it is fannie mae trying to count the blanket loan on the dakota property on central park west, the ago no property as affordable housing or other devices they have developed. i would like you to speak to how you better enforce the mission related part of how the -- of the economic recovery act. >> the first step i just heard this morning is changing our focus to pay some more attention to it. the affordable housing goals we're looking at aggressively. they are in place for 2014. we have been issuing -- issuing new goals for 2015. there is a lot of focus on that issue and it is part of the statutory mandate and the

charter mandates in fannie and freddie. we take those mandates seriously and obviously we think that congress took them seriously. otherwise they would not have written them into the law. so we're going to treat them as seriously as we treat every other aspect of fannie and freddie's and fhfa's statutory mandates. >> i had a question about servicing, one of the issues we hear a lot about contraction of credit is not only on ortiz when you sell the loan but also when you service the loan. recently jpmorgan's ceo jimmy dimon said he would not want to

serve -- service a defaulted loan. we have seen a lot of servicing transfers, out of any and freddie over to non-bank servicers and in recent months we have seen a lot of scrutiny on those servicers. i was wondering if you could comment on some of those transfers. what we might be able to expect in terms of regulation on those non-bank servicers and what can be done to give originators and servicers some certainty that if the loan to faults they will properly serve that nonprofit. >> this has been a topical issue because there are multiple things that are at play here. jamie dimon is right when he says it is difficult to service a defaulted mortgage. it is easy to -- all it is is collecting and remitting. when somebody defaults a gets to

be a lot more complicated and there is a growing industry that is built up around some of whom have more expertise in this area than the lenders themselves who tend to focus more on the lending side than on the servicing side. and basel three has taken a lot of the capital requirements that may be led to some of the lenders wanting to get out of this space. so servicers are not regulated by fhfa. they are regulated by cfpb but not on the capital basis so there is a shortcoming there. we can control their relationships with fannie and

freddie, right? that is the space in which we operate. we have looked very carefully, in some cases much longer and more carefully than a lot of people would like for us to look at evaluating when these requests for transfers are made to see if -- are these people responsible, to whom are the companies responsible, to whom the transferring servicing rights are being transferred. what is their expertise, what is their history in the space. what kind of capital do they have if things start going bad, what kind of backup will the

lender provide to take the servicing back if necessary if the service does not. all those factors and we look at them very carefully in making our evaluations. and then sometimes there are short-term versus long-term competing considerations. the service or might do the servicing better. the longer-term concerns you are worried about, can they sustain it over a long time and we have to balance those. we have been responsible in that space and we are doing a lot of work to try to develop standards

so it is clear to fannie and freddie what we expect when it comes to transferring servicing rights and they can communicate that to the lenders that they are dealing with so that they know what to expect when you are transferring. i think you will find that we will be doing a lot of work going forward in that area. trying to refine what the expectations and standards are. rex i want to piggyback a quick question off of that. the seems -- and these seem like significant changes. what impact will it have on credit overlays? >> i hope that it will substantially reduce credit overlays and that lenders will start operating more inside the credit box that fannie and freddie have said they will purchase loans in or guaranteed loans in that space. and based on conversations that

we have had with industry participants emma my hope is a positive hope. i do not know when you transfer from hope to an expectation. some of them have assured me that if we can smooth out some of these uncertainties that exist in their space, it would translate into reduction and overlays and it would translate into more availability of credit to people who can afford to repay the loans. and that is what we are very much interested in having happened. >> like i said we have i am sure owes me in the crowd have a lot more questions we would love to

ask. thank you for coming. [applause] if i can ask everyone to remain in their sea while director exits the auditorium. >> thank you all so much. >> coming up live this afternoon, remarks from a number of administration officials beginning at 1:00 eastern susan rice will discuss foreign-policy challenges in conversation with pbs news hour coanchor judy woodruff.

that will be live starting at 1:00 eastern. afternoon, white house budget director silvio burwell on capitol hill testifying before the senate finance committee on her way to confirmation as the next health and human services secretary live here on c-span. at 2:00 thisup afternoon on c-span three, the heads of the securities and exchange commission and commodity futures trading commission to testify on ways to strengthen financial oversight and protect consumers. that will be live at 2:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. tosident obama expected leave washington shortly as he heads to new york city for several fundraising events tonight. expect it to travel to a major crossing point over the hudson river. he will call on congress to address the nation's -- agingcture

infrastructure. watch it live online. tomorrow, the president and first lady will attend the dedication ceremony for the national september 11 memorial and museum at the world trade center. live coverage right here on c-span networks. >> c-span's newest books, a collection of interviews with the top storytellers and the nation. i cannot say what the moment was because i have been living at all my life. my parents migrated from the south. my mother from george of father from southern virginia. washington is where they met, married and had me. i have lived with it all my lives. all around me in the neighborhood where i grew up. i was surrounded by the language, the music, the food,

ambitions of the people who had migrated from the south. a lot of competition about which child will go to which school. >> isabel wilkerson, one of 41 unique voices from 25 years in book notes and q and a conversations. c-span, now available for your favorite bookseller. coming up next, a discussion with an author who spent 10 days with nsa leaker edward snowden after he released hundreds of secret documents to the media from today's " washington journal." >> more nsa revelations, a deeper look into the man who made the revelations. two reasons to pick up glenn greenwald's new book. u.s.sa and the surveillance states. he is with us now. will be answering your

questions and comments. i want to start by the story you lay out and specifically ask the who was cincinnatus in story of edward snowden? >> the name he first use when he first contacted me. he is a fifth century leader of rome. there came a time when rome was the siege by all sorts of enemies and was under attack and they needed a leader who they thought could lead rome to victory. they recruited him. he had gone off to his farm to retire and live a peaceful life and they persuaded him to come back to the bedroom. he led a successful war victory and he was incredibly popular and had immense amounts of power and instead of keeping that power, he did what he said he was quick to do, which was relinquished voluntarily -- relinquished it voluntarily and he became this model of civic virtue. someone who uses power for the collective good, not their own.

i guess snowden found that inspiring and use that name. host: is this who edward snowden thought he was? guest: he did not think he was a roman emperor or anything like that. he admired what he did. he paid tribute to the relinquishment of power and the use of power for the public good by adopting his name as a pseudonym. host: you have been writing about these issues for many years. you have a lot of tips on different inks that people are willing to give you. what was it about the tips he got from edward snowden and made you trust him? guest: it took a while to establish trust. he first contacted me, he was quite reluctant to say anything about who he was or what he had. when you communicate in an unencrypted environment, there's a chance that others are listening to the things you're saying. it took many weeks before we could begin communicating. once we did, i can't say that i

fully trusted what he was saying or who he was. not until a got to hong kong and was able to sit down with him at a room and subject him to six hours of extremely intense and nonstop interrogation where i asked him every question that i had. he was extremely able to withstand that questioning. everything he said was very consistent. there was no hesitation. i was entirely convinced that he was who he said he was and was convinced that his motives are what you are presented them to be. host: you talk in your book about what you were expecting versus what you found when you first met him. guest: when he first contacted me, he made claims about the kind of documents he had. he said they were extremely sensitive, top-secret documents that were highly incriminating.

before i would go to hong kong to meet him, asked him to provide me with some samples selected know he was serious and real. he provided those and those documents were explosive. they were unlike anything that had leaked from the agency before. that fact that he had access to this material combined with his sophisticated insight that he demonstrated to me made me assume that he was very sincere. the fact that he was adamant about the fact that he wanted to be identified as the source, not to hide or remain anonymous, knowing the risks also made me assume that he had been around for somebody decades that he became so disillusioned by what he was seeing that he was willing to do that. when i met him and he turned out to be this kid, it was really disorienting and confusing and it took me a good couple of hours to get my composure and figure out what was going on.

host: you said you kept coming back to the question of why he was doing this. finally, he gave me an answer. the true measurement of a person's worth is not what they say they believe in, but what they do in defense of those police. if you're not acting on your believes, they are probably not real. guest: if you go back and try to put yourself in the position that i was in, which is part of what i tried to do in this book, to me, the most cold thing to understand was why was this 29-year-old who had a very stable life and prosperous career and a girlfriend who he loved and a family that was supportive, why was he willing to unravel his whole life and throw it all away in defense of his political principle?

i need to know that he had thought this through and there were motives that were genuine that he understood. he finally was able to access those during that time and said, look, my conscious demands that i not let these injustices linger. i can only look at myself in the mirror if i know i took defense. host: no place to hide. edward snowden, the nsa and the western real estate. we will get two calls. eric is waiting in georgia. on our line for democrats. you are on. caller: thank you. what snowden did -- i have a couple of points i would like to make. what snowden did, would you recommend that everyone who worked in this agency tell what

they know? take it upon themselves to make themselves the king who determines what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. all of these documents that you have brought -- these documents are national security issues. what makes you think you are the people who should disseminate this information? guest: there is a history in the united states that is extremely important where whistleblowers inside the government discover things that the u.s. government is doing and come forward. probably the most significant case prior to the ones of the last five years was -- he discovered classified information showing the u.s. government was systematically lying to the american people about the vietnam war ended upon

himself -- and took it upon himself to come forward and bring that to newspapers which then published it and informed people. the reason there is a constitutional protection of the free press is because the design of our country recognizes that people inside the government, if they can exercise people with transparency, they will abuse the power. the role of the press is embedded into the design of the country that we will report the things people in power are trying to hide. host: a question on twitter -- tommy documents did he take from the nsa? when will they all be released to the public? how many documents?

guest: i don't know how many documents he took. i know how many he gave me. i have said it's tens of thousands. that has been publicly disclosed many times. the government keeps trying to claim that he took 1.7 million documents. keith alexander just said last week that they actually have no idea how many took. that is a made up number. the media has been reporting it. when edward snowden came to us, he was very clear that he was giving us these documents because -- if you wanted them all to be published, he would not have come to us. he would not need us. he could have uploaded them all to the internet himself. that would have been very easy for him to do. what he said was, there is a lot of documents here and i don't believe i should be in the position to decide which ones should and should not be published. there are some that i think should not be published. there is these kinds of documents that should be published and there is a lot in

the middle that i want you with your editors and fellow journalists to make decisions about and report on responsibly. we are reporting on them one by one and we agreed we would do so. that is the best way to do so. i don't think all of the documents will be published because that is not what you wanted. all of the newsworthy stories here will be published. host: andrew is waiting in california on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. it's an honor to speak to you. i believe in restoring basic fourth amendment rights. given the tendency of government to maximize their own power over time, what safeguards could be put in place today which are likely to continue protecting our privacy 20 years down the road?

guest: great question. a hard one to answer in the digital age when so much information is transmitted electronically. there is a lot of different ways that the powers of the u.s. government are going to incur -- there is an institutional setting a couple of blocks away from us called the was congress that is in the process of passing some bills that will rein in a bit of what the nsa is doing. there are other countries in the world's populations and governments are indignant over what the united states is doing. i think they are in the process of working on ways to re-create the internet so that u.s. hegemony is not possible. they now perceive nsa surveillance as a serious threat to their prosperity. the most promising change is

that individuals around the world now realize the extent to which their privacy is compromised. they are series and crypt and tools that do work that let you wrap your e-mails and protective covers or containers that the nsa can't penetrate. for more people who use those, the harder it will be for the surveillance to continue. the default will be that everyone's communications online are encrypted. host: no place to hide. a book about snowden and the nsa. also a book about your experience, which brings a broad question. to what degree has relied and the lives of others been disrupted by u.s. government retaliation for your support of snowden? guest: it has been disruptive to a substantial degree.

it's fairly well known that after 10 months, my reporting partner -- senior officials repeatedly come explicitly characterized what we were doing is criminal and they escalated to that characterization. our partner was was held for nine hours under a terrorism law. there was a lot of concern about what would happen if we did return. there are all sorts of security risks. at the same time, i think if you're going to do a pic of journalism and you want to challenge people in power, there will be some disruption and journalists around the world have more risk and threats than we have confronted in standing up to corrupt police departments and the like.

host: that's good to james in jacksonville, north carolina our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i studied your book last night. i do have three quick questions today. when is -- richard responded to snowden's appearance and said that the conversation could have taken place about what the nsa was doing. it was the way the documents were released that it showed methods. organizations were moving away from using telecommunications, which made it harder for us to gain insight.

my second is, edward snowden turned over top-secret documents to journalists. do you guys use anything to determine which to disseminate to the public and which do not? did anybody have a background in intelligence to know the full scope of what they were releasing? guest: the question about whether or not the disclosures helped the terrorists avoid communication, if you look at every unwanted disclosure over the last 50 years, they make the same arguments. daniel was told that he would have blood on his hands and he would endanger the lives of men and women in uniform. every subsequent disclosure faces the same thing. there is zero evidence that any of that actually happens. that is the fear mongering of state officials. transparency -- i was asked about the number of documents we

were given. we have published a small percentage. we have been criticized in some quarters that don't get a lot of attention for not publishing a documents. for holding onto too many. i have that criticism much more then the claim that we publish too much. i think we have aired on the side of caution, especially in the beginning. we work with editors and the most experienced national security reporters around the world and we consult with experts in cryptography intelligence -- cryptology and diligence. we end up releasing them and get the information that way. we go through the same process

that all journalists do when making choices. host: the caller brings up edward snowden's appearance on sxsw. we have seen appearances in russia. how does that square with this nonmedia strategy that you talk about? he said, once identify and explore myself, i don't want to be the story. guest: he stuck to that for a long time. when we revealed edward snowden to the world, he became the most wanted media guest in the united states. every day, i had the biggest media stars in the united states bombarding me with e-mails and phone calls. you could have been on television every night on prime time for hours around the world. for months, he still has not

given an american television interview because he knew that his strategy of the american media and the political class in washington is to demonize the messenger. he wanted the focus to remain on the revelations. that really work. that is why there is a worldwide debate. he is now participating more actively in the debate that he helped start around the world. he does it when he can talk about the documents and surveillance. not when he is going to be asked, what do you do with your day in moscow and do you miss your girlfriend? even now that he is becoming more assertive about expressing himself, he does so in a way that ensures that that participation will be substantive. host: how much are you still in contact with them? guest: i am in regular contact with him where he is able to communicate entirely through

encrypted chat technology. we have appeared together on a couple of occasions and events. he sits on the board of an organization, the freedom of the press foundation. i see him on video when we have board meetings. host: let's go to chuck in kansas city on our live for host: let's go to chuck in kansas city on our live for democrats. good morning. caller: i wanted to ask, if we can't address the surveillance -- why aren't more journalists writing about building seven on 9/11 -- host: we will stick to edward snowden. let's go to lance waiting in springfield, missouri. on our live for republicans. caller: it is great to talk to you i can't wait to read her book. -- it is great to talk to you. i can't wait to read your book.

british intelligence agencies have treated you guys, rating your compound and a string or personal property, holding your partner -- i was curious if mr. snowden is being pressured in any way by the russian federation in agreement with his political asylum not to release any more documents? the last thing i would ask is, i believe you live in brazil, correct? i am from middle america and they like to keep us in poverty here. i'm curious about moving to south america myself before too long. i would like to hear your thoughts on what you think about it down there. guest: as far as mr. snowden and the pressure he faces or does

not face in russia, i think it's quite clear that the russian document has never pressured -- russian government has never pressured him in any way. he does not even have any of the documents with them any longer. as far as the erring on the side of caution, the way this works is that, what we were in hong kong, he gave us many thousands of documents. those were all the documents that he ever released. he has not released a single document to anybody. since june of last year. since then, the decision about which documents to be released have been made by journalists. whether you agree with the disclosure not, that decision is made by the journalist who published them. there is a framework he created to which we agreed about how it would work and which kinds of documents would be created. in general, he is not the one making those decisions. it's really the journalists.

all i can say about south america, it's a beautiful content. you could do a lot worse than those kinds of places. host: there has been criticism about picking hong kong to meet with you. where would snowden have landed had we not taken his passport when he was in the moscow airport? guest: on the question of hong kong, when he decided he was going to take these documents, his overarching priority was to make sure it happened. that he got his documents into the hands of the journalists he had chosen to work with. he needed to be in a place where he felt secure that it united states government had detected what he was doing, they would be unable to operate easily guessed him to stop him from doing this.

if you got to iceland, the u.s. government could have pressured the icelandic government to turn him over. if he got to ecuador, the cia operates very freely and that would or and they could have stopped him. hong kong was a place that gave him some degree of security because the u.s. government does have a hard time operating there, but he wanted to be in a place that had political values that he felt come bowl with. hong kong has this climate of dissidents -- there was this massive protest against the chinese government. he felt like it was this perfectly calibrated lays in which to be. the public record is clear that he is in moscow. because he just to be there -- he was trying to transit out of moscow in order to get to cuba and fly on to ecuador.

he never got out of moscow because the was government revoked his passport. host: where will snowden -- what will snowden do when his temporary asylum expires? guest: it is unclear. the russians have indicated that they intend to extend his asylum by another year. there are very active debates about whether they should offer him asylum. in recognition of the acts that he undertook to protect the privacy of the citizens of those countries. for at least a good while longer, he will be safe. host: diane is calling in from florida on outline for democrats. good morning. caller: hello. it is an honor to speak with you and i want to thank you so much for your journalism and your ethics. i watched the frontline show

last night. it was amazing. it it was so informative and so well put together. my question goes to an interview you did on democracy now regarding the cisco equipment and going through fedex and being intercepted. you had the nsa altering the equipment. guest: that is a perfectly fine description. caller: if they are using the postal service, which is a government entity, packages first class are sealed to inspection unless under warned by postal inspectors. you were saying that the postal service is part of that?

i know you made a comment and that you weren't sure how it worked. guest: the document that you're talking about is one that we published for the first time in the book. like all the documents in the book, we put them online so people could see them for free. the document is a page, 149 in the book, describes a program in the nsa to provide internet services to villages or municipalities. the nsa will physically intercept the product in transit, open it up and re-seal it with a factory seal and send it on to the end user. one of the photos actually shows the nsa boasting about what they do.

having opened a package from cisco. and then resealing it with a factory seal and sending it on after the implant a surveillance device that is undetectable to the eye. whether they do that from the u.s. postal service or from private mail companies like fedex or ups is unclear from the document. it's a good question. i think that is something we ought to know. what is clear is that they do it. they have a team devoted to that being done. this is something the government has been vehemently denies and the chinese for allegedly doing and warning the public about. here is the nsa doing exactly that. trying to ward the world off of chinese products.

that gives the nsa access to more people's devices. host: let's go to mark in maryland. on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i do find this whole issue very interesting. when he first came out, there was a lot of revelation about his character and what have you. how he will be viewed in the long-term. my question involves -- do you see that mr. snowden -- do you think he was naïve in any way as to how this would affect international relations among the different countries? how do you think you've use it

now as to what he has done to the international community? guest: for me, the guiding light of how to understand these issues is what happened to daniel, my political hero from my childhood. i spent a lot of time talking to them about what he went through and he has been one of mr. snowden's most ardent defenders. all the things being said now by democrats and some republicans that we have supporters on both sides as well -- they were saying he was a russian spy and was reckless and anti-american. the country regards what he did as noble and heroic. that is how history will view mr. snowden as well. there are a lot of adjectives you could to edward snowden. naïve is not one of them. he had a very clear understanding of how the international community would

react to this finding. i think part of his hope for reform lay in the fact that most people around the world had no idea that the u.s. government was doing these things. they would demand that the government take action against them. he hoped that was one of the primary ways that reform could come about. host: kentucky on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: the information that you now know, is there any hope for some nuremberg trials in the future for corrupt politicians who are trying to start world war iii with russia? do you think the mainstream media will derail rand paul's 2016 presidential run like they did his father in 2012?

guest: the last time i was on c-span, it was in conjunction with my 2011 book, which is a book about how political allegiance in the united states have committed the most egregious crimes you can imagine over the last decade. from torturing people systematically to kidnapping them into invading and destroying a country of 26 million people. also causing a financial collapse around the world through systemic financial fraud. none of the people responsible for any of those policies were even remotely punish or held accountable. political and financial -- the lesson from the armored trials -- nuremberg trials was that all countries -- as far as rand paul, it's true for both the democratic and republican parties, whenever there is a

candidate who challenges prevailing wisdom in washington, they step outside the confines of orthodoxy, the reaction of the media is to demonize them. that will happen to any politician in 2016 who does that. host: what is establishment journalism and corporate journalism as you describe it in your book? guest: one of the big changes in american journalism over the last 30 years has become this corporatization of journalism. when you went to work for your local paper or a television program, you were essentially working for families or companies that had primary

business journalism. that was the general rule. now, if you work for a large media outlet, what you really are is a comcast employee. you go to work for the washington post, you are an employee of a corporation that owns educational services. these corporations have somebody different relationships and dependencies on the united states government and other factions that wield power. they have an overwhelming interest in being cooperative. corporate ties affect how journalism functions. there is no adversarial youth those of what journalism is. it's a button-down, like the insurance industry. it is transforming journalism for the worst. new media and the digital age is allowing the older spirit of

journalism that is more noble and more constructive to reemerge. you can now do journalism outside of those confines. host: how do you feel about your interaction with some of those media identities that you were talking about? how do you feel about the washington post and new york times doing book reviews on your book this week? guest: despite what i said, there are good journalists at every single one of the large media institutions, including the new york times and the washington post. it has been interesting to watch that over the past year, because i've been able to do the story and the reporting has received awards, the way that the reporting has been treated as changed to some extent. you see embedded in the reviews, even the post and the new york times, this sort of closing up the ranks criticism and attacks on what i wrote. largely due to the fact that i've been critical of the obama administration.

host: from the new york times review that came out yesterday, noting towards the end of that review, "he makes false assertion that one unwritten rule designed to protect the government is that media outlets published only a few secret documents and stop. they would report on the archives like snowden's to limit its impact and publish and full stories, revel in the accolades of the big scoop, click prizes and walk away come ensuring that nothing had really changed. many of his gross generalizations about the establishment media do a terrible disservice to the many tenacious investigative reporters who broken important stories on some of of the very subjects that he feels so strongly about." guest: it was a very positive review overall. surprise surprise that he disliked my critiques of the

new york times. the new york times has been in possession of many tens of thousands of documents from the nsa. the received them from the guardian. they have produced very few stories over the past eight months since they have received the material. there absolutely are good journalists and these newspapers. they do break good stories sometimes. everybody knows what the new york times did in the run-up to the iraq war. they sat on the story of the nsa -- in general, although there are exceptions, there is an overwhelming closeness between media outlets that are the largest and most influential and the government. host: let's go to dan in george on our line for republicans.

caller: i was talking to amy goodman about what the nsa already knows about -- a lot of people in the world claim treason for this. is snowden going to be able to discredit the nsa where we can get away with our 2030 deal? guest: what will happen to the nsa is unknown because so much of it depends on how people around the world respond in terms of commanding reforms. mr. snowden already faces serious charges. that is why he has been given asylum at four different countries. host: another question on 9/11 relating to your work. do you have anything on the events surrounding 9/11 and the snowden archive? guest: i try not to comment on the stuff we have not published.

it is very easy to say things that are not accurate representations. the documents that he took tended to be very recent documents. almost all of what we published have been from 2012 and 2013. there are things like investigations into 9/11 that occurred 10 years ago -- they tend not to be in what he turned over. host: let's go to mike in florida on our life for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. president kennedy had concerns about secret government -- i know snowden, if yet gone to the regular process of whistleblowing, he would have been accused of treason anyway. my concern is, how can we better the process if we have an employee under federal contract

-- if he wants to step forward, protect him enough if there is a legitimate enough claim of wrongdoing without this political infighting about him being a traitor. he knows if he went through that process, he would have been tried and convicted for being a traitor. i just wanted to ask you of your opinion about how to better that process. guest: it's a good question because so much of what is said here is designed to deceive and mislead the public. mr. snowden should have invoked the protections he had under the laws of a whistleblower. which is something president obama himself said. the reason it is so false is because the law that president obama was talking about is not even apply to private contractor employees.

which is significant because a huge part of the national security state is outsourced to private corporations. something like 70% of the overall budget goes to the nsa. it ends up going to the functions of private corporations. this idea that there are these great whistleblowing procedures that he should've gone through, the way the u.s. government is structured is to hide, not to eliminate secret wrongdoing by people in power. the best proof of that is that there are two democratic senators who sit on the senate intelligence community weapon going round the city and everywhere they can for years warning the public that there are these radical surveillance policies. the public would be stunned to learn about what it was that was being done. yet, those two senders do not -- senators do not have the courage to disclose these programs

because the system is designed to gag even powerful senators when they discover the national security is doing something wrong. he knew he cannot go to people like them because they were impotent. the system ensures they are and they ensure that they are. the only way was to go to newspapers and ask them to publish it. host: along with twitter questions and callers, a few questions over e-mail. one of the questions from jackie in ohio -- he stayed to fight for his ideals. mr. snowden ran for russia and it looks like he is making money off of this, as are you. you are a blogger and are now making a lot of money off the stealing of these documents. guest: daniel did hide. he had for weeks because he did not want to be rested. he is the person who most vehemently disagrees with the

person invoking his name. he wrote an op-ed in the washington post july 2013. mr. snowden was right to flee. he said edward snowden, if he were to come back to the nest is, unlike him, he would not be permitted to speak for himself or released on bail. he did the right thing in leaving. there is zero evidence that edward snowden made any money off of these disclosures. he could have. he could have sold this information to foreign intelligence agencies for tens of millions of dollars and been extremely rich for the rest of his life. that was not his goal. i am paid for my work. all journalists should be paid for their work. edward snowden himself has never made a single penny from what he has done, except for the few whistleblower awards he has been given around the world.

host: a question from scott on facebook. "where do you think we draw the line between being a whistleblower versus illegally hacking into classified systems, revealing classified information and thus being guilty of treason?" guest: this word treason is being thrown around so frequently. there is a definition of what it means in the constitution. it means aiding and abetting america's enemies. giving them assistance. there is no evidence that he illegally hacked into the systems. he was an employee of these corporations that were entitled to access these documents. he was doing it as part of his job. ultimately, the distinction between a whistleblower and someone who commits treason is, you look at their actions. they secretly hand information over to america's adversaries.

he did exactly what you want a whistleblower to do, come to journalists and say to journalists, i discovered this wrongdoing and i wanted to publish it. federal courts in the united states have said that the program we were able to reveal was a violation of the constitutional rights of millions of americans. that is what a whistleblower is. host: do you ever fear for your life? guest: there is risk to all of this journalism. the brazilian senate voted back in july to provide me and my partner with federal security and protection. i think there are a lot of journalists all over the world who face much greater risk than we are. host: james is up next in new mexico on our life are independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is that the problems we are experiencing today are

only here today after the advent of the internet. i believe to secure the banking systems in america again and business in america again, it would be prudent that we remove business and banking from the internet and allow it to be for social purposes only. that would address some of the issues we're dealing with today with financial security. host: how would banking and business work under your scenario? guest: we would go back to the paper system and put more people to work. secure the systems like they had in the past. guest: i don't think you can ever fight against the wave of technology.

you can make the internet a much safer place. our government spends $75 billion to weaken privacy protocols on the internet and allow themselves and other governments to invade our information. imagine if we demanded that just a small fraction of that money being spent by our government to destroy privacy on the internet, were devoted to finding way to bolster privacy and strengthen it. that seems to be a much better expenditure of a lesser sum of money. host: let's go to dwight in alexandria, louisiana shoreline for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your journalism.

i have three questions. what would snowden want in china and russia? do you not feel like this makes him seem as though he is a traitor? there are other places such as where you are that do not have extradition treaties and so forth with the united states. two of our biggest adversaries -- it makes it look like -- for the country to be holding him up as a hero when we have never had

true freedom -- it goes back to hoover and his rapid movement that he had during his tenure. host: i want to let him respond. we are running out of time. guest: anybody can make up anything and say, i think china offered him money and he moved on to russia and got more money there. that is what we call delusions and fantasies. if you have no evidence for those serious accusations, they are not worth it. there is a perception problem with him being in russia. maybe that is the reason that united states government forced him there. i don't know what their motive is, but i know the reason he is in russia is not because you chose to be there. it is because he was trying to get out and was blocked by doing so. the hoover part of the question the hoover part of the question is important. we do have a history of systematic surveillance abuses over many decades by democratic and republican administrations.

it should teach us a lesson that we don't want the u.s. government being able to monitor and surveil our communications because we know that it will be abused and that the victims of that abuse will be our nation's minorities and marginalized groups. host: the book is "no place to hide." we appreciate you joining us. guest: thank you for having me. >> we are live this afternoon and awaiting her marks from susan writes -- susan rice. she is here to discuss foreign challenges facing the united states. we understand they are going to get started about 10 minutes late. we will have this live for you. it is hosted by the women's foreign policy group and should get underway in a few moments

here on c-span. p.m. eastern,:15 sylvia burwell is on capitol hill. she will be testifying before the senate finance committee as confirmation as the next health and human -- health andttee human services secretary. also, the futures trading commission will be testifying on ways to strengthen financial oversight and strengthen consumers. that is on our campania network, c-span three. president obama is leaving washington and on his way to new york for several fundraising events. he is expected to call on congress to address the nation's aging infrastructure. the president's remarks are set for 3:25 p.m. eastern this

afternoon. you will be able to watch them live on c-span.org. also her reminder, tomorrow the president and first lady will attend the dedication of the september 11 museum. that will be live tomorrow. >> again, awaiting her marks by national security adviser susan rice. she will be interviewed by judy woodruff from pbs.

we expect this to get underway in a few moments. earlier this, morning we spoke with edward alden, a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations on the history and role and mission of the council on foreign relations.

post: ukraine is an issue that has been talked about for most -- for months. what is your role when a less familiar foreign-policy issue comes up, like poker over home -- ook over rom

host: we continue to spotlight the work of the council of foreign relations this morning, we turn to the topic of the ongoing crisis in the ukraine. stephen sestanovich is a senior are trying to help

the u.s. figure out the best strategy in this situation. host. you bring up former ambassador campbell. he was nice enough to talk with us on this issue. we are talking about background. i want to ask you, mr. alden, have.ny scholars do you

host: and this morning, we spotlight a think tank whose work often appears on this show, the counts soil foreign relations. joining us from the d.c. office is senior fellow, edward alden. first want to ask you about the mission. how do you see a role in major foreign policy debates like the one taking place right now, what's going on in ukraine? our our role is to try to be a source of useful information to the public, to the media, to policy makers, so in an event like ukraine, we've done a variety of events. we've done press calls with our experts that yes, you're going to have on next, steve sestanovich, i always have trouble with my s's early in the morning, with the former ambassador at large for president clinton, working on the newly emerging states in eastern europe. we do meetings here at the council with members to discuss some of the key issues. we've got fellows and scholars here working on papers related to this and other major issues. the whole variety of things is think tanks tend to do to raise sandub policy make air wearness and help come up with ideas that can be useful in terms of solution. scommoip ukraine is an issue that's been talked about and debated for months. what is c.f.r.'s role when a less familiar foreign policy issue comes up, like boko haram did in just the past week or so here in the united states? it's become such an intensely talked about issue in nigeria. what is your role in sort of forming that discussion? >> well, there's important work always going on here in the background. we have, for instance, the

center for preventive action run by my colleague, and what they do is they prepare scenario papers. so if there are crises in different parts of the world that might affect u.s. interest, they bring together groups of experts, councilmembers and others to try to think through, well, what could be the u.s. responses in those sorts of situations. >> we are going to get started. we are so delighted to have this program today with the women's policy group. i have to say at the outset, as someone who worked at the news hour some years ago, it has been a thrill to watch the growth of this organization. a thrill to bring together women who are not only interested in foreign policy, but who are accomplishing things and foreign-policy. as we heard earlier, the mentor program with young women is remarkable and i know that is going to continue to grow as well. so now it is my great pleasure to introduce the person you have come to hear, ambassador susan rice.

know, the you president's national security adviser. she has been in this position since july of last year. before that she was ambassador to the united nations and of course a member of the president's cabinet. during the clinton administration, she served as u.s. assistant secretary of state for african affairs, and senioro that, as director for african affairs and the director of international organizations and peacekeeping at the national security council. between her two cents in government -- two stints in , she was a senior fellow at the brookings institute. i could go on and on, but we want to leave time for questions, so please join me in welcoming ambassador susan rice. [applause]

>> there are so many areas of the world getting a lot of attention right now, it's hard to know where to begin. maybe that's how you feel every morning. but just to start with something i know has captured everyone's attention the last couple of weeks and that is nigeria. what right now is the state of the search for these young girls objectedkidnapped, from their school, and this -- abducted from their school. and the u.s. has now joined the search with the nigerian government. >> i appreciate you asking about it. this is such a horrific situation. for those of us who are policymakers but also those of us who are parents, as i am, it is heartbreaking to imagine your teenage girl taken away and potentially at risk of being sold into captivity or worse.

this has gripped all of us in and acrosstration the country. we are doing all he can to support the nigerian government's efforts to recover -- girls, which is obviously job one is to try to find them. they are now missing in an area that is roughly the size of the state of west virginia. that is a large territory. the united states is very actively involved. now of up to 30 people on the ground cooperating closely with the nigerian government. our team consists of diplomats, military advisers, intelligence experts, law-enforcement experts and even development experts all coordinating closely with the nigerian government and now, increasingly, with representatives from the british government, the french government, and the israeli government, all of whom are there in search of the girls. also applying aerial

assets including manned and unmanned aircraft to do what we call intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance over this large area so we can maximize the resources devoted to trying to locate the girls. as i said, that's job one. >> i think everyone has observed how long it took the government in nigeria, the government of good not jonathan -- good luck jonathan, to get started on this. that're certainly pleased now they have accepted international offers of assistance, including that of the united states. we indicated early on our readiness to help in whatever ways they felt necessary. it is late, but hopefully it is not too late. the good news is that the best efforts of the countries that can provide the most

sophisticated support and surveillance are now on the scene. the government is working cooperatively with us and others on the ground in an all hands effort. >> he will not be surprised to know that there are already voices on capitol hill being, if not critical, at least questioning the administration. senator susan collins is saying that there should be special forces deployed. john mccain is saying that not only should there be troops, but they should be sent in even if the nigerian government does not want them. [laughter] -- ell [laughter] that obviously in this sort of situation the responsibility rests with the government of nigeria to provide for the security of its people and to protect the citizens. to the extent they make requests of us or others to provide support, we are open to

entertaining those, but obviously, as we said at the asset, the most important thing now is to locate the girls. there is no point in sending in additional support if we don't know where they are. the first order of business. >> but you're not ruling it out. likelihood,in all if we were to do more, it would likely be in an advisory capacity, which is what we are doing now and could potentially do more of if we had better information on where the girls were located. >> there are so many parts of the world to ask you about. i next want to turn to ukraine. roundtable talks about

ukraine decentralizing the government in some way, potentially shifting power to officials outside of kiev. do these talks, in your view, have a chance of success since at this point the government is still not including any representatives of the pro-russian separatist? >> for folks that have been following this closely, they began the day, as judy said, in the parliament building in kiev. it is quite a broad cross-section of ukrainian society, folks from the east, south, west, former politicians, groups of all sorts supported by -- an international organization that has been integral in trying to reduce tensions inside the ukraine. elementsot yet include from the armed opposition. the government has taken the perspective that if they are to nationalte in a

dialogue or roundtable, they need to lay down their weapons. the separatists, for their part, have refused to participate as well. can be something we hope inclusive as possible. clearly, a national dialogue is not the place for armed elements, but if they wish to participate and do so on a peaceful basis, i think the government of ukraine would be open to that and we certainly would be supportive. the osce, an organization we are a member of, has committed itself to supporting this process. there is an internal dialogue within ukraine to deal with the very real issues of language that need to be resolved. do you think a new form of government in ukraine is inevitable given what we have seen in the informal elections?

some have called it a referendum. others are not recognizing the legitimacy of it. clearly there is dissatisfaction on the part of a significant , inrity, if not majority parts of eastern ukraine. >> i would not say anything is inevitable in this context. first of all, there will be elections in a couple of weeks time. these are important elections that the vast majority of ukrainians are committed to participating in and taking seriously. we hope very much that security conditions will be such that those elections can be held throughout the country. that hasmall minority resorted to armed tactics in the the ukrainian people, having been through a huge political and social transformation, want very much to have the opportunity to

determine for themselves the form of government and their constitution. there is clearly a need to have a roundtable dialogue to work through the ease issues that are so divisive, including decentralization. they will do so, i think, with chartportunity to together what their new form of government will be. i don't think there is inevitably going to be an of thel dictating russian government. --in crimea, it seemed quick a quick move for russia to come in and annex crimea. does that say to you that is possiblef this

and possible in the near term, or do you look at this as a long, drawnout slog, in effect, that will mean rising sanctions continued tensions with the russians. they have arty said americans fort use their rockets space exploration. it seems like every day there is something else. which explanation do you see. >> the true answer is one cannot be certain how this is going to unfold. to be clear, what happened in crimea is completely illegitimate. nobody in the international community gives that any credence. that itself is something we need to be firm about and recognize costs that have already been imposed for the illegal annexation of crimea and nobody is excepting that. what the russians

choose to do and what they will risk for themselves going forward is really the tension we are dealing with. on the one hand, russians haven't seen -- have seen significant cost to their economy already. in terms of flow of capital and private businesses being very reticent to get involved in what was already a weakening economy. we have been very clear that if russians move forces in or take actions that cannot be held in a credible faction, that will trigger much more significant , including, as we have indicated, sanctions on key elements of the russian economy. i think that prospect has been heard and understood.

definitively.y he has to weigh the very real risks to this country and this of further destabilization. >> let's turn to the middle east , where there is a lot to look at. starting with syria. yesterday you and the president met with the leader of the syrian opposition at the white house, reaffirmed your political commitment to a solution.

but there are new developments. a designated meteor quit his job. among other things, he criticized the rest of the world for failing to agree on humanitarian aid, much less assistance that would bring this crisis to an end. the administration's statement says that the bishara assad -- bush are all assad regime -- says that assad regime has lost all legitimacy. but he holds the upper hand. he has called an election. his military seems to have the upper hand. on the outside, including the administration, due to change the situation on the ground in syria? >> we had a very productive meeting yesterday with the syrian opposition.

the leader oft the military side of the opposition. over twong lasted hours. we had an opportunity to hear from them what they most want from the united states and the international community. it was a very interesting discussion in several respects. explicitly do not want his u.s. military intervention. what they do want is increased support, which is exactly what we are doing. the discussion focused on their desire to be able to stand up hospitals and schools, and the institutions of civil authority in the areas they control. they're very concerned, obviously, as we are, about the humanitarian situation. the united states is the largest

provider of humanitarian assistance, 1.7 billion dollars worth, which they are very appreciative of, and obviously want to see continued. the problem on the humanitarian side, which we discussed at length, is really twofold. there is a denial of access across borders that the substantially responsible for, and the use of barrel bombs and other weapons of terror that are increasingly a tactic employed by the government. toy have asked for support deter the use of aerial bombardment, particularly barrel , along with increased humanitarian, civilian, and of course they want military assistance. from the u.s. point of view, we have for quite a while been not only the primary provider of humanitarian assistance, we have been ramping up our support to the opposition both in terms of the armed opposition in the civilian opposition.

we have been very careful to try to vet the aid we provide. is increasing and they acknowledge and appreciate that it is increasing. >> there is a disagreement over more lethal assistance. the administration is concerned that it gets to the wrong hands. >> they are very concerned about getting into the wrong hands, two. they are in fact fighting a two front war, on the one hand against assad regime and on the other hand against the extremists, the al qaeda elements. frankly,very focused, on the need to eradicate the as well aseat dealing with the assad regime through the negotiating table. they view the military at that

-- military effort against assad as a way of getting to the negotiating table. >> the french foreign minister said there is evidence the syrian government has used chemical weapons more than a dozen times after it signed a treaty banning them. hadent on to say france been prepared to use force last year as part of a us-led , but has not wanted to act alone. he said of the strike had been carried out, it would've changed many things. anyou or the resident have -- president have any regrets at this point about not moving into syria? >> the credible threat to use military force was to deal with the threat of chemical weapons. number ofere are no airstrikes that might have been contemplated that would have done what has been accomplished, which is 92.5% of the declared chemical weapons are out of the country.

percent, we are determined to get out. we made more progress in that regard in the time that has expired than many would've thought possible. week in israel last someng, as i do with regularity, with my israeli colleagues and counterparts. they have obviously for many years been deeply concerned about the chemical weapons syria and the risk that poses to israel and other neighboring countries. they thanked us profusely for our approach and our success in helping to get those chemical weapons out, which has substantially increase their sense of security even as they are dealing with the very difficult environment. i want to thank ambassador rose and our undersecretary for arms , who has been the most

active person and to work with the united nations and the russians to get those chemical weapons out. i think that is a huge success. i think it is important that we recognize that had we not had a credible threat of force the arious would not have knowledge they had these weapons much less shipped them out. in terms of the recent allegations, that is something we are quite concerned about. the allegations, by the way, are that the syrian government might have used a form of chlorine gas, which is not the same substance as sarin and the other lethal banned substances that are on the chemical weapons list, but they used chlorine, which is an industrial chemical, even though it is not on the chemical weapons prohibited list. it is a crime. is against the chemical

weapons convention if it is used in combat. we are looking very seriously at that through the oh pw, which has launched an investigation on the ground. they are the ones doing the removal. if in fact these allegations are verified, we will deal with them accordingly. but i want to be clear that there is some confusion in the public domain. same weapons the that were meant to be confiscated previously. >> but based on what the french foreign minister said, it sounded like there was some division among western powers. he said if the president had because we acted, it made it clear that the use of force was credible. and 92.5% of the chemical weapons are out of area. -- syria.

there has been discussion, and you are very familiar with comments you made in the time when he served in the clinton administration. samantha power, the u.s. ambassador now, quoted you as saying that after rwanda, 20 years ago, i swore to myself that if i ever faced such a crisis again, i would come down on the side of dramatic action. haveme would argue that i stopp. [laughter] syria is equally horrible a humanitarian crisis is wanda? -- as were wanda? >> it is not a genocide. one million people have not been

killed with machetes in a door to door massacre. as human beings and policymakers, mothers and tragediese feel these personally and deeply. rwandated were wanda -- six months after the genocide. experience kind of or anyll never leave me other individual who experiences. when you see a situation like syria and the cost in lives is extraordinary, one feels passionately about it. what are the tools available to us? war. is now a civil

it is something that is for itect, -- horrific, but needs to be distinguished from the type of genocide that we saw in rwanda. there will be in since is where -- instances where the tools we have can be up lloyd with greater or lesser effect to prevent the continuation of the conflict. this is not the only one. happening in other areas has cost many lives. it is profoundly disturbing. if you visit there, you see the huge human cost. you can see these -- say the same in places like somalia and south sudan and the central african republic. instances, iese consciences are

tested. , it does notance mean that the obvious answer is international military intervention. sometimes it may be. but not always. as pained as we are by circumstance, i do not think tot it is reasonable or wise think that our military intervention is viable. >> do you have a yardstick for when it is appropriate? >> i do not think there is a yardstick. each circumstance is different. the approach of the international community may vary. the complexity of the situation may differ. let's talk about libya. create some to positive affect.

of the un security council, qaddafi's or says ron the outskirts -- forces were on the outskirts of benghazi. he had said that he was going to wipe it out. he had a history of wiping out so many people. what distinguished libya was that the community was united. for hiss no great power government. in whicht a situation you had al qaeda and other extremist involved. it was not a situation that had regional dimensions. we were able to accomplish that in a coalition.

it included arab states and countries. that is different from what we are dealing with in syria. >> since you brought up benghazi, [laughter] >> you are too smart for that. come on. created aicans have special committee in the house of representatives to look at what happens before ensuring the attack on the consulate. that was when the ambassador and three others were killed. -- what more is there? >> dang if i know. producedistration has at least 25,000 pages of

documents or individual documents. they have supported, participated in, contributed to the investigation. we have had an accountability review board. it was a distinct group of outsiders. the house and senate committees have pronounced this repeatedly. what hard to imagine further will come of yet another committee. when i focus on is the national security advisor. what can we do? around increase security the world. we have a budget request on the hill for $4.6 million. it is necessary in the administration's judgment to

make the kind of upgrades and provide the kind of security that we need. let's focus on that. what is lost in all of that pointsion about talking is that we lost brave americans on that day. their families and those of us who work with them continue to grieve. the last thing we need to do is to lose anymore. world in anyd the number of places where american and servicemen and servicewomen are doing what we asked them to do and be on the front lines of one policy, they deserve the support and protection that we can provide stop >> do you think it is legitimate -- the committee chairman said to look at whether the administration should have done more to make that conflict safe and make the ambassador

safe. >> absolutely. that is what we have done. that is why we have an accountability review or. dashboard. bet is why we are seeking resources that we need. are risks that our personnel might face in other parts of the world. security and safety of american personnel is absolutely the top priority of the administration. to the extent that we are focused on that, i think we all agree that that is where the focus should be. >> several things i want to ask and i will incorporate other questions as i have been given them. over irantiations resuming today. do you think there will be a productive outcome? >> the negotiations for the comprehensive agreement have been about halfway through.

far is thatsay so that wasim agreement concluded in january has been substantially implemented by the iranians and the other side. that is a positive step. what it means is that iran will be ridding itself of its stockpile. it has 20% enriched in rhenium -- uranium. it will roll back its program in meaningful ways. whether we will get to a successful conclusion of an agreement is to be determined. there will be a very difficult issues. iranians will have to take difficult decisions. >> a side note. saudi arabia invited iranian

that isto come -- remarkable. these countries have been archrivals. a move is that? >> it is a good move. it is one that we encourage and support. the tensions in the region that are being played out, including in places like syria, can best be addressed by enhanced communication. whether cap and so what comes of it, we will have to see. >> the israelis and the palestinians. you met with the israeli leaders. any hope for peace talks in the coming year?

>> those of us who work in my business always have to have hope. i do. inare at a point of pause the direct negotiations. we are going on for the last my months. , and my message to both sides was, the only sustainable solution to this tragic conflict is a negotiated two state solution. that is the position of both sides. they are not ready to take the steps to actualize that. we have underscored in the meantime, as we manage this moment of pause and they manage this moment of pause more precisely, they should not take steps that make the circumstances more tense or fraud.

-- fraught. the lastas happened in several weeks is that some u.s. officials involved in these negotiations are now saying that it was the israeli government and the expansion of settlements. prime minister netanyahu's plan to build more settlements that sabotaged. >> you have heard american officials say quite directly, and it is what i have said, we that it was not possible to continue the negotiations. that has not been in our judgment the fault of one side rather than the other. both sides took that's that were not conducive to a positive atmosphere. those steps include it the israeli government and their

decision not to release prisoners. palestinianuded the acedeon to the feed -- to treaty bodies in the late page of decisions. man previously refrained from doing that. there was the surprising announcement of a bid to reconcile with hamas. you is that both sides took sides that were disappointing -- steps that were disappointing and not conducive to progress. toh sides have the ability resume negotiations. >> the israelis will continue to build settlements? how do peace talks get started again. ?

>> if there were a magic wand, we would wave it. we would not be in 60 years of conflict. say not have the ability to , here is our silver bullet. i think both sides have the responsibility to look at their circumstances and their future and their children and ask themselves, how do you forge a future of peace? both sides will have to make difficult decisions. we think it is in their interest to do so. has the prospect of becoming a secure and recognized jewish state. recognition of countries throughout the region. that is something it has sought. houston is want a viable state of their own.

they say they want to live side-by-side. that is the future that we want. we cannot want it more than they do. of other a couple countries i want to mention. one is china and what happened between china and vietnam. is faulting the u.s. for encouraging provocative moves and what they call the south china sea. they say that the dispute should be resolved by the parties involved. now we have writing going on in vietnamese cities. it is reportedly against chinese boundaries and other plans are involved as well. what can, if anything, the u.s. resolve what is clearly a growing area of tension. china has issues with japan. now vietnam. what role can the u.s. play?

>> the u.s. has been very clear. the only way to resolve these territorial disputes over sovereignty is through the mechanisms of international law. peaceful resolution is desirable. there should be legal instruments. we have never taken a position on sovereignty of these territories. we have been very clear that provocative actions and intimidation and steps to create thatsence on the ground complicates the prospect for diplomatic resolution are completely on help old. that is the message the president took during our recent trip to asia. widespread support from the countries he visited.

what we are seeing in southeast good andountries want constructive relationship with china. they are increasingly unnerved and put off by what they view as provocative and aggressive actions. we have been clear that would china has done vis-a-vis this latest issue of putting down an a forced to react and respond. it is provocative and unhelpful. behind closed doors at a meeting last weekend, there was a great deal of anxiety. it does not serve china well. china has every interest in the countries of that region wanting to partner. it should not be talking behind closed doors. evidence thaty the chinese are listening or

responding? >> one thing that can be said about china is that it wants to be welcomed and accepted as a major player. not just in its own neighborhood, but on the global stage. it is becoming more isolated and the subject of concern. welcomenot be a development from the chinese point of view. >> the chinese seem to be getting ready to build a structure within the app canonic -- up in -- economic zone of the philippines. >> that touches on the same thing. >> it is in the same vein. the ambassador from the philippines -- we were just there a couple weeks ago. the philippines has approached

this in a very responsible fashion. concernstaking their to a tribunal. that is the type of mechanism that we think can and should be utilized to resolve these kinds of disputes. >> ambassador rice, you are criticism that has been leveled at the president in the administration for not being sufficiently strong. i could use other adjectives. not being sufficiently outspoken or projecting american strength and presence in the world. the president address this. it was a news conference when he was in asia. how do you see that? how do you address the frustration that there are so many parts of the world's that

look to the u.s. for guidance is on the other hand, there are sony parts of the world's that resent the u.s. role. forward,t back or lean how do you feel about that? what do you want the audience to know? >> there's no country on the strong aspowerful and the united states of america. ourher it is the size of economy, the strength of our alliances, the power of our military, no one matches us across any dimension. the notion that the united states is weak or withdrawn is counterfactual. having spent time recently in where we wererope

in close conversation with some , ourr allies and partners european allies, i can tell you that they all continue to look to the united states as their friend, andrtner, source of strength and protection. those alliances aren't mutually reinforcing and mutually beneficial. on a just in israel separate trip to the gulf region. even there, each of our partners looks to the united states and is grateful for what we provide in terms of our security cooperation and global leadership on issues across the spectrum and the fact that there's is nowhere else for them to look on the planet where you have the moral leadership, economic strength, security,

might, not to mention, our technology, be our of our culture and our society. viewed withtates is -- in a positive light. one or two words of advice to young women here? the time is not. that should have been an earlier question stop [laughter] >> that should have been an earlier question. i thought that was a large part of what we were doing here. do it. two words. all, i want to be frank and say, i believe deeply that

peopleomen and young need to follow their passion. what your not do parents tell you to do. when it comes to picking your career, you should not do what you think will make you the most money. you should do what you love. i hope for many of you, that will be public service. that is what i love. when i was 20 years old, i could have gone every -- either way. i did not know where i would end up. i knew from the time that i was 10 years old, i wanted to be a public servant. it is a huge privilege to do so. wille that many others view it that way. we need the best and the

brightest to serve their country. in many different ways -- there are many different ways to do that. encompassesce nonprofit sectors, and it encompasses journalism. in many respects, it can be a competent private sector, if the work you are doing serves a larger goal and a larger group. i am hoping that folks will follow their passion. there is incredible complexity and challenges. it is never boring. i get to work with very smart people. case, the president, for whom i have enormous respect and find intellectually challenging i hope with and for, that all of you were thinking about these sorts of careers

will look carefully into it. i hope you will find it as rewarding as i have. even with political polarization. [laughter] that, goingntioned back to your prior question about america's role in the world, the one weakness that our .2 and thee to -- one thing that undermines our strength is our political polarization. us, theytries look at wonder and they worry if we will have our collective act together, whether it is our budget, how we teach in the world, that is what undermines us.

>> it is also the strength of our democracy. >> we have had the democracy for 230 years. been asot always dysfunctional as it is now. note, let'splifting thank ambassador susan rice. [applause] ambassador rice, thank you for a scintillating discussion. thank you for helping us understand what president obama faces every day. we want to present you with the women's foreign policy group award. we want to celebrate leaders for being role models and encouraging women to be part of foreign policy. thank you very much for being here. judy, thank you for being here. we hope to see you at another event soon.

[applause]

>> if you missed any of what susan rice had to say, you can watch it on our website. go to c-span.org. coming up in 15 minutes, white house budget director sylvia orwell will be before the senate

finance committee as part of her confirmation to be the next health and human services secretary. that will be live at 215 eastern. looking now at the washington monument. it reopened yesterday after being closed almost three years due to damage from the earthquake in 2011. yesterday, a few blocks away, marco rubio spoke to were orders at the national rest club. he is a potential contender for the 2016 nomination and was asked about his view on a number of issues. here's a portion from that event. think social security benefits will still be offered when you reach retirement? >> that is a choice that we will have to make. wewe wanted to be offered, will hto