar workers, everybody who voted for the reunification. we worked today for two platforms. my colleague is working on the second platform. here he is. famoust here is the base where the black sea fleet of the russian navy is based for over 200 years. from all corners of crimea. we are ready for dialogue with you, we are ready to talk to you, mr. president. [applause] >> this is the heart of sevastopol. we have all of the historic landmarks.

citizensgot lots of coming here with flowers to this monument every day. this is really special. the residence of sevastopol choose their right to speak russian, to be russian, and at the referendum, almost the whole city voted for reunification with russia. who would like to ask their question? >> hello, mr. president. the personnel at the military base are concerned about the black sea navy. for a lot of us, this provides a reallyt, as well as unique plant that is involved in repairing arms. what is going to be the future of these plants? >> you know this better than

anyone else in russia. we had agreements with ukraine of ourhe revamping fleet, upgrading of our fleet, but unfortunately those agreements were not followed and we had some problems with the rear quipping of our slates -- re-equipping of our fleets. shipsvy ships and port will be moved to sevastopol. two, we have great potential in crimea in terms of shipbuilding and ship repair work. volume will be concentrated there for the repair of ships at the crimean shipyards. the minister of defense to ploy

ormade in order -- deployed made in order and we will increase the potential of crimea . it has been sitting idle for a while. we're going to move in that sevastopol is a city of russian military and naval glory and this is what we will base our actions on. [applause] there are were lots of really various ethnicities and sevastopol.- in the recent tragedies fell upon

lots of people and residents. i know this includes you. you can ask one of the questions. >> hello, mr. president. my name is nina. is situation in ukraine that we in such a way have these borders divide our families. this applies to lots of families in crimea. unfortunately, -- how can you make sure that our brotherly, fraternal nations remain fraternal? >> we are all governed by certain emotions, but if we love

each other and respect each other, we have to try to find a way to understand each other. between countries and states, i'm sure we will find the jewel understanding with ukraine. mutual understanding with ukraine. we were returned to that problem again. let me point out this. , thenrespect each other we will have to recognize the right of each other for our own choice and people who live in ukraine after respect the choice that the residents of crimea made. that is my first thought.

that russiaought is is next to ukraine and it will always be ukraine's close neighbor. they will remember the help we prided -- provided to ukraine for many years. hundreds of billions of dollars. it is not only the money. we are connected by a lot of common interests. if you want to be successful, you have to be cooperate. ,his understanding will come despite all emotional difficulties that we experience today. [applause] will take one more question from sevastopol. >> here in sevastopol, we have

people coming from all over crimea. lots of people are saying it has been the third line of defense. that have been two wars sevastopol was involved in. spente 23 years they fending for the city of sevastopol, this was the third period in their history when they had to defend their city. the people are saying, what will follow the reunification? >> hello, mr. president. yvgeny.is he o i want to thank you for making home.e back now we can call ourselves russian. [applause]

thank you, thank you. but now that the imposter government in ukraine is doing its stuff to impair the lives of the crimean's, we have all of the banking sector liang crimea. we have problems with -- fe leeing crimea. we have problems with bank transfers. people cannot get deposits back because the ukrainian banks are ignoring the interests and demands of the depositors. my question is as follows -- how can the russian government fix this situation? >> today, it is one of the most

topical and least regulated problems. i'm sure there are other problems in the private sector, power and water, but the banking -- that issue has not been resolved fully. we are trying to negotiate with our ukrainian partner. so far, it is failing. the head of the department, they do not, they are not willing to move to work with us. this only makes us split our movement to rubles. at openinging accounts and creating a banking network. it takes time to do it at a

high-level. we will need about a month to open the required amount of accounts and create the networks. with all of the necessary equipment. you mentioned pensioners and people who get their salaries from the budget. there are economic issues as well. this is all a passing thing we will overcome. the pensioners and those who get money from the budget, you know, the government of the russian federation has made a decision that they should be made equal to russian pensioners and budget inquiries to avoid the surge of inflation and the cause of the crisis -- remitted decision to follow a step-by-step process to increase by 25% the income of

the pensioners and budget professionals from april 4. then another 25% from may the first. then another 25% from june 1. then finish the remaining fund a five percent increase on the increase ony -- 25% the first of july. over this time, the increase of pensioners, state employed professionals -- for the pensioners, there used to be a 100% difference between the russian pensioners and ukrainian pensioners. russian pensioners get two times more than the ukrainians. in russia it is 11,600. these to get 5500 in ukraine.

we have a lot of military servicemen in crimea. there are a lot of crimean residents and these men get paid four times more than the ukrainian counterparts. i hope that people living in advantages feel the of joining the russian federation in a material sense, not to mention the economy, the development of tourism. that is what we will talk about later. we have a question asking whether the lady who is expecting a second baby can get her maternal care? >> of course. all of the benefits that the residents of crimea had when they were out of ukraine, they should not be lost.

even if russia does not have similar things, using additional subsidies for the crimean budget , we will keep those and at the same time the residents of crimea and sevastopol will get all social allowances that are stipulated by the russian laws for the russian citizens. >> one more question from sevastopol plays. -- please. , lots of people consider crimea a resort. what about our industry and agriculture? what is russia going to do to develop all of the industries in crimea? my second question is that you promised to create free economics, a free economic area, what will that mean for ordinary crime and's?

-- crimean's? are correct. crimea is associated with tourism, but it also has an economic industrial and agriculture potential. these enterprises require additional capital. i mentioned shipbuilding and ship repair. there is promising infrastructure facilities. they have agriculture. 1990, if weh compare how crimean agriculture work to then and now, agricultural production went down by 60%. in 2014, the agriculture companies of crimea produced

only 40% of what they produced in 1990. agriculture requires additional investment. that is an issue that has to be resolved. the producing of rice requires a lot of water. time and capital investment. this is what we will also be doing. the services and recreational facilities -- crimea is a base of the russian navy and also a resort for the entire soviet union. this is what we are going to develop as well. facilities, they are building an infrastructure that has deteriorated.

forts and found out that some of them cannot even be used for accommodations. how did people come there? , but shameful to admit people said that they were just ranking alcohol and went to the beach. we cannot have that kind of approach. it will require additional investments of capital and a free economic zone that you just mentioned. we will move russian capital to crimea to speed up the development, to let the residents of crimea have their own proposals.

, the mayor of sevastopol and he talked about creating a development agency. i'm sure we are on the right track. we will get positive thoughts. >> i'm going to introduce a little bit of criticism. saying text messages are that perhaps crimea may lose its identity, so to speak. people are going to build lots of beautiful palaces, gardens, mansions. there has been no elementary utilities in crimea and there will not be any. >> they have enough castles and crimea. -- in the crimea.

lacking ist they are this close attention to recreational facilities for the masses. like mushrooms, they spring up those castles for the rich people, for all a dark's. -- oligarchs. that is related to legislation. federal authorities in crimea. we need to do everything we can to make timely decisions to get rid of such a way of developing the territories there. >> another text message is saying, who were those young people? those polite young gentleman, you mean? i already mentioned that a few ended myore publicly

conversations with my foreign colleagues. ensure that to conditions for the free expression for the role of crimeans -- rule of were present. we wanted to avoid radicals and nationalists armed with automatic weapons. of course, we have our servicemen. correctly.cting very at the same time, defensively and professionally. to conduct a referendum in an open way and tell people express their will. without that, this expression of will would be impossible.

in crimea, they have more t armed.hat are well the warehouses with weapons and trains with ammunition. protect the civilian population from the slightest opportunity for those weapons to be used against them. [applause] let's give the floor to the head of the russian navy. i am commander-in-chief, vice admiral alexander. >> i'm sorry we can't. . -- hear you.

the commander should have a commanding voice. [laughter] >> let me take this opportunity to thank all of the russians. let me thank you for the support that we received throughout this difficulty word in crimea. years, there 23 have not been any solid the militarynto infrastructure in crimea and now it is in a really poor state, especially to do with accommodations for servicemen and former servicemen from the ukrainian army who joined the russian black navy. mr.results of your project, putin, are now a source of pride for russians. are you going to take another , like the submarine

plan you are talking about, to accommodate russian servicemen in crimea? tofirst of all, the program develop the base in sevastopol and the black sea fleet in general would extend social programs we have in russia to the black sea fleet in sevastopol and also provide accommodations. >> mr. putin, you mentioned crimean self-defense. we have some of the representatives from the self-defense units here in the studio. are crimean officers and some of the cossacks. there were some dramatic moments. ahead ofofficers were

the extremists coming to crimea, they helped avoid tragedy, actually. i would like to give the floor to yuri. his original units were deployed in kiev at a very complicated time. at a certain time, there were actually -- they were actually abandoned and they told me how they took their own decisions, how they collected their injured officers, andllow they were constantly being fired at. >> hello. i am the commander. my name is yuri. here is what i want to say. he units were in kiev when t activists took power over from

viktor yanukovych. we were being fired at. people threw stones at us, fired shots at us. we have dozens of people injured and killed. but there was an order to avoid bloodshed. but then we were betrayed. so i have got a question. you have long been in contact with victory in the coverage, especially when he was , has het of ukraine always been? you know, in russia we have any head ofion that any state bears a huge burden of

responsibility. , a person actses according to his experience and his values. as for viktor yanukovych, he did his duty as he felt necessary. of course, i spoke with them many times during the crisis and after he ended up in the russian federation. possibilityut the of the use of force. you can think what you want about it, but this is what he told me. in response. as he put it. usingght many times about force. notthen he said, i could

make myself do it. sign that kind of order to use force against my own people, my own citizens. friends did anur honest and professional job. you did your professional duty. me and others respect , your and your comrades other servicemen -- but eventually what happened to you iev your colleagues in k right now, this will hurt the ukrainian state back. -- you should not

smear them. themhould not avoid giving medical assistance when they are in hospital. there are people who are in the hospital right now. they are not only not treated, but they are not even fed. we get no response. the government treats the people like that, people who do their duty professionally, i doubt anyone could be doing that in the future. and that is what we are seeing right now. the final analysis, i think people will realize how when younal you were

follow your orders, and we thank you. [applause] now, our viewers have a lot of questions on ukraine, with lots of historical reference. situation -- the diedthe chilean president protecting his country -- won't , -- ight defend its independence? >> i would not say he fled. he had to go to a region of ukraine first. which -- when

viktor yanukovych signed it on the first of february, there european alliances of poland, france, and germany, he believed it was there. according to that agreement, he would not use the army and units from the capital, destroyopposition would their barricades and disarm their armed units. viktor yanukovych agreed to their constitution, to the elections in december. to agree tod him

elections in a month or two, he would agree to anything, but no. andoon as he lost kiev withdrew military units from the capital, immediately the opposition did not stop there. this was a coup d'état, a classic coup d'état. why did they have to do that? acted so unprofessionally and so stupidly. i cannot defend that, and nobody has an answer to that. nobody can answer that. , a person makes a decision in a critical decision based on his entire life experience and of his values. know, i used to work at the in internal intelligence,

and special training. one of the key elements of that training that you have to be absolutely loyal to your people and to your country and to your state. the ukraine, crimea, and the coup d'état is a really debated issue. for instance, 96% of all russians said they were right on the reunification with crimea, but some people disagree. today in our studio we have representatives of both points of view, so some of these people those who spoke favorably of reunification. let's give the floor to them. of the artists and performers signed a letter, more than 500 people signed a letter

thanking mr. putin for reunification with crimea, and this was a highly debated letter. explain yourself? >> i have repeatedly said there are two points i would like to make. the first point is that my father took part in the liberation of crimea. when he was 20 years old he was the head over the artillery brigade. by the way, and he originally comes from armenia, and neither comrades had any doubts that she probably would not understand me if i took any other kind of stance. when ukrainian statehood

actually ceased to exist, there are grants for the crimean people to have no right to determine their own future. i do not really , that the mr. putin ukrainian parliament is legitimate to a certain extent. but i don't really agree because i would say a parliament that comes from its own constitution can be on its own, so i don't think there's any reason that parliament and ukraine today, so theirimean people had th own right to determine their future. i know this was a difficult decision to make, and it has had and will have far-reaching and national consequences.

my question to you, mr. putin, is as follows -- over the last 10 years we have been moving china,, concerned with and our side is reciprocated from china. but these things, there is going -- e >> thank you for your position on crimea and your support. as for our relations with the people's republic of china, they have been developing quite successfully at a high level in terms of the travel -- of the level of trust and cooperation. politicalo do with sphere and our approaches to how we shore up safety and security in the world.

neighbors, and in that sense natural allies. formingot talking about some military or political association with them. i think the system has resulted itself. nato has created a over the soviet union and eastern europe, and then the soviet union ceased to exist and nato is still there. becoming a it is political organization. who is that? again, where is nato expending? that,ate new blocks like

for sure we will be expanding our operation with china. connection with the west, and $87 billion is with china. economically, power number one in the world. later,s, 20, 25 years but for sure it is going to happen, and with such a huge population as they modernize their a economy, it is a separate deal, and for sure we

will do our operations with china. we have never had so much trust in the military sphere. we are running joint military on the sea, offshore with china. this gives us reason to believe that the russian/chinese relations will be a significant and more politics significantly influence the international relations architecture. , i would like to come back to the letter in support of crimea. i would like to ask you -- what do you think of this kind of public letters? >> again, i am thankful to all who share my position and support my position on crimea and other issues.

statements,public it is a matter for every person. mr. -- for a while, but i don't know what his political views are. i did not expect that he would our jointis own words position on a number of problems. as for collective letters like that is possible, but it should not be. should not be formally organized. that is what i cannot support. .hat is not necessary five >> i think we should continue

with this issue of reunification of crimea. -- wesee my colleague used to work together 20 years ago. to introduce him now. andre is a journalist. quitee known for your independent position that you take on various events. but you said you supported reunification with crimea. but why did you say that? why did it cost so much criticism from your colleagues? i think it is not so much story.he crimea it is really about my stance on

the tv and radio station, the situation that happened. this testifies to a problem i faced a few years ago. i am really concerned over the fact that lots of young people had a somewhat distorted picture of the world. i work as a journalist, but i , youto put in some effort know, to explain to some of my that they are not the same thing. but i believe for a teenager or a child, it is really important to follow the trend, so to speak. but the russian government, the russian state has not set any

trends. tot is what i am trying explain. walking here to come here into the studio, i thought that i would be convinced that i am right. children, and my younger children are still in school. and the school has now shifted the responsibility for bringing 'p the children to parents shoulders, and we work hard on this problem. school in cadet educationion, and the is based on historical tradition , the traditions of military service. most of the teachers our servicemen who actually bring up

the children according to tradition. they learn, the cadets, the young guys learn respect for women, for older people. they are accustomed to discipline and physical exercise . in other words, at the cadet school, they are trained to become real men. is -- there are only 15 moscow schools. these schools are very few and far between. what i am suggesting is that probably you should have some legislation for these cadet schools. perhaps we could create and set up some foundations in the russian region that would help families with single-parent

keepies who would like to to their schools, and then maybe it would come back into trend and profession. the idea is not fashionable in our motherland. maybe somewhere in your circle it is not fashionable. i was referring to my journalistic experience. how it emotionally impacted the society. we just found out that we do have patriotism. it is part of our nation, our nature and nation. journalist, was touched -- if you are the -- if you as a few

a journalist were touched by the lack of fashion and if you are troubled by that, that means patriotism is rooted deeply in you, too. need to learn about that and see if we have the military framework. let's look at this. i am sure we are moving in the , but shouldion here we do something on the legislative level here? i am not sure. thatmise we will look into , into a new form of training. you are right, and you are probably an affluent person, and can afford your child to be at that type of school. , a supporter,ies

maybe a father, it is really important to reach a child to be morally educated, to be raised, and to be given an education. fors see how we can provide that financially. but in crimea we also plan to create similar educational institutions. now, mr. putin, you probably know that the people who disagree with the reunification of crimea and russia have been really vocal, and some of them have prevented -- have presented some really tough wording. teaching russian -- lesson --

>> lessons? calling for people to shoot at russian soldiers. other people are calling for other nations to exert sanctions on russia. some people are against the reunification right here in this studio. as we have already mentioned, the russian polls have shown that -- >> as we have already mentioned, the russian polls have shown that people who have opposed reunification are in the minority, but some of them are politicians, -- actors, singers, etc. they have been vocal in deed. their voices have been heard. thisuld like to ask why dispute emerged in our society? >> mr. putin, i think there have

been some -- it shows that it is time to stop the media war. this told not ascribe people who are trying to pose your point of view in a very gentle and polite way. has alwayshat crimea needed some sort of national identification, but they have always wanted to be part of russia. now that everything has happened, you have won. conducted aeed superior operation without firing a single shot. you are right in saying that these green people, the so-called green guys, are the whoian military servicemen protect the russian people. .his is really important

you also resorted to compromise. you sent your foreign minister, mr. lavrov, to speak directly to the ukrainian government in kiev, which is the only authority you can speak to in ukraine. like to state that we did not start the war, but only those who won the war will be able to put an end to this war because ordinary people in feel that theyn depend a lot on what is happening in ukraine. people are ordinary increasingly feeling the consequences of the struggle between the members of their

families even. let me tell you, as a former politician, that europe has never solved any questions because it does not like solving basic problems, these questions. it likes a calm life. ahead of the election, russia is insisting on a referendum on a constitutional conference before the election actually takes place. but i believe that as long as russia and the u.s. continue to stick to their own positions and their views, the war will spill over into the whole space out and neither you nor the russians

nor the crimean's nor the ukrainians nor the russians and ukraine will actually like that. the possible compromise involves a regionalization of the ukraine , which means the east and some in ukraine will be able to speak have their own authority. but we should recognize that we need an early election to make sure that everything columns down in ukraine. we do think russia can offer a compromise between russia and the u.s. on the one hand, we are going to have elections in the ukraine on the 25th by some diplomatic means. i do think this is possible -- do you think this is possible at home? >> can compromise be found on ukraine, between the u.s. and

russia echo a compromise should be found not before third parties, but between political forces within the ukraine itself . that is the key issue. outside. can we just support it and follow that? what those first? the constitution first and then the elections? negotiations first through the elections and then a referendum? the important question is, we rights ensure russian and interests of russian-speaking in the southeast of russia. this is called new russia.

this was never part of the ukraine. these territories were passed on to ukraine in 1920 by the soviet government. happened after potemkin and catherine the great's victories in the wars. nova receivess in -- today they are citizens of ukraine, but they should have equal rights of the citizens. it is not the point what comes first. the referendum or the elections. the election and then the change of the structure. the problem is the guarantees for those people. we have to make them understand to find the needs

solution to this question of where are the guarantees. southeast will ask the current government in kiev, tomorrow you will forget about that. to don't that's -- other times we will ask where are our guarantees? this is what we need to resolve. i hope the answer to this question will be found. [applause] i would like now to give the floor to another lady. the editor in chief of a leading literature journal in russia. putin, i will probably talk a little bit about the

culture aspects of the crimean events. you probably remember that when he was looking for russian citizenship, he was speaking of his life in russia as an amazing , great culture, and probably the crimean events have given a events inpetus to the culture. we have got persecution against modern art, we have got people artist, oflture, the all sorts of things, and culture a place of ideology. so there is internal division that the people themselves are introducing. when the people who speak up with alternative positions are

being a patriotic person, they are called unpatriotic. i believe that everyone understands that what happens in -- was actually a forced event. ,o this kind of alienation anger that we have inside the ofsian society, was lots even politicians speaking against an alternative point of view, do think this is going to deprive russia of the status of the great cultural power. >> thank you for your question. to be honest with you, i do not in they special change situation, any special tension, even after the events in crimea.

but of course the battle between motive -- everyone is free to express. we do not put anybody in prison for anything. nobody puts anybody labor they are continuing to do their professional duty but it's only natural that they find the opposition and the other people who propose them, are intellectual are not used to that and some of those believe what they say and that is the absolute truth and when they hear an objection, they become very emotional. and for the situation in the last couple of months in the situation in crimea, yes, i