i'm just talking about the promotional level. if we spent a fraction of that budget on promoting the behavioral sciences for how wonderful it is, i could tell you this as a psychiatrist. it would give someone their life back, their outlook that, their hope back, to restore their soul, to give them some sense of future. what an amazing gift. i went to medical school. i picked psychiatry. i made that call. the reason others do not make that call is because psychiatry and discussion at this point for live coverage of the u.s. house. members meeting in a brief pro forma session. -- a live life conference. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. june 2, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable

mac thornberry to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend lauren lash, st. patrick's episcopal church, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious and loving god, we give you thanks for the gift of this new day. as we set out to do the work you have given us to do, please open our eyes to those who are suffering in the world around us. following your example, help us to care for the poor, the sick, the broken, and the disfraveraged -- disenfranchised. give us grace to care for all your people as if they were our own brothers and sisters. in all that we do, o lord, that your love and peace guide us. in your holy name we pray. amen.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section -a of house resolution 604, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the northern district of ohio for documents and testimony in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will determine whether compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges

and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, jim renacci, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bush administration. -- an enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 11, an act to make a technical amendment to the preservation trust area act and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 604, the house stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on thursday, jun >> roughing up the brief pro forma session. see the house here when they returned. speaking will be the only russian lawmaker to vote against

annexing crimea. live coverage on c-span. >> we will welcome questions at any time e-mailing us at speakerhert >> he has a firsthand knowledge of the former soviet union and middle east and his work focuses on such issues as economic development and political reform in the former soviet republics, u.s. commrg security, global war on terrorism, and continuing conflict in the middle east. he served as a consultant in both the skeckive branch and private sector on policy toward russia, central and eastern europe, central asia. he co-authored russian imperialism in crisis as well as eurasia in balance. focusing on the easternure peaian region. please join me in welcoming dr.

cohen. [applause] >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. it is my particular pleasure to welcome ilia to the heritage foundation. it is a pleasure because i always admire people who have courage to speak truth to power. it is not easy in any society. it is particularly not easy in oday's russia. ilia could have a wonderful wife in russia. he was the youngest president of the lucas oil company back in the 1990's at the age of 24. he worked for multinational oil services companies. he is extremely gifted as a youngster, as a 14-year-old, he he was teaching computers in

the soviet nuclear physics nstitute to the old guys who didn't know at the time about p.c.'s. so either a career of a conformist politician or a businessman would have saved ilia a lot of trouble. stead he decided to take principal stances, he he was the only one in the duma who voted against the so-called gay propaganda law, and most importantly, he he voted gainst the annexation of the crimea. nd that took a lot of courage. he worked in this country in high tech. he has background in investment and as i said already in oil

and gas. he he was a member of the duma r the just russia party, and he is really a political star in any other democracy he would have been already vice minister, minister and a respected member of legislation. instead, as he is going to tell us, his going is rough and becoming rougher. welcome and let's have meaningful conversation about what's going on. [applause] >> so the first question i would like to ask you, what made you vote the only vote against annexation of the crimea? i remembered the votes in the german plarlment in the

beginning of world war 1 -- plarlment in the beginning of world war i. who paid with their lives. for the vote against a senseless world war. what makes you stand up and say no when everybody else is voting yes? >> thank you very much for your kind introduction. i'm blushing. i think that you were too kind speaking like that. he inspiration was coming from comrade plutnik although the person who convinced me to do what i have done was vladimir putin. it was two days before the actual vote was taking place in duma. it was a presidential address to the national assembly, to

the lower chamber, to the state duma, and there was a big crowd of people, maybe 1,000 people all together because there were member of parliament plus governors and other invited guests, and everybody was just shouting and waving hands and praising putin. hailing chief. and saying let's take over crimea. me so s so -- reminded much of the soviet past and the negative past of the soviet. firstly i decided to seek friends, not stand up and not join the cheering crowd. secondly i decided i have to vote against. i didn't know whether i should

just small take part in the vote or should i vote against. that time i was convinced i should vote against. this is emotional part. the rational part is that being of course patriot of russia, i he was thinking that this move to take over crimea is extremely unbeneficial for my country. what we ending up with? firstly, our brother nation of ukraine is no longer friend. and whatever dreams we had the the union, about projects went down. we were always thinking about the issues of national security and were saying that nato should never come to ukraine and ukraine should remain neutral. and that was pretty much

supported by ukrainian people. in 2013, national polls in ukraine indicated that from 15% to 17% were in favor of joining nato. others were against. now after our move, majority of ukranians want to be part of nato. and that's also not beneficial for russia. thirdly, is the question of international investments and technological climate in my country. we now became alienated from the rest of the world. and even without like an open confrontation, which i'm skeptical about, that are being imposed on russia, but it's clear the investment climate is significantly worse than it was just half a year before.

capital run from russia this year is estimated between 150 and 200 billion u.s.d. that means that every single citizen of russian federation pays more than $1,000 for annexation of crimea. that is twice as much as we are investing in health care. this is seven times -- 7 1/2 times more than we invest in r&d, and -- >> per capita basis. >> in absolute figures. the budget per annum in health care russia is 71 billion u.s. nd the capital 150-plus. >> let me ask you this, the

spiritual and climate in russia that a lot of folks in the u.s. have a hard time following because of the language, because we are preoccupied with our domestic issues, obamacare, we are reoccupied with china. but to focus on what's happening in russia socially and ideologically. you either have to live there or spend a lot of time doing that like myself being addicted to the russian facebook. what i see is a quick change, t's a fast change from sort of laisez faire soft model that we had in the past decade. then 000 to 2004, and maybe under medvedev, it was authoritarian but it was not

particularly harsh as far as thorn models are concerned. ukraine is a katjalies, the change started to happen even before ukraine with the ban on adoption of russian kids. with the ban on support of russian nonprofits by western financers. the anti-gay propaganda law. all kinds of things that the state is increasing its interference in people's lives. how does ukraine affect that, and where does it -- where is it moving, where is it going? >> i think that those changes, you know, they are pretty much on the surface. the fundamentals, and the fundamentals are such that is a as united states nation which believes in its

mission. and even our missions are pretty similar. we believe in freedom. we believe in distribution of our core values. communist time when russians thought that those mmunist ideas are light of freedom and invigoration for our neighbors nation and the rest of the world. and we defeated fascism. >> in coalition with the united states. >> we did it on our own. ecause really official number's 20 million perished during world war ii, and that is something that every single family in russia has suffered. every single family has.

>> getting to ukraine today -- >> i'm getting there. so there was a mission which suddenly disappeared in 1990's and 2000. but it didn't go anywhere because at our core it was still there. and the biggest national idea for russia during all those years was the victory day. >> may 9, not may 8. >> yeah because of the time difference. the european victory in world war ii. >> stalin made sure it won't be the same day the europeans are celebrating. >> so that is our main national holiday. that would unite the full nation, the fight against the fascism. and how it was presented to the nation by president putin is that in ukraine those are

western sponsored fascists who came to power, and he de displayed with flags of foreign ukrainian liberation army who were allied with us during world war ii, and so he used that to prove that these are fascists who are fighting against both russia and ukrainian nation. so it's misinterpretation that we are looking just to protect russia or russian-speaking minority. no for the overwhelming majority of russians we are continuing world war ii. and we are liberating, really liberating, ukraine from the fascist threat. and more we are thinking about liberating the whole of europe because what is europe these days?

these gay people with arabs who were disswaying european civilization and christianity, and putin is always referring to those values of christianity and our belief an our tradition. so extremely conservative in this sense. that's why he's allied in europe, movements like in the french. >> the head of the national front. >> he yeah. and other ultraright conservatives in many countries. after recent elections to european parliament, they were in all russian media were presented as a huge success of those rights. >> is there a paradox, you have some family members who are specialists on different political movements in the outside world. so the soviet union until about

1987 or even 1989 was a great supporter of communist and leftist movements all over the world. i wrote my masters thesis about that. now only 25-plus years later russia is viewed or putin is viewed as not just an ally but as a guiding light to the ofascist hungarian party lapenn, to madeline or german national democrat party which is nazi. somehow the ukrainian ultranationalists are put aside, and by the way the percentage of vote of the recent presidential election in ukraine in favor of ultranationalists is only 10%. whereas in france and hungary its 20% or higher for these guys. what is the swing of the

pendulum from left to right, what's going on here? >> you see i think that those extremes, they are getting pretty close to each other. you look u.s. example and russia to date, it's been admired by both tea party and occupy wall street force. >> they occupy wall street in russia today. >> you know, you may feel you're not that familiar with tea party. >> i'm not that familiar. >> i will show you example. >> with exception a particular member of congress, can i not think of anybody who admires vladimir putin. >> i think it's actually pretty natural. because putin during last 20 years in general, our officials, they are trying to capitalize on the industry of

the soviet union, but trying to flip it from the ideas of world revolution and the leftist idea of internationalism to empire dea. it's been seen as the most successful of either of russia in all ages. >> how many people stalin killed officially? >> there are a lot of stipulations on that, what i'm saying about national polls, people will still support stalin and identify themselves -- stalinists is between 5% and 0% in all polls. >> think positive of stalin. despite the fact that the research indicate that probably up to 20 million were killed. >> i think 20 million -- doesn't matter. it would be 100,000. >> you're taking the civil war, he agricultureure in the early

1930's and repression. millions and millions of people. >> whatever. let's not go in this discussion. but my point is that stalin during soviet union times was lways seen and driven on the leftists agenda. right now he's been seen as a great emperor, the great conquerer. beholder of the empire. putin is trying to build his background from stalin and trying to capitalize on that. >> do you remember when putin said, we were weak and the weak are beaten? that was a direct quote. i want to move on to something that is close to your heart, i know. innovation and foreign investment. ko were a lead on the skol

project, it was brought to i don't see nd anything that is replacing it as sort of a magnet for pushing forward russian high tech, gotting young entrepreneurs to develop their ideas. from what i read a lot of people emigrate, people who want to do business in their 20's or early 30's, what is going on with that? what are the impediments today to investment and entrepreneurship in russia? >> you know there are two trends in that community. ne trend which is more local nd probably larger in quantity . the trend to emigrate, there are several visible examples

ike rushian mark zuckerberg, founder of russian version of facebook, and as you might know that's with a i like to walz with, facebook is now four russian social network. it's not even number two or umber three. our engineers are really great. d the greatest of them was palo. he said he to longer wants to stay if russia because of the attacks conducted on security people and particularly from someone trying to take over as a company. company biggest i.t. is now under attack. our first and biggest system

integration company, eds-like, company announce the he's moving outside russia. so there is a significant flea -- flee. >> flight. >> flight of those. from the other side several of our developers who are focused domestic market, they think that it would be bigger military procurement. that would be higher demand for necessaryically developed technologies. and so that they will be getting more money. my personal opinion is that the increase in domestic spending for new technologist will be not so significant as people expect.

russia during recent 20 years of new liberal reforms, lost its ability to produce a lot of high technology and products and relies heavily on importing them from the outside. nd restore production of those things would be extremely difficult and lengthy. augosian, vice premiere for military industrial, he was pushing to shut down the g.p.s. stations on the russian territory. and i don't remember if he threatened or actually made the move to curb the use of russian booster rockets to the space station. i believe there was a threat. maybe a decision. i'm not sure. but are there any accomplishments like with maybe

glasnost or space launches? what are the accomplishments so far of this very statused approach to innovation and high tech? >> you see i was always very vocal proponent of creating our own technologicalist which would at least go pair to pair with international peers and which would regularly replace them. the same thing -- >> as an impoth substitution or global competition? >> as a global competition. of course domestically to use our internal market to boost the demand. and to make money for our high-tech companies. and glasnost is a great example of such a technology. >> do you believe that without competition in russia from foreign competitors -- >> exactly my point. if you're shutting down the competition, then you have no drive to increase your service.

and increase quality. quality of glasnost is not yet there. it's being gradually improving, but it's not yet there. it had all the chances to become a global competitor with g.p.s. we need to add five years of stable work to issue that. me thing with our domestic systems, russia when like i was one of the programs that i was upervising was a transition to services, government services. >> e-government? >> yeah. our own t to develop visa-type card to pay for those services, and there was sufficient market for that. >> this is your work with minister of communications?

>> yes, that's right. but at that timeure ruling party voted against -- our ruling party voted against because they were allied with several banks which was against them. it was more profitable to work with western card. now because of the national security concerns they are trying to shut down visa an master card, but there is no replacement. so by shutting down visa and master card, it disrupt your payment services for your clients. >> the russians are still sometimes using the aba can cuss -- baba cuss. >> you are outdated. the penetration of cards right now is 83%. > let's issues that you are concerned with. in the legislative process.

bringing back the issue of ukraine, do you think the russian legislative system, the russian system of government, that according to my opinion that i wrote about and published as one of the first things i have done here at the hert tajh foundation in 19 2 -- 1993, i said the draft that later became the russian constitution are extremely centralizing. thing that will backfire. it will create too much centralization of the executive branch and not enough balance of power of legislative and of the judiciary. do you see ukraine demonstrating that?

if yes, what would be the solution? i really agree with what you have just said. i think indeed our problems have started from the constitution of 1993. it was undemocratic. it was adopted in undemocratic strks. the majority of russians did not vote for that constitution and on the public referendum that took part in december 19 3, even according to official numbers it was a very narrow margin. the majority of voters actually abstained. that is really the fundamental roblem for russian political

and social well-being. >> what other problems? >> the problem with the constitution was created from the french constitution. ut the role of president was different. it was actually even more powers than to the french president. in the french system president is part of the executive branch. in russian system president is above all three branches. so the idea of checks and alances is ruined. that was by personality. ideas. >> yeah. but even with those ideas in 19 -- so i tions were

leader of it was the the communist party that won that election. i am very much believing in the , ea that if, at that time being a very quick person by himself, that would be very healthy for the political system because that would create an example of transition . >> democratic transition. he replaced the leader. >> do you think he is exactly a democrat. as i said he also has certain business groups that were backing him at the time.

i think he would not be able to change the system dramatically. of course there would be several setbacks in certain areas but not so drastic as many believe. >> as they say in russian, history cannot suffer onditionality. do you think the system is working? do you think changes are needed? if so, what kind of changes that would serve the russian society and the russian political life? >> one of the biggest disputes in the ranks of russian opposition about the constitution and about the constitutional reform, right ow the majority of the opposition leaders, they lean profound ep and

constitutional foreign and from public to parliamentary. and i think that we have a perfect example for years that nothing happens if the country lives without a president. >> there was a president, de facto. >> it was a prime minister. particle lead of the -- parliament. so i think that it is a proven example that it would be safe and that the country would not collapse. >> or you could have a constitutional monarchy like some suggest. >> that is also very possible. very, very possible. >> will you support that? >> i actually would. yeah. because i think that it is important to the russian fairy n we have such

tales that the monarch that the father start is the person who judge is want the person that rules. to have such an ultimate judge that is not supposed to give any sort of executive decision but supposed to be the ultimate ruler in the conflicts of different business and political groups i think that is a good idea for the system. >> we have that too. it is called the supreme court. >> yes. yes. you know we had this discussion before. i really think that the judicial system should be the main system, should be the real spinal cord of the political system in russia. it shoo not -- shouldn't be etc.tive or legislation. it should be judicial system. >> ok.

just -- >> but by the way to finish, not everybody in the opposition shares these thoughts. because some of our colleagues, many especially in the leadership type position. >> can you give us an example? yorgi, ke people like part of the open system. they say let's just restore the constitution. the constitution is good. just more enforcement. let's just restore the constitution. >> he was a part of the circle that pushed through the other constitution. >> that is true. and other people like for example our famous -- the opposition leader, he says no. the system is good but putin is bad. >> he would be better. >> yes. let me step in his position and

you know i will fight the corruption and the system will start working. which i don't believe. >> you said something very interesting. you said the organizing narrative. the organizing myth of russia today is a fight against fascism and nazis of world war ii. in coalition with the west i would stress. everybody knows that. even the schoolchildren who will learn this. >> don't tell me that. i know. >> i am not telling you. i am telling our audience and the c-span audience. given the kids that will learn russian history from the unified russian history book that is already published or is being prepared. so there will be one narrative of history. the british, french, americans and chinese fought against the nazis and the japanese impeer limp in world war ii and you have people that are part of the tablishment like

political scientist planted in new york as a representative of the institution of democracy and something else. the russian government funded operations, said hitler was good until 1939. until 139 that included the austria, the -- slaff lleague saying the okay tribes descended from the mountain. the narrative is becoming more and more race >>, nazi-like. justifying even hitler, which is inconceivable in this myth of fighting fascism.

what is going on with that. >> you know the people that you mention they can justify whatever they have been told to justify. >> who is telling them to justify that? -- they k they are just want to please the chief. they like when the chief says no. you are going too much. please, relax. this is like the old soviet propagandist saying how wonderful stalin was. >> that is his position all the time. he is trying to portray stalin as the emporor even during soviet times. in soviet times he was seen as a difficult person. >> he would not be doing that if he did not expect a pat on the back or maybe a spot on

national television. maybe an advisor position. >> that is a different story. he was doing this during soviet times. he is doing this now. his spogs very firm. he is dedicated to this idea. he never switches sides. when he was in the opposition he was fighting in the russian ite house when it was shot with tanks. in 19 3. it is now putin's position to atch the position. they don't have any position at all. it hat worries me is that is something that was inconceivable in russia until three or five years ago.

only the peesm that are articulating that idea of the empire where in the 1980's members of secret pro nazi societies, secret orders that had s.s. background. the u concerned that sympathy towards nazism is penetrating from the very margins of the russian political life or the russian march where people are raising their arms in nazi salute to establishment figures like that. > let me explain here. i really do believe and i am very much concerned about the ascists in russia.

that would seem like a trend for a time. but even without all of those public speeches. about it, you ng would see that this which has been oppressed during 20 years plus of economic chaos that has been associated with the west and particularly with the actions of the united states in building democracy in russia and whatever. >> is it propaganda or do you think mistakes were made? >> these were mistakes that were made. the way it was carried out was -- is actually programs that there is no small business in the country. that the opposition is highly more competitive.

hat there is high-technology sector and very well and developed natural resources. >> yeah. > and also that it was carried out with the political rational behind and not economicic rational admitted by him and his friends. >> but the political intention as celt at the time. it was to break the back of the communist establishment and move on to another elite. >> it is going to help. >> it is american. >> i am saying that is where it is the same. >> very good. >> but coming back to the issue of fascism.

if you look at those advisors which are active in these parts of ukraine. >> per russia. >> which have been seen as a military arm of putin's administration if you just look at the pages on the social networks, you will see the groups that they are part of. russia without putin. hey are all opposition groups. >> nationalist option. >> they are nationalists but they are against putin. >> you also have russian national unity. >> they are against putin. always opposition to putin. >> now he is not. >> now he is not. but that is not because they have changed their position. it is because putin changed their position. putin thought too much exapingses of those guys. they do not want putin at the

top of the government. they want others at the top. >> he was already getting up there. one last question before we open it up for discussion. you had a fascinating presentation. i am sure that there are a lot of questions here. there are cameras. people can send questions through the internet. if there is a political change. and there is always a political change. when there is a political change a lot of people think that in this town some of them russian democratic immigrants think that it will just be a beautiful liberal democracy in , all of , you know the evil will be punished.

i will tell you the name of the person i am quoting after this. next year. next year. next year we will have a change. in your estimate, when there is a change, it just may take longer than we think. when there is change, is it violent? is it peaceful? is it a college revolution like mr. putin is afraid of? or is it something else? and what are the powers that are capable of not just overthrowing the regime. we saw the tragic results in the october 1917. what are the powers that can really build russia that you wish, the russia that is open to the world, that attracts investment. that fosters innovation and that creates freedom in such russia. >> i would start from the

second part of your question. russia of a personal initiative. my russia is a russia with a and very strong grass roots self governing institutions with a networked community. my russia is a russia of intellect, open and part of the global christian civilization and i do believe in global union of former christian nations of russia, europe and united states. >> you sound like the tea party. >> in russia there is a concept of third rule. occurred as tially

the first rome. then the rome and third rome was moscow. i do believe it should be europe, u.s. and russia. but this is like long-term. when you are saying about how the anges might occur, liberal idea is extremely unpopular. i do not expect that in any circumstance when the change would occur that the liberals, if it would be fair, would be able to come to power. but without their participation have changes, because we

a revolution that is happening and the russian capitol of moscow is relatively pro liberal. without their participation the changes would not be possible because you cannot win moscow without the participation of liberals. but if they are in charge, the rest of the regions would not fall. than ld see more violence ukraine. we would likely see troops in the country. >> yeah. many regions. it would be way more violent and disruptive than what happened in ukraine. -- my work with the coalition and nation and

iberals, so far our liberals despise the rerhetorics that they are told. they are leaning more towards the alliance with nation. with nations. ith right wing people. because they believe nations do not have economic agendas and would be a political power and then there would be new liberal people like prokhorov at the top of the government. >> for the sake of the audience economic and liberal in russia. >> right. >> it is not socialists or social democrats. left wing of the democratic party for example. it is not that kind of

liberalism. >> in u.s. terms it is more like new conservative, yeah. of course my position and what i am trying to achieve. by the way this coalition between new liberals and nationalists happening in ukraine. that is why you see what is going on there. >> absolutely. >> and my position is to help the coalition between left and he liberals. that is what i am trying to do as much as i can. even kremlin thinks it would be safer for them with a coalition with nations. that is why they put to jail all of high former colleagues from the left front and as a member of parliament 20 are under prosecution. 10 are either in jail already or up for political asylum in

other countries. >> what about yourself? is this a personal threat to ou is this >> they are now trying to revoke my status. there is such a law that is personally targeted on myself or anyone. the day before yesterday i was ying in the airplane the leader of my former party was meeting mr. putin. to put it into force. >> as i said in the beginning you are taking tremendous political risks. we respect them. we admire your stance on a number of these issues. at this point we have 11 minutes for q&a. maybe i will extend it a little

bit. when you are asking a question, please introduce yourself and keep it to a question and please keep it short so others can also ask questions. who would like to start? >> i am interning here this summer in washington, d.c. we know that the west did some sanctions on russia but recently russia signed a very big oil deal with china. >> gas. >> gas deal with china and certainly many politically communists think this is the challenge the dollar and dominance of the dollar in particular. do you think the russian economy with these sanctions can still sustain itself given that it has a large natural gas and natural oil base. and do you think that using

this oil and having this natural gas stockpile, do you think they can challenge and sustain the economy even with the western sanctions? >> first leon the issue of sanctions. in the 19 0's we had such a thing in russia about the west. about the u.s. you pretend you are helping us. we pretend you are doing reforms. you pretend you are sanctioning us. we pretend that we are afraid. travel sanctions. those are sanctions against a narrow circle of people. most of them do not care about them at all. even taking the approach of sanctions. sanctions about certain personalities. it would at least be meaningful

if they would be targeted not to the top layer of people but more to the middle layer of anagement to disrupt them. russian particle -- parliament even voted. putin wanted to tie everybody and the russian parliament voted for the sanctions to be imposed on the members of russian parliament but never happened. i actually think the sanctions generally are not productive. at is productive is to enforce your own legislation against money laundering. because what is happening is that people are stealing from russian federal budget and then moving these capital into the internet and then on, mainly in europe. but in u.s. also.

so to enforce that part of legislation against money laundering and corruption, that would be very helpful. i was asking many times to put a special prosecutor in europe and special prosecutor in u.s. maybe not exceptionally against russia but generally a post soviet state. crutchings is an issue for all of them. for everyone. but it is also all over the emerging markets in africa and asia. it is not just russia or eastern europe. >> i agree. burr for many emerging markets which does not perceive them as part of the worst in the world, as in russia. and if you are legitimate in trying to help us to create new democracy in the country, none of this help would be appreciated. that is not doing harm to

russian people. don't make west seem as our enemy but by position it is positioning west as our prosecutors which was in search for the stolen money. in regards to this, you know it was very much advertised. i think that the price that was negotiated is a good price. and it matches the price china buys. t the issue is that they are buying gas from the eastern part of the country which is disconnected from the western, siberia and central russia. so that means that you cannot redistribute the production that goes to europe and the

rest of that to china. it is totally new gas fuels developed in that part of the country. that is good we are developing them with jobs, taxes, it is ok. the question is what we are supposed to do with those that are working for the western reformers, and i think how we behaved in ukraine it would result that it would be a political issue for europe to become independent from russian natural resources. during soviet union times soviet union was an extremely reliable supplier. we never used that as a weapon, as a political tool. right now we are doing it every single year. lose sult is we will just the market and that will result in many losses. >> if you want to read more of that i have a blog in the "wall street journal" on this particular issue. you are welcome to google

russia china gas deal and look it up. i am more pessimistic about it. the price may be a good price today. taking into account dollar inflation. >> we don't know the condition. right. >> and the chinese paid for the infrastructure. >> but also, they are giving us alone to build this pipeline -- a loan to build the pipeline. but it is difficult terrain, so i'm not sure it is a good price, actually. ike cruise with representative sessions. if i understood you correctly, part of the problem with the structure of the russian government is the strong personality in the place of the president, bullying -- being

beingputin right now. what needs to happen echo does either the constitution need to be changed so that the president does not have a much power, or someone weaker put in his place? putin has aresident lot of approval these days and has enjoyed his highest ratings during all of his years in power. is the nature of the regime pretty well described by karl in france, with no holy and -- with napoleon bonaparte. should read that book,

because it tells everything going on in russia these days and the issue with bonaparte is right before the collapse, he was enjoying popular support. and then he stood the prussia campaign, which turned out to be unsuccessful for france. and he was forced to leave the country and go to great britain. was -- >> and in the war of 1870, which rents was destroyed, basically. >> yes -- france was destroyed, basically. >> yes. and in the issue of ukraine, it might turn out to be a prussia campaign for president couldn't. putin.ident >> [indiscernible] >> next question.

or several. >> you mentioned the russian militants that are fighting in eastern ukraine. i know some people in russia are suggesting that if or when they are ousted from ukraine, the guerrilla war they are starting to instigate there will spread into russia. some disagree. what is your perspective? >> i agree, but i would not use the word "spread" in russia. all all the time writing in of my public articles and saying in public that we are criticizing ukraine for nationalism. nationalism in times that of kia, 100 times.

kiev, 100 times. there are experienced and dedicated fighters coming back from those parts of ukraine. and whatever the outcome, whether russia would have to , ier that part of ukraine mean use military force there, they would be encouraged and be seen as victors and would come to moscow and state what they think they need to do that. or russia would not enter end be seen -- and be seen as a traitor . a lot of my friends from the liberal opposition, they don't really believe it is a big

threat. because for them, the biggest enemy is mr. putin. they woulduch afraid see this as a most capable force that could remove mr. putin from office. in russiagreat book written in the 1960's, a science .ixture -- science fiction book they wrote that after a time of mediocrity always comes a time of fascism. god -- >>ard to be a it's hard to be a god. , one and then we will probably have to wrap it up. >> forgive me if you have

already answered this question -- >> would you introduce yourself? >> o, i'm sorry. my name is justin and i'm an intern here in d.c. this summer. i would like to ask, other than protecting russian citizens in ukraine and abolishing fascist --ders -- or idealism, sorry what other interest does russia have in ukraine and restoring in -- antimate government illegitimate government in ukraine? >> thank you for the question. as i said, we are protecting russians there. specifically for crimea, because crimea is primarily russian. but the don't ask -- the donetsk and eastern regions, they are not primarily russian.

they are half and half of east and west even with the russians there. -- russians began minority community is -- the russian speaking community is a minority there. what we are doing there, we are fighting against fascist. but the real interest is exactly what i started to answer with the bonaparte comparison to putin's regime. on mr.elied heavily yanukovych, the former leader of ukraine. and when mr. yanukovych was forced to run from the country, of course, that was a very scary example for the russian for theon in general, russian society. because that meant that putin was mistaken.

secondly, that he could be replaced. that even with the military force and all the snipers and whatever was , thening in kiev rebellious people removed corrupt politicians from their offices. had to be overshadowed by some bright and bold moves from the russian government. that is why i think the invasion a veryimea was short-lived decision. it was taken immediately after what happened with yanukovych happened. it was not well planned. it was on the spot. and for the eastern parts of ukraine, i think putin is interested in instability in ukraine because that would make the ukrainian government either resign and prove that he was

right and that no revolutions can be successful, or would force them to negotiate a new with the russian government, which would help prudent to -- putin to claim victory in that particular case. >> as we saw in the case of georgia in 2008, when president putin met president george w. bush in bucharest in april of 2008, he said two things -- we will never agree that georgia or catone are members of new -- of nato. and if you try to include georgia in nato, we will take crimea. try to include the ukraine in nato, we will take crimea. all this has been treated as a black swan stop there is no black swan in intelligence.

>> [indiscernible] record to thee president of the united states. thenstability in ukraine, chances of ukraine being accepted as a member are about zero right now. objects.is one of the i would like to thank everybody. including our viewers on c-span and the heritage viewers on the internet. you are audience. and of course, we thank our speaker and we wish him all the best personally, personal our [applause][applause] political best to you. but thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on thethese events heritage foundation at www.c-span.org. coming up later, campaign

finance and how that affects free speech. like coverage of that at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span. live now to the white house press briefing with jay carney. >> and has begun the process of , and that will take some time, no doubt the duration of his captivity. -- no doubt, given the duration of his captivity. event, givenelcome that our single prisoner in the afghanistan conflict has been recovered. >> was there any pushback or knowledge but on them part of these members of congress when you mentioned these particular five detainees? did members of congress agree with this kind of swap? did they say, no, bad idea? can you tell me anything about that discussion.

what it reflects is that this should not have come as a surprise to members of congress that this was possible, because we have been working to secure sergeant bergdahl's release for a long time. and prisoner exchanges in armed conflicts are hardly a new development, including in our history of the united states. whether it is the japanese or , wenorth koreans or others have engaged in prisoner exchanges in the past. --don't -- the united states does not leave our men and women in uniform behind. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey said in a statement, "it is our he does that we never leave a fallen comrade. today, we have back in our ranks the only remaining captured soldier from our conflict in iraq and afghanistan.

welcome home, sergeant boberg bergdahl."e and that was our senior member of our military speaking. other >> what are the guarantees other than just a one year ban on travel that they won't go back in u.s. interest to afghanistan? re-stipulateill that prisoner exchanges are not uncommon in armed conflicts. secondly, without getting into specific assurances, i can tell you that they included a travel ban and information sharing on the detainees between our governments, between the united states and kabul. i can also tell you that the assurances were sufficient to allow the secretary of defense, chuck hagel, in coordination

with the national security team to determine that the threat posed to the united states was sufficiently mitigated in the tryst of you -- in u.s. national interests. this was done in coordination and it was the judgment of the secretary of defense in coordination with the entire national security team that there was sufficient mitigation in place and assurances in place to allow the exchange. >> one more quick question [inaudible] to enact some of these rules, any concern here at the white house that it places implementation beyond and into the hands of a subsequent president who could not be

friendly to this? >> we are focused on doing what we can to ensure that we significantly pollute -- significantly reduce carbon pollution because of the negative effect it has on our children and the health of our environment. this is the right thing to do. i know you have heard from the epa administrator and will hear from the president on a conference call he is doing later today. i heard from him over the weekend in his weekly address on this issue. face that as the years become more will and more a consensus view in the united states, he even here in washington, that we have to take action to ensure that we protect ourselves here in the united states against the most serious consequences of climate change and global warming. we one of the steps that

need to take and can take is to reduce our own carbon emissions in order to help tackle that effort, which has to be an international effort. we have made significant progress through the action the president has led on, including dramatically increasing fuel .fficiency standards that itself will save americans run the country significantly over the long term in terms of cost of filling the tank. and the proposed rule will, when implement it, save americans on their electricity bill and significantly reduce the amount of carbon emissions into our air. , reduce the that number of cases of asthma and other negative help -- health impacts that carbon pollution causes. >> why didn't you give the congress the 30 days notice on sergeant bergdahl?

>> as i think you were the national security advisor say over the weekend, it was that the judgment came, and the president felt there was enough urgency here to ensure that sergeant bergdahl was safely recovered that a 30 day window of hoping that opportunity remained open was not an option. and ultimately as commander-in-chief, the president has a responsibly to take the action he did to ensure , as chairman dempsey said, our of themaining prisoner conflicts in iraq and afghanistan was safely recovered. >> will lead to these decisions? >> going back to what i said to jeff and jim, this has been years in bringing about, the recovery of sergeant bergdahl. there are no guarantees in situations like this, just as there were not in the past when it seemed we might recover him, but did not.

--ething like this from might not remain a possibility if we waited any longer. the opportunity presented itself to successfully the cover him and we asked him -- acted quickly to do so. knew, the we notifications to congress began. but in this circumstance, the chief felt it was the right thing to do, to ensure that sergeant bergdahl was in u.s. custody. >> have you asked yet whether he was a deserter? the first and foremost thing that we have to recognize here is that sergeant bergdahl was in captivity for five years, held against his will. and it was exactly the right thing to come consistent with our tradition in the united states to secure his return. the defense department will obviously -- has been and will continue to be the lead in terms

of evaluating all the circumstances surrounding all of his initial detention and captivity. and that process continues, obviously directly with sergeant bergdahl now that he is in u.s. care. but i would point you again to a chairman dempsey said and what secretary offense hagel said and what we here in the united states abide by when it comes to men and women who are taken prisoner during armed conflicts. and the history of this government taking actions to secure the return of our pow's is very full. >> does the white house say that todaynditions announced are enough to sign china on to a binding global deal? >> the proposed announcement today

indicates u.s. leadership in this area. i would not predict what other actions other countries would take. to reason that leadership by the united states, a demonstration of seriousness atpurpose here will have least potentially positive effects on other countries as we collectively address a global challenge. the fact is, as the president and others have said so often, this creates opportunities to further invest in renewables and other areas that will enhance our energy independence and create thousands of jobs here in the u.s. and we ought to aggressively pursue that in the future as we have in the past. i think the opportunity here for the u.s. to lead, to pull carbon pollutants out of our atmosphere and our air so that our children are healthier in the future and

to enhance our energy independence moving forward is the right thing to do. yes, sir. >> a couple more things about sergeant bergdahl. in thesaid administration that yes, the thatess was notified members might put up roadblocks or make it more difficult to get the release of the sergeant? >> i think the issue was simply that there was a near-term opportunity to recover sergeant bergdahl and save his life. so he moved as quickly as possible to do that. the it ministration determined that given the unique and , a transferumstance should go forward, notwithstanding the notice required by the mda. held forthat he been

five years in captivity, the fact that there were no guarantees that the window would remain open, the window of opportunity to recover him, it was the right thing to do to move quickly and take that opportunity. but there have been a lot of questions about the legality of his -- point blank, does the president feel on this issue that [indiscernible] >> absolutely not. repeatedly followed requirements. saidgning this bill, it he he must act quickly when regarding detainee transfers when necessary, and that was certainly the case here. >> on the issue of the signing statements, the president said when he was first running for president that he thought withaint needed to be used signing statements. is this an example of presidential restraint? >> i

appreciate the way you phrased the question, because it is often misreported that somehow he took a position against all signing statements, which was never the case as senator and candidate. he made it clear that there were times it was appropriate, but the authority to issue signing statements should not be overused or abused and that a president should exercise restraint. and if you look at his record in office, you will see that restraint demonstrated. but there will be and have been circumstances when signing ,tatements are necessary because of the president's view and the executive branches view -- executive branch's view of constitutional issues in the legislation. and within the situation, that was already addressed within the signing statement. >> as the president put a price on the heads of other americans because of the way this deal went down? >> i think this goes back to the

general proposition that has been true throughout our history as a nation that we, the united states, always seek the return of our prisoners in an armed conflict. and there is a long history of his and -- prisoner exchanges in previous armed conflicts. tos action that was taken recover sergeant bergdahl is entirely consistent with past practice. sergeant bergdahl was a prisoner. in an armed conflict. and we did the right thing by after five years of captivity, securing his release. and recovering him and returning them to the united states. -- returning him to the united states. the fact of the matter is, as i've noted before, if you look through our history, there are ample precedents of this kind to

this decision, because as chairman dempsey said, we don't leave our men and women behind. we don't qualify the decision about leaving them behind or not leaving them behind based on who is holding them. >> how does the president view to gete, or his leverage journalists asan distinct as an option to him as ? >>sed to freeing military i think that is a good question. it is absolutely the case that this it ministration, unlike previous administrations, in order toessively recover americans being held against their will in other circumstances. and that includes americans

being held in iran, cuba, or elsewhere. i think it is important to note that as we find relief in sergeant bergdahl's recovery, our thoughts and prayers are with other americans whose release we continue to pursue, and with their friends and family. when it comes to a member of the military who is being held as a prisoner during a heart -- an armed conflict, there is quite a bit of precedent for the action that we took. line, the united states and the united states military does not walk away and leave behind members who are being held prisoner during an armed conflict. >> a follow-up on the last question, too. does the president share the concern that has been voiced by lives may be their

an enhanced jeopardy because of this? in enhanced jeopardy because of this? >> i think it is safe to say that americans in this conflict and elsewhere put themselves in harms way on behalf of us and everyone in the united states for quite a long time. i don't think the decision to can since the -- in complete consistency with our history with release of a pow alters that at all, any more --n when we exchanged engaged in exchanges with north koreans or japanese or others in our history. >> it appears that in the release the sergeant walked away from his base without his weapon and was not involved in actual combat. he served witht

honor and distinction. how did he serve with honor and distinction? >> you are citing a circumstance with a lot of asterisks attached. theuld refer you to investigation about that and i would point you to what the joint chiefs said about his successful recovery and the dose that has long been held here in the united states and by our military. >> my question is not about whether or not there should have been a deal to release him. my question is about the words used to describe him. he was promoted during his .aptivity and susan rice said he served with honor and distinction. is that true? >> i would refer you to the defense department who -- and you noted his promotion. since this goes to questions about his initial detention, the

defense department is the body that has been reviewing that and will continue to review it. now that's art -- sergeant board -- now that sergeant bergdahl has been recovered. the fact of the matter is, he was held captive by an enemy force in an armed conflict with the united states and our allies. for five years. and consistent with centuries of we thought to recover him and successfully recovered him. epan the other subject, the , there is a lot of debate today about how much it is going to cost. ?hat is true regardless of the benefits to society or to the environment, how much will this cost me in my home electric bill? >> i would point you to economic analysis that shows these standards will actually shrink electricity bills roughly 80% by

increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand on the electricity system. byroughly eight percent increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand on the electricity system. of those steps have made dire productions about destroying jobs and harming the economy, and throughout our history they have been wrong. when we passed the clean air act to combat small, they said new pollution standards would decimate the auto industry. not true. in 1990, when we took steps to stop acid rain, they claimed the lights would go out in businesses across the country and they would suffer. at the facts tell a different story. the epa has been protecting air quality in the united states for more than 40 years, and in that time we have cut pollution by more than 70% and the economy has tripled in size. what that demonstrates is that way take stepsrt to reduce the amount of pollution in our air so that our

children are healthier, and do it in a way that allows our economy not only to continue to grow, but to grow more effectively and efficiently. and in the case of the kind of developments that will be a partial result of this proposed rule, we will see an increase in in renewables and the like by cutting fewer jobs here in the united states in the future. we have seen that already and we have made significant increases in renewable energy here in the u.s. in the past several years and we expect to see that in the future. did the president believe bo bergdahl could be killed by his captors and that was the exigent circumstance you're referring to? >> anyone who is held captive as long as he was, that is always a

risk. >> was it an immediate risk? >> it was also the case that his health was a concern, and justifiably so. i cannot give all of the information we had available to us, but i think you've seen reports now out of germany that he is getting health care for conditions that require hospitalization. that was a concern. the package of concerns, including the opportunity to recover him after five years, and given the past history of understanding that opportunity may not present itself indefinitely, and the fact that his health was deteriorating, the fact that his circumstances of captivity were by definition threatening, it was the right thing to do to take action to secure his release. >> do you disagree with the of releasingion

detainees that it will harden the hearts of many? >> i would say that we have a long history of exchanging prisoners in an armed conflict, especially when that armed conflict is coming to an end. as you know, the president announced recently that we are bringing our combat mission in afghanistan to an end. we have also put forward a plan will sustain a significantly reduced military presence in afghanistan after the end of the combat mission to continue to train combat forces and maintain a counterterrorism posture there as we wind down to zero in several years. did that make it all easier? and was nevertheless a difficult these five?ase >> i will not get into specifics, except to say that the individuals you are referencing, as the chief of staff noted earlier, the five have been identified as potential transferees as part of

this release of sergeant bergdahl for some time. the assessment of the secretary of defense in consultation with the full national security team that there were sufficient mitigation steps taken and assurances deceived by the united states that these detainees do not pose a threat to u.s. national and were therefore in our interest to take action to recover sergeant bergdahl. >> to what degree were those assurances solidified when the president talked to the mayor wednesday at west point? >> the president had been a , i think conversations more specifically a phone call to the mayor. and he did have a meeting at west point, but this was a process that was ongoing for a

long time. >> nothing was solidified their that was not already understood? >> i do not want to get into too many details about presidential conversations. this process was fairly completed by them. >> one last question. the international red cross said that it was not in any way, shape, or form brought into seeing the transferees before they were moved out. which is something that was happening with their participation and awareness before. can you explain that? sure about all the questions around that. i can simply point you to the general approach we took here, which was to make sure that we were able to recover sergeant safely --nce he was and once he was safely in u.s. custody, we began notifications and began to transfer the five detainees. >> i want to follow-up on the question about susan rice's

comments about sergeant bergdahl 's service. question some [indiscernible] >> there was no question about his initial the tension by the taliban. i would echo what chairman dempsey said. i would echo what national andrity advisor rice said what the defense department has done with regard to sergeant bergdahl. and i would point you to the initial information surrounding the initial captivity by the taiwan -- the taliban. it is something the department of defense is reviewing. but it is a fact that a uniformed member of the u.s. military was held captive by an enemy force in an armed conflict . and in keeping with a long , backedin our country

by any toes that's as we don't leave our men and women in uniform behind, -- by any ours that we don't leave men and women in uniform hunt, the president made his decisions. >> does the president stand by -- nine clicks -- >> does the president stand by -- hishe president stand by decision to secure the release of a pow. but you are not going to -- >> you are not going to answer? >> i stand by what the chairman the joint chiefs has said, the defense department has said. [indiscernible]

what was in the national security interest beyond that year? is thati can tell you with the mitigation with this transfer, there's a travel ban and monitoring that is associated with it. and altogether, the secretary of defense and national security enoughncluded there was and sufficient mitigation of the threat that this was the right .hing to do the transfer of these detainees did not pose a significant threat to the united states. but enough mitigation for how long, though? >> enough mitigation. i don't have the exact details theye circumstances of how will follow and monitor the detainees. obviouslye aspects, of the interaction we had with around this matter.

around thistaris matter. >> one more question on the epa. can you characterize how many lybs will be specifical created you or you have a benchmark echo >> -- created? do you have a benchmark? created will be in areas of renewable energy. we have seen already in solar energy, wind energy, biofuels. and that growth has occurred already in the past several years. the growth in renewables and renewable production has contributed to the reductions we've already seen in carbon emissions. we've also seen a significant in the -- expansion approach to energy production. an expansion in

natural gas production in the united states. and as you know, natural gas burns twice as cleanly as, for example, coal, and other fossil fuels. >> do you think it will cost jobs in the coal industry echo >> it is worth noting, and i don't have anybody from the national journal here, but i will quote the national journal who said, "mining jobs in appalachia fared far worse under the clinton, bush and reagan administrations than they have under obama." we have taken steps to approach our energy security -- energy and security needs. that includes increase production across the board. it includes aggressively investing in noble energy. it includes taking advantage of our natural gas deposits in a

way that enhances u.s. national security and energy independence . and we will continue that approach. alln, i would point you to of the history in this country of actions taken by administrations of both parties to improve the quality of our air and the quality of our water. every time such actions have been taken, industry has said that doom is upon us and that jobs will be limited and the economy will crater. when these kinds of actions are done wisely, consistent with the science, the opposite has been true. >> speaking of sergeant bergdahl 's parents being invited here friday, and his father's statement about the taliban's

commitment to free all of the , what do of guantánamo you make of that? these arenow is that the parents of sergeant bergdahl. their son was held in captivity for five years. it was the right thing for this administration to take action to secure his release. in thet prisoner of war afghanistan and iraq wars. but i'm not talking about that. -- >> i'm not talking about that. about bringing him here. there are some that felt they were in -- there were communications he had that were improper. i don't know about that. as far as closing gitmo, we believe we ought to" guantanamo bay because the costs are

excessive and the harm to our national security -- to close guantanamo bay to cut the costs are excessive in the harm to our national security are there. >> the commitment was to free those detainees at guantánamo bay. >> whatever that position is does not pertain to this issue. sergeant bergdahl was held captive by an enemy force in an armed combat with the united states. an inconsistent with -- in consistency with past practice, we brought him home. >> secretary shinseki is out. what is the next step? is the president of waiting more awaiting more reports? what is the next step? >> when it comes to the secretary of veterans affairs, it is a top priority to find a

successor. i cannot predict an exact timeline right now. but we are going to look diligently for a new v.a. secretary and we hope to fill that post as soon as possible. the fact is, and we discussed , the actingek secretary has a significant background to take on this effort and fulfill an important -- as research for a new secretary. reviews are underway. they continue. rob neighbors is under review, and the initial report was provided to the president last week. and of course, there is an independent inspector general investigation ongoing. gibson wait until a secretary is confirmed?

>> the process began with secretary shinseki offering his resignation. he himself took steps aimed at accountability once it became apparent how systemic the problem was regarding falsified , or mr.on wait times presentation of wait times -- or the misrepresentation of wait times. and rob neighbors began a broader review of vha operations and it is ongoing. he will have a full report is month for the president and the leadership of v.a. a question about this conference call. i think they have moved it up to 1:50 p.m. why is he choosing the law talkiation in order to

about this? is a health issue? is it a law issue? does he think that people will understand it better if he talks about it that way? >> he has talked about and will continue to talk about the broader issues of the challenge posed by climate change and global warming. but when it comes to carbon emissions, which are not they do direct harm to our public health. you can see the instances of asthma and the huge increase that we have seen in this country when it comes to asthma attacks, especially among children. we have taken steps to cut emissions of lead and make -- and mercury and arsenic. this is consistent with those efforts and consistent with the public health objectives of those efforts. that is what the president will be highlighting today in his conference call.

>> are you worried at all about the adverse effects politically in november? >> the president thinks this is the right thing to do and it is consistent with the actions taken to reduce pollution caused by lead or mercury or arsenic. and the positive health effects are clear. i think that is independently established. and the long-term benefits when it comes to reduce electricity bills and increased job creation are clear. this is the right thing to do, and the president is confident that there will be significant benefits to our public health and to our economy as the years pass. policy that bars u.s. negotiating with terrorist groups?

>> on the issue of negotiating with terrorists, i would point you that we are in an armed conflict with the taliban in afghanistan. we don't get to choose our enemies when we go to war. the taliban held sergeant bergdahl and we successfully recovered him, consistent with past practice and consistent that says we, the united states military does not leave our men and women in uniform behind when they are held captive. and it is consistent with that principle that we have had for security his recovery. >> does the u.s. still regard the taliban as a terrorist group? >> we regard the taliban as an conflictbatant in a that has been going on, and in which the united states has been

involved for more than a decade. and in this case, although we tot with the qataris secure his release, it was the right thing to do. in captivityheld as a prisoner, not a hostage. we saw his recovery and succeeded in recovering him. >> so the negotiation to obtain sergeant bergdahl's release was not a breach of that policy, of not negotiating with terrorists? it is absolutely consistent with decade, and i would venture centuries, because we have more now of past practice when it comes to exchange of prisoners. i think people want me to and in time for the conference call. >> [indiscernible]

>> nobody is offering the job. but can you assure the american people that the taliban will not in -- that they will not be right back doing what they would have been doing? >> what i can tell you is that the secretary of defense in coordination with the full national security team made the conclusion that the mitigation efforts were sufficient warning came to the greek -- the assurances we received from the --the qataris and the assurances that we have received. >> i hear that, but you cannot say that they won't be back with the taliban.

>> [indiscernible] what i can tell you is that consistent with past practice, we have received assurances and are confident that there is sufficient mitigation. >> one more quick question. you are sort of setting this up as a routine -- maybe not routine, but within the tradition of prisoner of war exchanges. the people you are exchanging our legend mass murderers and abettors of terrorism, proven abettors of care resume against the united states. can you describe a previous time when people of that caliber were exchanged as prisoners of war? >> what i can tell you is there have been prisoner exchanges in our past that have been consistent with this action by our allies, and with the united states in conflict where there was a great deal of loss of life on both sides. [indiscernible] >> all i can tell you is that sergeant bergdahl is an american member of the military held captive by our enemies for five

years. and it is the right thing to do consistent with u.s. history and identified by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that it was the right thing to do. thank you all very much. u.s.at do you make of the the ministrations support of the ukraine? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] house press secretary jay carney responding to questions on the administration's decision this week to swap for his nurse with the taliban to bring home -- to swap prisoners with the taliban to bring home sergeant o bergdahl, who has been held captive for five years.

and he also answered questions about the epa's decision to cut carbon emissions by 20% by the year 2030. house republicans leader eric cantor reacting to today's decision saying in part this -- democratic leader nancy pelosi also released a statement, saying -- coming up in just over five thetes, we will go live to heritage foundation here in washington for a discussion on the supreme court ruling in mccutchen, striking him campaign contribution limits, and the impact of that ruling on free speech. that will start at 2 p.m. eastern and we will have live coverage here on c-span. and tonight, a look at baseball and american life with lifelong baseball fan, supreme court justice samuel alito. a very goodt's idea. chief justice roberts famously said a few years ago that judges

are like umpires. i think that is true. the umpires on the fields are like the trial judges. we know they get things wrong sometimes. so you have to have an appeal to the umpires in new york who can review the replay. and the only thing that is wrong with the system is that it only has two levels. [laughter] >> that entire discussion coming up tonight along with columnist david brooks and george will as they discuss baseball and his place in american baseball -- american culture. 8:00 p.m.night at eastern here on c-span. >> from a policy perspective, congress should appoint an agency that has the authority to manage the spectrum resources of the country and look at the highest and best uses of those resources so we can continue to

support all of the important functions, national security functions, but also continued drive of the need for investment. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. pictures from the heritage foundation here in washington this afternoon as they are hosting a discussion on supreme court rulings dealing with campaign contribution limits and how that issue relates to the first amendment right of speech -- free speech. you will hear from the former chair of the federal election commission and the federal election commission supreme court case who successfully argued against campaign zoning -- campaign donor spending limits. that should get underway shortly here on c-span.

>> again, we are alive at the heritage foundation this afternoon, waiting discussion on the supreme court's decision on breaking down campaign contribution limits and how that affects spree -- free speech. while we wait, from this

morning's "washington journal," a discussion on residential administrations -- presidential administrations and job creation. >> every monday in the last hour, we take a look at how taxpayer dollars are being spent. today, your money segment is being focused on the front page story in the "washington post" ofently with the headline the core in question. is it worth the cost? joining us here is the author of the story. what is the job corps program you could >> it is a from the came out of the great society. from agess that 16-24, people didn't have jobs and they dropped out. he couldn't just help them look through classifieds. the government had to take them in. take them away from their homes out of the medical of the country or someplace away from

the city and keep them there any sort of college environment, but the government also teaches them a trade. it taught things like for history and country trade, but also today teaches nursing, plumbing, electricity. it is a radical intervention in the lives of these young people where the government and your beans directly in their lives and tries to change the course. host: it started under lbj. how has it grown over the years? has it ever not been continued it hasress? guest: survived. it has gone through some rough patches. nixon and reagan tried to get rid of it entirely. and there have been cuts to the budget over the years. even with so much tension over probably in it is one of its safer places quickly that it has ever been. money, $1.7 billion estimated cost in 2013.

37 million training slots per year. running slots per year. room and board provided, and about 60% complete their training. about that is the thing job corps is that the people that it helps, it helps a lot. and their lives change radically. but they spend money per person. themkes people in, give food and clothing and wages and find a place for them to live. it costs a lot per student and only handles a small portion of jobless,ries unemployed, or underemployed. helps a relatively small number of people, and it doesn't even help all of them. a lot of them drop out in the middle, or they don't like it, or they graduate and get training and cannot get a job. who are the people entering the job score program? generallys 16 to 24, those from poorer backgrounds. there is an income state of they have to meet. a lot of them, maybe half of them are high school dropouts. they have completed an eight or

ninth grade level. and they do not have a lot of training in any particular skill. they don't have to be unemployed, but just underemployed in things like fast food were there is no skill required. host: where are these training centers? guest: all over the country. there is one importer rico. i went to one in oklahoma. a real mix. the programs start with the idea that some of them could be like the depression era work camps. they would be out in the middle of the country and you could some of them are in the middle of nowhere. welcome those who joined us on our website. several will be joining us on c-span today. those watching online are welcome to send comments at speaker