there is no such thing as a scientific revolution that here is a book about it. if you look at the way things are being changed by the confluence of personal computers, mobile devices, and network such as the internet, that has so disrupted things, it is like the combination of the steam engine, the loom, and the other things that created the industrial revolution. >> thank you guys very much for coming up here to talk. >> good to see you. >> thank you. >> friday on c-span, and discussion about the obama administration's new cuban policy and what it could mean for relations with cuba. we will hear from the executive director of the center for free cuba. here is a preview.

>> we talked earlier about transparency. he had conducted a 16 month secret investigation that people didn't learn about until three or four months ago. being a cuban, i don't know why the president thinks that by talking to rile castro that they can determine the future of cuba. the future of cuba it belongs -- the future of cuba belongs to the cuban people. the president announced a policy that is full of misunderstanding and missed conceptions. he read something from the teleprompter that are nonsense, i am sorry to say. when people say that the president wants to reestablish relations with cuba, the united states has had diplomatic relations with cuba since 1977. the american mission in cuba is

the largest islamic o-matic nation in cuba and it has been for many years. there are more american diplomats in cuba than canadians or any other. i also said that the notion of saying, is something hasn't worked, we have to do something else. the something else has to work. just because something doesn't work, you can't just pick up another option. >> on friday, a discussion about the obama administration's new cuban policy. we will bring you an event hosted by the tower forum. at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. coming up tonight on c-span, a debate on whether the west should arm ukraine in its conflict with russia. then, chris christie speaking at the lee get -- lincoln reagan

dinner. first, remarks by president obama, then we will hear from secretary of state john kerry and united nations secretary-general ban ki-moon. on the next washington journal brigham mckown and bob deans discuss the train accident in west virginia this week that spilled crude oil. a month-long visit to historically black colleges concludes. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation with phone calls, facebook comments, and. tweets. on friday, president obama addresses the winter meeting at the democratic national committee in the.

washington dc. life coverage starts at 11:10 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday morning starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern our nation's governors get together to discuss issues affecting their state. guests include any minor -- danny meyer and maria barbarella. we continue our live coverage of that meeting. speakers include jeh johnson and gina mccarthy. on c-span two saturday, book tv is on the road exploit the literary life of greensboro.

sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards westmore retraces his career choices from combat veteran to white house fellow, wall street anger, to social entrepreneur. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday night just after 7:00, the 1963 interview of former nation of islam minister malcolm x discussing racial integration. former cia chief of disguise jonna mendez tells the story of us by team that infiltrated the cia through the use of sex in the 1970's. find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202626 3400. e-mail us or send us a tweet.

join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> next, a debate about arming ukraine in this conflict with russia. two former u.s. ambassadors took part in the event. they spoke for about one hour. >> i think we will get started. good afternoon and good morning everyone. usually my day is done by this point. thank you all for coming to see what i think is going to be a really important and engaging conversation. to introduce myself, my name is david grain. i host a show on npr. i traveled often to ukraine and

covered a lot of the buildup to the conflict in the news that we are all following right now. this is such an important question as to how the united states and the west should deal with this crisis, specifically the topic we will be covering is whether the west should arm ukraine. as we think about this conflict, there have been so many lives lost. as we have conversations about the politics, it is so important to keep that in mind. the voices we heard on the air this week on our program. we spoke to a woman a few days ago, she does it work in de anesk. she was describing the bunkers were families have been hiding for weeks on end.

people were coming out for an hour or two at a time thinking this was a moment where he's had come to check on their homes. they lit fires in their homes to warn them because there was that level of optimism that they would be home soon. the violence has raged on. katerina told us her apartment with shelled and her friends would have been killed had they not gotten up to take a phone call when the fire hit. yesterday, we saw that automatic and painful pictures -- that traumatic and painful pictures of the army is being withdrawn. the military under darkness trying to escape after being circle. it reminds me of something the

president said when he visited in fall. imagine these boys underequipped and often unprepared. they are the only thing that stands between the new cold war. here is what is at stake when the west tries to deal with this issue. i want to introduce four panelists who are appear with me. to my left is john. he is a former u.s. ambassador to oak rain -- ukraine. thanks for joining us. farther to the left, stephen.

he is the arms director at the brookings institution. he is also a former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. thank you for coming this morning. >> to my right two voices who will be speaking about why arming ukraine is not a positive move at this point. jeremy shapiro to my right. he previously served as a member of the secretary's cabinet. thanks for joining us. finally, eugene. he is the director of the russian eurasia program at carnegie. he is a former national intelligence officer for russia and eurasia.

thanks for joining us. before we get started, i wanted to see a show of hands in this room if you believe that arming the ukrainian military, making that decision as the united states, is a good idea. raise your hand. a little less than half. >> a lot less. [laughter] >> we've got some work to do. >> good luck. we are going to start with each side talking for about five minutes and making the case. after those 10 minutes, we will open it up to a 20 minute discussion up here. i will ask some questions.

i hope you will address each other. after that for 10 minutes, we will open the floor to your questions. my only request is that it is actual questions and not lectures from the audience. then we will have about 10 minutes to hear both sides wrap up. i would love to see where the audience stands at that point if you have been able to convince the room. why don't i begin with the two former ambassadors to make a case for arming ukraine. >> president barack obama and angela has said there is no military solution.

the goal is not a settlement but instability. to create difficulties for the government in kiev. the west has responded with economic sanctions. they have not yet achieved their political goal which is to bring about a change in russia's force towards ukraine. ukraine gave up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. we also recommend providing light weapons. we were told that three quarters

of the weapons in the ukraine army don't work. we are not talking about troops going into ukraine. ukrainians are fighting to give themselves the ability to inflict greater cost against russia. gluten -- putin cares very much of the impact of war on russian opinion. the russian government has tried to hide the fact that the russian army is fighting and people are dying in ukraine. arming ukraine, with the goal of getting the russians to change, is part of an overall strategy that includes helping ukraine with financial support, economic sanctions, and holding out for the prospect of a settlement.

arming ukraine will get the russians to switch that settlement. the risks are manageable and the risks are in action are much greater. it's not just about ukraine. it is about broader european safety. >> mr. putin has stated that he wants to reinstate the roles in europe to the cold war rules or there will be no rules. he read your the borders of georgia by military force. he is doing the same to ukraine. he sees the counter intelligence office. he is threatens because you get them -- he has threatened can't

extend -- people argue that our providing weapons to ukraine would only get mr. putin to escalate. we hope it would deter him. he has a problem at home with russian casualties in ukraine. if he escalates and takes more casualties, he will have less military force. we have to demonstrate to him by sanctions and by providing arms to ukraine that there is a heavy price to pay. >> we will take that extra minute. >> we are going to be very efficient this morning. >> we will work on it. >> we share your angst and frustration. in our view, two wrongs don't

make a right. there are three fundamental flaws. one, let's make no mistake. what you are arguing for is a war against russia. we are confident that russia will retaliate. that's a major flaw. second, there is a fundamental conceptual flaw. you have argued that there will be a fire break. there will be no boots on the ground. that's a very uncertain way to deter someone. it signals that you are not prepared to escalate.

three, there will be boots on the ground. the proposal calls for not just dumping weapons, you will have to train ukrainian troops in the use of these weapons. you also calls for the security in kiev to monitor the use of these weapons, to make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands. that is a highly questionable proposition because once those weapons are out of our hands, we cannot monitor them. the idea of sending u.s. military personnel into this known, -- this zone, you could be facing a black hawk down situation.

then we will have to figure out how to rescue them. to close and turn it to jeremy, two wrongs don't make a right. >> thanks. to some degree, this comes down to the question of whether we think sending arms to ukraine would cause the russians to escalate or to back down. it seems to be the idea in the report that the increased casualties will cause the russians to back down and abandon their fight in ukraine. it is true that the russians have been hiding their casualties from their people. of course, there is a dynamic here. if americans send arms ukraine that will be used in russian propaganda to free up the domestic constraints. it will be portrayed as a war of the west against russia.

on a certain level, it will be. that will almost certainly cause the russians to escalate. the question is, are we ready for that? are we ready for the idea that we need to go to war against a nuclear power for the sake of ukraine? this seems to me to be a proposition that people aren't really considering. it is also important to understand what this proposal would do to ukraine. david opened with some very touching stories about what the violence is doing. we know what sending arms into a civil war situation like this does. it escalate the violence. we have all sorts of academic studies on this. they show quite clearly that when you send weapons into a war zone like this, the violence increases, the conflict lasts

longer, and more people die. let's be clear about what we are doing. we are escalating the war and we are causing more violence and death. i think that is a serious decision. another point brought up is whether the united states owes this to ukraine. we have this budapest memorandum that steve mentioned which is supposed to represent some sort of guarantees. i have read the budapest memorandum. it is not gripping but it is interesting. i am at a loss in there to understand where the united states has to jump to the defense of the ukraine. the memorandum does not mean that the united states is willing to come to the defense of ukraine it is attacked militarily.

united states doesn't have a commitment to defend ukraine. i think we need to do as so often don't is called something by its name. the russians have invaded ukraine. we need to a knowledge that. that doesn't make ukrainians an american ally. it doesn't commit the americans to defend them. it doesn't mean ukrainian state is any less corrupt or dysfunctional. >> a lot to talk about. i think there are copies of the report we are talking about in the room. you are both involved in this. i would like to start their.

rre. there are some very strong words to propose that the words in this report could lead to a black hawk down situation. is that a legitimate concerns? >> i think that is not a serious argument. the united states military is already going to be training ukrainian national guard units in the far western part of ukraine in the polish corridor. you can do training far away from the fighting. western defense at cachet istachets are going into the battle areas and

taking steps for protection. >> the bulk of the assistance proposed in the report is nonlethal. >> this would require americans on the ground. >> they don't necessarily have to be trained in ukraine. we have been told that you can train somebody to fire this thing in about two hours. >> even if there would be american trainers on the ground, you can sure that there is not a real risk? >> the report makes clear that you would train them away from the conflict area and that you would not provide the weapon unless they demonstrated that they were capable of using it.

>> does that answer your question? >> no. once we turn these weapons over to the ukrainian military, there is no way to monitor them. >> we have seen in the last few days a very poorly organized retreat of the ukrainian military. it was a situation where if we had provided weapons to them, we would not have been able to ascertain the use of these weapons. it is very likely that they would have wound up in the hands of the separatists or the russians. >> are you saying this is a different argument? >> this is about weapons going into russian hands, not about americans being at the front. >> you cannot train without u.s.

troops there. you brought up the point of training at a far-off facility, you cannot monitor where those weapons will go. there have also been numerous stories reported about corruption in the military. there were stories about ukrainian soldiers volunteering to serve that have to buy their own equipment. how can you be sure that the weapons won't end up in the wrong hands as a result of some corrupt and poorly managed military? >> the report was clear in that saying that this military assistance will not help the ukrainians to beat the russian military. it can't. that is not something he can conceivably achieve. it is meant to scare the russians into backing down. the question is, will it do that? that seems to be a very

questionable proposition. >> there is also another fundamental flaw with what you propose, john. russia has attacked the peaceful vision that has been fundamental since the cold war ended. you are proposing to fight the russian military with the hands of ukrainian soldiers without -- in sort of a remote control situation. >> i want to get to a broader discussion about putin and europe. we saw this retreat which was incredibly dramatic. their trucks were coming under artillery fire.

there were live lost. it was a mess. tell me why having javelin, antitank missiles in place help the ukrainians get out sooner and not stay to fight the battle. >> the fundamental problem with ukrainian military is that when it is organized, the rationale is to uphold the center. >> this is a question of tactical issues. antitank missiles would of been very useful against russian tanks that were at the battlefront. some of the nonlethal systems we

advocated what allowed ukrainians to target the artillery that were pounding them. there are problems in the broader organization of ukrainian military will take them time to work out. in terms of the tactical situation, the kind of assistance advocated in that report would have had a significant impact on that turnout. did ukrainians may not be able to beat the russian army but the question is about making aggression so expensive to the russians that they stop. if you drive up the cost, you flip the benefit-cost calculation. i can't say the weapons won't wind up in the hands of separatists. if you want the images, the

ukrainians brought a lot of their heavy equipment out of there. it is a difficult situations because they were surrounded on three sides. they got a lot of this stuff out and they destroyed most of what they left behind. >> they spent the last six weeks sending heavy arms, tanks, missiles into ukraine. we are proposing a small counter to that. a counter that could've made a difference on the ground. we want to enable the aggressor to counter more easily. >> this would not have been the battle it was if we had sent american weapons in six month ago. the russians would have asked related -- the russians with escalated and it probably would

have been a worse battle. this is the fundamental point. if we are thinking of increasing the cost to the russians through this effort, we have to have a sense of what costs they are willing to bear. i think the russians have been very clear that they view the ukrainian battle at the next essential one. they have a lot of escalation options because ukraine is close to russia. it seems that they are willing to do them. we do not have that kind of interest in ukraine. we are not willing to go up that ladder of escalation. is steve is of the view that a few more russian casualties are going to increase the cost to the russians to such an extent they are simply going to back down over what they have defined as the next essential it do for them, i am confused by that reasoning. -- over what they have to find as an exit stencil issue for them -- over what they have

defined as an existential issue for them >> they will take the risk of escalating casualties because they were part of their country under control. >> you use a very powerful term. yet made the argument that -- you made the argument that this is nonlethal. i want to hear you explain why you think these steps recommended in this report would take us to a proxy war with russia. >> sending antitank weapons to be used by the ukrainian military against russian armor would be viewed by the russians

as a move by the united states to oppose russia in what russia considers to be a conflict of paramount national interest. the united states would be and a standoff position, fighting a war three ukrainian soldiers. i am not even sure what the question here is. in the russians view, even economic sanctions are considered warfare. they will see it as what is going to be, proxy war. we are using ukraine to fight russia. >> even if it is very limited if you are putting u.s. trainers in place to train ukrainians on weaponry that the west is

providing, that takes it to another level. russia will see this as a major step. >> a couple of points. they claim american soldiers will be captured. it is possible they will consider this a step up by the united states. we have done this in the past successfully. in afghanistan. that did not lead us to nuclear war with russia. we didn't have to backtrack out of afghanistan. this is something which does not necessarily lead to a great escalation in u.s.-russian military confrontation. >> is that a fair model, afghanistan? >> yes. >> the new york times reported on the history of supplying arms

into civil wars like this. they found in the 67-year history that it essentially never worked. it always escalated the conflict and lengthened it. that is why we saw proxy wars around the world during the cold war in places like angola vietnam, guatemala. they found one example where they said it mostly worked. that was afghanistan. unfortunately, that also led to 9/11. partial success. i think the point here is that we do understand these dynamics. we have seen them many times before. if we do this, the russians will certainly escalate. they have many answers to these weapons. when they escalate, we will be confronted with a choice.

should we counter escalate and send in the next weapon and advisers? or should we back down and do so in a very public and humiliating way? that is a choice i think we should be avoiding if we know we are not willing to escalate. >> can i say something? once those weapons are out of our hands, they are out of our hands. long after the war was over, we were trying to collect the stingers that we could not account for in afghanistan. it is not a good example in this circumstance. >> i want to talk about putin if we can. a city in eastern estonia is a most entirely russian speaking. a fear is that putin is able to use russian speakers and take them elsewhere.

bringing article five into question is a possibility. i think we can all acknowledge the possibility is out there. why is the argument that putin must be stopped here and that the way to do it is to give ukrainian military more resources? why does that argument not resonate with you? >> because we have made a commitment to estonia, lot the other, lithuania, other nato allies. we have to cleared many times over that they are covered by our defense guaranteed. we have not made that commitment to ukraine.

the text of the budapest memorandum suggests this. >> i would like to come back to the memorandum. jeremy, you pulled that out of context. the budapest memorandum was on security assurances, not guarantees. we were not going to provide the ukrainians a guarantee. the 82nd airborne was not going to comment there is a violation of that memorandum. maybe in negotiations we say one thing and walk away from it.

the problem for the bush and clinton administrations was getting a hold of nuclear weapons. we wanted to make sure those weapons were eliminated. this is part of that agreement. i think there is a certain amount of u.s. obligation. >> i would like to respond. if we are ukraine now putin pay the higher price for achieving his objectives. we are demonstrating to russia more determination in the baltic states. we need to demonstrate that we are serious in the baltic. one way to do that is being serious and ukraine. >> we have a couple of minutes left. i want to challenge the arming

side on one point. there seems to be an assumption or expectation that this step could at some point lead to putin losing political support in russia. is that a fair assumption to make? it seems his support is incredibly strong. he is good at planning the west. when these steps play into his hands and allow him to blame the west even more? >> the funny thing about authoritarian regimes is that they are stable until they are not. support has gone down after the annexation of crimea. the money classes in russia are very unhappy. foreign-policy professionals are very nervous about what he is doing. russians don't like that their economy is in the toilet. they don't like that russians

are dying in ukraine. if there are more russian body bags, mr. putin's support could diminish. >> polls consistently show that the russian population does not favor the russian army fighting and ukraine. i think there is a huge amount of evidence. you saw what happened when the first soldiers were being buried. i heard from a friend who lost their leg in ukraine that he was told if he said how he lost his leg, he would lose his

disability. >> the example that stephen is citing also demonstrates that mr. putin has been capable of suppressing evidence. >> we need to acknowledge the dynamic of the united states getting openly involved in this war. that will change russian domestic policy. one of the things that works very well in russian domestic policy is the american bogeyman coming to get you. when the president of the united states stands up and says i'm sending weapons to oppose the russians in ukraine, that is going to free up president putin from a lot of the constraints you just mentioned. i think it is very important for

the united states to demonstrate its commitment to the baltics. the question is, is defending and ukraine useful for that? it is not optimal terrain. it is not the same commitment. it doesn't illustrate our commitment. it is working with an ally that is very difficult to work with. in estonia and latvia we have been preparing that the fence for a long time. we have seen in the russian efforts in ukraine the limits of what they can accomplish with hybrid warfare. it worked to a degree in some places but not in others. it didn't work in cities where they didn't have the support. that is the case in estonia and latvia. i think those have better defenses. the red line doesn't have to be in ukraine.

the russians are weak. it doesn't matter if the russians want to take over all of eastern europe. they won't be able to. we need to worry about russian weakness and when they will lash out at us because they feel threatened. that is a dangerous proposition. >> could i give you 30 seconds to respond to the notion that russia is weak? >> there is no question that russia has an economy based on hydrocodone's with oil prices low. why do we want to make it easier for us to move beyond ukraine? even if they escalate for them to achieve their objectives in ukraine, they lose more men and material.

>> i want to open this to all of you. it looks like no one is interested. if you don't mind, keep it relatively brief. make it a question and introduce yourself when you get up. >> thanks very much. i am garrett mitchell. i want to pose the question this way. it was napoleon who said once you start to take the ammo, take the ammo. -- once you start to take vienna take vienna. my question is, given the current circumstances, why isn't the greatest interest in

america's national interest and foreign-policy interests and nato's interest to not play halfheartedly in ukraine but to put troops in those nato countries that the ambassadors say he is headed for so that they understand that there are red lines we are willing to draw. they are in the nato nations. unfortunately, ukraine will help them in it is important, it seems to me to not draw faint redlined -- red lines. >> is this a faint red line you are proposing? >> i don't think so.

i think you can do both things. we are reinforcing nato states in the baltic region. that is regardless. the provision of weapons on the low end of the scale when you look at the entire range of weapons that could be provided i don't think that draws a red line. ukrainians are going to fight on whether we help them are not. i think it is a certain u.s. obligation to help, and i believe back against the russians now has been in effect for years. if putin decides these kinds of hybrid tactics work in ukraine at acceptable cost, he can apply it somewhere else. >> i just don't see this domino theory working like that. they we don't thought -- support ukraine than the baltic region will fall. that is what it sounds like to me. to answer your question, you are

asking why shouldn't we put more troops in eastern europe? well you have to have a different structure in europe. >> i'm saying, let's not pretend. i think we are drawing a very faint pink line and no one will read that clearer than putin. at some point we have to face the facts in ukraine, continued to do what we are doing in a nonlethal way, but make it very clear, unido, that we have troops. if putin has his eyes on those countries, he is nuts. >> i agree we should be reinforcing that. i think we should be helping ukraine. and the billion dollars or whatever can be very

productively spent, assuming there is the right situation in ukraine to begin to rebuild the military and lunch -- launched the force they have been delaying for a long time. essentially, you need to equate military with the money you propose. along the line with what nato allies having eastern europe. >> another country -- question? young woman in the aisle right here. >> my name is mary jane. you both spoke very eloquently about the position of putin, the position of russia, as well as the request -- the west. what about the people of eastern ukraine? what is their desire, do they want the ukrainian army in their territory?

>> one of the reasons why the kremlin launched a hybrid war is because of the expectation of the civil war in the east flopped. cole demonstrated up through last spring that most of 25% of people were interested in joining with russia. kremlin had to send an fsb colonel, because as he complained to the kremlin, the locals will not fight. eventually--of course there is a lot of suffering in the east right now. there are refugees. there are twice as many idp's in ukraine than russia. most of all, they want fighting to stop. but if you look at any poll in ukraine taken before all this, there was no support i have the majority of people. even in crimea, to lead ukraine

and become part of -- leave ukraine and become part of russia. >> i think one of the problems in a war situation is we quickly lose any hold on being able to understand the people on the ground. there is so much propaganda from all sides. it becomes very difficult for us to know what they think anymore. their views change. there is a lot of sense that people are very angry for the tactics the government has used. but we don't really down the degree -- know the degree to which that is the case. i think the fundamental point which we see across the world is that people on the ground generally want the war to end. they care more about the war ending than anything else. what we know about this proposal from so many other examples, is that it will not cause the wars to end. it will cause the word to escalate. it will cause the war to

spread and cause more suffering and death. >> i think the war is not ending. last tuesday, chancellor merkel brokered an agreement that most would agree is significantly disadvantageous to ukraine than the one signed last september that the russians violated. yet we had an agreement disadvantageous to ukraine, and what happened the night saturday when the cease-fire was supposed to begin, the russian separatists went right on fighting. the reports stayed that offense it continues. >> it is a fair point, steve. we don't have a good solution for ending the ukrainian civil war. or the russian ukrainian war if you prefer. you can call it whatever you want.

we don't have a good option for ending it. i think that is a real problem. it doesn't seem a good response is to expand it. with it as bad as it is, we know from experience, it could be worse. we have seen worse examples and greater escalation in places like syria and bosnia. even in chechnya where the russians demonstrated the types of tactics they are willing to use. this war could be a lot worse. that is essentially what this proposal will do. it is very hard to end. i take that point and i think there is a lot of difficult negotiations that need to go on. i don't see why making the war worse is a good way to end it. >> can we make a deal -- we only have three or four minutes. >> thank you very much.

thank you for organizing this event. first, there is no civil war in ukraine. there is no civil war in ukraine. there is war which was brought by russia from russia. is a conflict which will -- was inspired by three men and russian troops. second, without any weapons well second is that for the time being, nobody provided ukraine with weapons. in spite of that, putin and kremlin's escalate with everyday situation. first it was crimea, occupying. then forced referendum. then annexation. then aggression in the eastern

part. it was the attempt for the ukraine to diplomatically solve the issue. then it has been violated. russia has flooded the occupied area with hundreds of apcs and rocket systems, and in this case is just curious to hear that they have not been provided with defensive weapons. what is more without any weapons, kremlin will every day escalate the conflict. this is not only against ukraine. this is war against europe. this is were against europeans and democratic values. that is why ukraine needs

weapons. second in order to stop aggression today and not to wait for tomorrow because the situation will be even worse. thank you. thank you. >> you guys can respond to that. then we will close. >> i think that as the ambassador says, ukraine has the right to defend itself. it has the right to request weapons. i'm not sure what a defensive weapon is, but it has the right. i am very sympathetic to their plight in the face of russian aggression. we should be clear it is russian aggression. i think also the united states has the right to decide whether it makes sense from an american perspective and from a larger

perspective, as to whether to provide those weapons. the united states does not have a commitment to ukraine. the united states would only escalate this war if it provided it and created much greater suffering in ukraine, and it would create a lot of risks for it self credibility is not at stake in ukraine. it has many options for dealing with russian aggression, should it come to the nato state. to me, it is more than strange that those who would risk of war to protect the independence of ukrainian foreign policy would deny that same right to the united states. it is a u.s. sovereign decision whether to provide such weapons into a war. we need to make that decision on our own.

i think the ukrainians don't get a vote in that. >> well, i can't make the point strong enough to read -- reiterate. it is an american decision, not a ukrainian decision. ukraine has the right to defend itself against aggression. no question about it. but we have a say here as well. it is us at stake. some would disagree with jeremy. i think we have our credibility on the line as well. but there are different ways and other ways to defend our credibility and show commitment to europe other than providing weapons for a conflict that neither ukraine nor with weapons have a chance of winning. again, putin has demonstrated he will escalate to keep on fighting. there are many things we don't know about what he wants to do.

basically, the one thing he has demonstrated, is that he is prepared to escalate and prepared to make sure that the separatists are not defeated. we are not prepared to go to the same lengths. i think it is the most important thing to keep in mind is considering providing a little bit of defensive weapons to ukraine in these circumstances. also, europe is not on the side of sending weapons to ukraine. chancellor merkel was -- has risen to the challenge like no other leader. she has made it clear she is opposed to it. >> let me make three or four points. first of all, yes this is an american decision. but i think the decision should be to arm ukraine because that would increase prospects of a settlement. ukrainians are going to fight with or without american arms.

but i would not so easily dismissed the group. there was a commitment there certainly not on the level of a neato treatment, but things were said to the ukrainians to get them to get rid of 1900 strategic weapons then. third, bally technologies there is a risk of escalation, but i think it is grossly overstated. -- there is a risk of escalation but i think it is grossly overstated. aggression by the russians means more aggression. there are more russian involvement in casualties. it becomes visible to the outside world that support for sanctions include worsening since. chancellor merkel is your 10 days ago. she says she does not favor providing arms. she also had the opportunity to say that if you do this, it will

disrupt transatlantic unity. she did not say that. she also did not say you americans should not do that. she did not give the president a green light but she certainly did not give him a red light haired >> the last word is yours. >> we have seen multiple escalations. before we provided weapons. providing weapons with respect to escalating further. if he does push back he will pay a price. two, this makes our defense in the baltic states easier. it also sends pidgeon caution about kazakhstan. -- putin cautioned about kazakhstan. three, there is no humiliation for the united states to provide weapons. if the russians ultimately win ukraine, there is no humiliation for the united date. we never said we would send forces to stop them. it makes it harder for putin to

in -- continue aggression. europe does not support the supply of weapons. europe did not support when we put missiles into europe in the 1980's during the cold war. and they came along with neuron -- strong american leadership here it if we had it, we have a better chance of outcome. thank you. >> to questions from the audience. raise your hand if you are in favor of arming ukraine. ok, and if you changed your mind, keep your hands up. [laughter] ok, a couple. how many people are on the fence? all right. i want to think carnegie for hosting this. i want to think that for panelists --the 4 panelists. mr. ambassador, thank you for

coming. thank you to our staff. [applause] -- to your staff. >> coming up on c-span, new jersey governor chris christie speaking at the reagan dinner in new hampshire. a look at the white house summit on combating violent extremism. first remarks by president obama. then secretary of state john kerry and you and secretary-general ban ki-moon. -- you and secretary-general on chemo and. on the next washington journal, the national resources defense council discusses the train accident in west virginia that spilled crude oil and caused a massive fire. after that, a month-long visit to historically black colleges and universities concludes. washington journal his life every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation with phone calls facebook, and tweets.

on friday, the washington institute for near east policy hosted a discussion on the increasing number of foreign fighters joining isis. speakers include general doug stone, the former current -- commander who oversaw detainees in iraq. based on c-span two. >> keep track of the republican led congress and follow its new members through the first session. , best access, on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and he spent at work. >> new jersey governor chris christie was in new hampshire monday to speak at the concorde merrimack county lincoln reagan dinner. his speech focused on america's reputation in the world. after he took questions from the audience and spoke to guests. this is just over one hour.

>> [applause] >> good evening. thank you very much. thank you. i have all of one town in a merrimack county, so i'm not running for every -- anything. i wanted to come here and spend a little time with some good americans and good republicans. very pleased that governor christie traveled up in this weather to be with us this evening as well. he is obviously not afraid of a little snow. nor are we here in the granite state. i wanted to talk for a few minutes before i had the pleasure of introducing governor christie. i wanted to talk a little bit about why we are here and what we celebrate. this is president's day. as i think of great leadership

in america, i think of different time periods. different leaders that we required overbuilding our great nation. i think of quotes, there are so many to pull from. but i have a few i wanted to mention and talk about. the first is from our founding father, george washington. something that we hope we can and should live by. it is a very simple quote. it has a very different meaning to a lot of people. to me is not just part of being a strong leader but a quote that i think embodies the republican party. it is very simple. the constitution is the guide which i will never abandon.

think about george washington speaking about the importance of the constitution. as we endeavor on the challenges today, both here and in concord and washington dc, far too many people ignore the basic evidence of following -- premise of following the constitution. it is in part why we are here today. there are other quotes from great leaders. the first president i remember that i grew up was ronald reagan. america is too great for small dreams. he was a visionary. somebody who thought that america could always be better. then what we were being offered at the time. something that i think again is a challenge that we had facing america today. far too many americans feel that our best days are behind us, not out of us.

-- ahead of us. which is why the next election is such an important election. not just for the party, but for the country. requiring real leadership. bold leadership. that is why we are excited in new hampshire to once again host the first of the nation's primaries. there are people like teddy roosevelt who said we must dare to be great. we must realize that greatness is the fruit of the toil and sacrifice and high courage. another leader that took the world by his hands, demonstrated what leadership meant at a critical juncture in our nation. well, i have had the good fortune of represented the first -- representing the first congressional district for six weeks now. during that time, there are many quotes that i could quote from

our current president. the one that i think frustrates americans the most is if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. not exactly a bold statement of leadership. in the first six weeks that i have served in congress this year, the president has issued more veto threats in this state of the union than any other president in the history of the state of the union. think of that for a moment. think of the difference between a ronald reagan, i george washington -- a george washington, and what we have today as the current occupant of the white house. in the house of representatives we have started on a pretty good path. we are bringing conservative, thoughtful, pragmatic leadership and thoughtful, pragmatic

initiatives to the floor of the house. but that by the way -- that by the way, are getting bipartisan support. we are getting moderate democrats that are starting to realize the error of their ways. energies that streamline and reform the energy process of america. we voted to defund the presidents amnesties -- amnesty proposal. this is just in the first six weeks. [applause] we also put it again to illuminate obama care which will continue to focus our efforts on . we know at top-down system is wrong for america. [applause] just last week, i found legislation to eliminate the cadillac tax which will hurt

every poverty taxpayer in the state of new hampshire. we are only getting started. not just common ground among republicans but common sense solutions for america. i am thrilled and please -- please that i had the opportunity to represent our great state. i will do everything i can to represent you and the best interests of the state of new hampshire. [applause] thank you. i would like to get on with introducing our guest speaker. governor christie was sworn in on january 19, 2010 and reelected to a second term on november 5, 2013. under governor christie, new jersey has taken on the biggest

in toughest challenges with real solutions and bipartisan cooperation. he has implemented a root -- an aggressive reform to restore fiscal accountability to stay local government. he has lowered jerseys property tax, and help benefit systems and improved public education to ensure every child has access to a quality education. in his first term, governor christie todd -- fought for and achieved a 2% property tax cap landmark health and if it reform that will save taxpayers $130 billion, balanced budgets, and did not raise taxes. after years of decline, new jersey's economy has turned around. more than 143,000 private sector jobs have been created under his tenure. in addition, governor christie has made education reform a top priority of his administration.

working to turn around failing schools, improving accountability, creating fair and meaningful evaluation systems, and increased school choice in the states worst-performing district. he has provided billions of dollars in additional aid for schools. in august of 2012, governor christie signed into law a landmark empires and tenure reform -- a landmark i partisan tenure reform to increase teacher effectiveness and accountability in new jersey classrooms. since superstorm sandy struck new jersey has made real substantial strides towards recovery and rebuilding. he has built dozens of reforms to place new jerseyans back in their homes, reopen businesses,

that were destroyed by sandy. a lifelong new jerseyan, governor christie has a deep commitment. born in newark, raised in livingston, he has lived in new jersey has entire life with the exception of the university of delaware. he and his wife have been married since 1986, where they are raising -- where they raised their four children. we are thrilled to have governor christie here in hampshire. we hope he will return to me answer many times did we wish him great success. please give -- help me land a warm welcome to governor chris christie. [applause] thank you.

click thank you>> thank you very it is good to be back. first of all thank you for your continued service. i was happy to lend my support to frank. he is exactly the type of person that we need in washington dc to keep that i am the ball and get our country moving forward again. i want to thank carrie and kathy for putting together the event tonight and for your invitation for me to be here. i want to thank jennifer burnett, it was great to see her again after being here many times before. steve dupre, and susanna bergeron. in one thing i would like to make sure we do, i was talking about this to a number of votes i met with earlier today. any of the veterans and armed

forces we have in the audience with you please stand and be recognized? [applause] >> thank you for your service to our country and for making the world a better and safer place as well. i am really happy to be back in new hampshire. i was here half a dozen times last year in 2014 to help support the candidacy of my friend will have an stein -- wu ill. [applause] he was an outstanding candidate for governor. when i first started coming

here i got all kinds of flak and commentary from my own state. what are you doing in new hampshire? we know what you're doing. you are getting ready to run for president. i know the kind of man walt is. i let them keep talking about that and i kept coming. as chairman of the rga, i was proud to have our organization invest $3 million in walt's campaign. we came just a bit short of victory. no where the blowout some people in the press were predicting. when i watch what your governor is up to here now, presenting her budget, you need walt now

more than you needed him last november. i love these politicians who run one way and govern another. i was appear a lot. imagine if she had campaigned on what she is now proposing. higher taxes, more spending more employees in government and kino. always one of the keys of a free and prosperous state. imagine if she had actually campaigned on the way she is governing. i expect we would have walt right now. it is something to remember. certain politicians who try to

pretend to be something different than what they are never really change. we saw the kind of campaign she ran against low montane in 2012 and then how she governed for two years. that is why i believed we had a great shot with walt to defeat her. the waste is governing now -- the way she is governing now should be a cautionary tale for everybody in new hampshire, no matter whether you are republican, democratic, or independent. she will use this platform as a way to try to increase her own visibility and run for the next job. let's be careful. we have enough of those types in washington dc already. we don't need you to send a more there.

new jersey is more than filling your quota. let's watch very carefully. make sure we pay attention not just to what politicians say during campaigns, but what they do when they actually have power. imagine if we had learned that lesson in 2012. after watching what four years of barack obama did to the united states of america. i know in 2008, he gave a speech about hope and change. he gave wonderful speeches about how we were not red states or blue states that the united states. he was going to be a unifier for our country. he was going to bring a different type of politics to washington dc. in that respect, the president have been -- has been good to its word.

washington has been less productive than it has been before. as i traveled the country in the last year, i can tell you that the reports you hear from around the country that voters are angry is wrong. they are not angry. what i saw when i traveled was a nation of voters filled with anxiety. worry about our country's future. worry about their children's future. it was personified best buy and 82-year-old woman that i met in florida. i was working a rope line campaigning for rick scott. she summarized what i found the mood of the country to be. as i was shaking hands with people, i shook her hand. they to do a politicians goal,

keep moving. she grabbed my hand and held onto it. she's the governor, i have a question or for -- question for you. what has happened to our country? we used to control events. now events control us. if you look at every aspect of this government under this president, she summarized the problem. a tax system that is grossly unfair and encouraging companies to lead our country -- leave our country. he does nothing to fix it. he says his energy policies are all of the above.

that is a bumper sticker. it is beneath the office that he holds. around the world in 20 oh eight, he tried to convince the american people that america is the cause of violence in the world. that if america would just pull back and give some nice speeches, and tell people we like them, violence would decrease, peace would increase, and stability would come to the globe. [crashing sounds] i had nothing to do with that. i swear. [applause] i think you can tell, i was nowhere near the scene. [laughter] i can't say i have never done it, but i did not do it that time.

think about the world today, everybody. i am 52 years old. i don't believe that i have ever lived in a time in my life with the world more dangerous and scary. think about it. i was just in great britain two weeks ago. i have not seen security to that heightened level since right after 9/11. it is difficult to move in certain places in london. because of the concern for terrorist attacks. we saw the murders in france. we watch people concerned about radicals the route western europe -- throughout western europe. a rock is on fire. syria is on fire. egypt is under martial law. jordan is being besieged by a third wave of wartime refugees.

israel feels less secure today than it has in decades. turkey is also threatened. you look at the entire region. not only is there not peace, there is not stability. running over it is a terrorist threat brought by both isis and al qaeda. this president had the audacity to tell us that terrorism is on the run. as they are burning jordanian pilots alive, as they are beheading hostages, does terrorism look like it's on the run? we have not even gotten to eastern europe and russia. vladimir putin has decided that

it is time to get the old bands back together. he moves into crimea and ukraine and looks at the baltic states. let's remember, it was secretary of state hillary clinton who hit the reset button with russia. removed missiles from eastern europe and told us that we are moving to a new era of american-russian relationship. we sure did. it was this president who drew a redline in syria. america will not stand for it. when he did, he said never mind. he allowed russia to intervene in syria. another moment of failed leadership for this president.

you see if you start to list some of these things, i almost feel bad for the president. he is like a man wandering around in a dark room, feeling along the wall for the light switch of leadership. let me tell you something, he hasn't found it for six years and he is not going to find it in the next two years of the white house. this is been an abject failure of leadership i this president and it is time for him to go. [applause] one of the saddest things is that so many of these problems are solvable. they are only solvable through the exertion of strong leadership by the person sitting in the oval office. my mother taught me a long time ago that if you have the choice between being loved and being respected, pick respect. she said love without respect is

fleeting. if you have respect first, love can grow. she was talking to me about women. but it can apply to politics as well. it does. the problem around the world right now is that america has lost respect. folks used to try to be like us because they respected what we did. they wanted to emulate us. our government worked well. our leaders spoke strongly directly, and understandably. when we made promises, we kept them. when we made threats, we enforce them. when we said we would lead, we

did. we let the world. -- we led the world. now, not only do our adversaries not fear us, but our friends are worried. friends around the world don't know what it means to be our friend anymore. will america stand up and fight the fight that needs to be fought? i don't mean militarily. i mean diplomatically and economically. they look at our dysfunctional government in washington dc. let me ask you something, who would want to emulate that right now? i thought recently that the approval rating of congress was 15%. the only question in my mind is, who were the 15%? who were the people who look at that act and say hey, that the good thing. let's do more of that. we are not working together with each other anymore.

we are not respecting each other's opinions and we are not getting anything done. that adds to the nation's anxiety as well. when they see we have problems that can be solved and need to be solved and we are not holding them -- we are not solving them, that adds to the anxiety of the people who are concerned about american standards. i come from new jersey. we are about as blue estate as you can find. 750,000 more democrats than republicans. we haven't elected a republican to congress in 42 years. the four i was elected, we hadn't and elect -- we haven't elected a republican in 12 years. this is a blue state. when i ran for governor, they told me there was no chance i could win running against an incumbent democratic governor.

we won. we won by telling the truth. we won by being direct. they told me in a state that by pulling is pro-choice but as a pro-life candidate -- i am beginning to think it is me. that is a pro-life candidate i could never be elected. there has not been a pro-life candidate elected in new jersey since roe versus wade. i told people what i felt in my heart. i told the truth is i saw it on that issue. i was not only elected in 2009 but also reelected in 2013. i think what really matters to people is, do you get the job done and do you tell them what you believe from your heart, even if they don't agree with every word of it? let me say this to my fellow

republicans in this room, as we get ready to enter another national primary season. if the standard you are going to hold every candidate to is that they must agree with you 100% of the time, let me suggest something to you. the only person you agree with 100% of the time is the person you see in the mirror every morning. that is it. no one agrees with everyone 100% of the time. the fact is, if we hold our candidates to that standard, you will get liars. if they believe the only way to get your boat is to tell you exactly what they think you want to hear you will get what you want to hear during the campaign and the governing will not look anything like what you heard in the campaign. we need to demand the truth from the people who run for public office and then support them to do the difficult things that need to be done to get that job

done. in new jersey, i inherited a government that, by the first pay. -- the second pay period of march would not be able to reach payroll. the second wealthiest state per capita in the nation and we wouldn't be able to meet payroll. that is how in debt we were, how in deficit our budget was. the democrats in our legislator wanted to raise taxes again. as they had hundred 15 times in the eight years before i had become governor. that was to support their 56% increase in spending in the eight years before i became governor. i said no. i vetoed their income tax

increase then. i vetoed three more increases after that. we balanced the budget each and every year spending $2.5 billion less today than we did in 2008. having 8000 fewer employees on the state payroll today than we did when i became governor in 2010. still spending a record amount on educating our children. that's prioritizing, that is making hard choices, and that is saying no to the ravenous appetite of democrats and liberals for more taxes and more spending and bigger government. if we did it in new jersey, for gods sake, we can do it in the united states of america too. [applause] how does it happen? it happens only through strong

and principled leadership. that is it. strong and principled leadership does not mean a refusal to compromise. our nation is founded on our constitution. our constitution was a product of compromise. our constitution forces us, if we are going to govern effectively, to cover my. that doesn't mean you, riser principles. there is a broad highway of disagreements and agreements possible in government. we find our way to the areas where we move our nation forward. we have done that in new jersey. without abandoning our principles. i have been told every once in a while that i'm a little bit too blunt and to direct.

i like to fight a little bit every once in a while too much. i had one of your leaders say to me today that we don't want some kinder, gentler chris christie. we want the real chris christie. there is only one. this is it. there should be some comfort for you in that, i hope. [applause] anybody who offers some leadership in this country, not only should they tell you their positions, they should tell you -- you can't anticipate every issue that will come across your desk. what you need to know is the person. where are they from and who are they tackle what do they believe?

before i conclude today, let me tell you who i am and why i am the way i am. this direct, blunt sometimes argumentative and fighting person from new jersey. let's start off with the fact that i am the product of an irish father and a sicilian mother. [laughter] what that means is, i have been trained for a long time in conflict resolution. [laughter] [applause] it's not that my mom was argumentative. she would tell you she was not. she just never found an argument not worth having. she taught us from a very young age that that is the way you are to conduct yourself. you are to speak your mind. she would speak her mind all the time. ultimately, we would tell her enough. she would say, no i need to get this off my chest.

there will be no deathbed confessions in the family. you are hearing it now. that is how our mother taught us to be. i have an irish father who is now 81 years old. he is getting ready for his 82nd birthday this april. i am healthy happy, if you were here tonight, he would make his way around the room even more than i would. he would be hugging you and telling you embarrassing stories about me. my mom passed away about 10 years ago. she fell victim to lung cancer. when my mom initially got sick, it became clear to us that she was reclining very quickly. i'm sure a number of you in this audience have gone through the same thing. at the end of april of 2004, she was hospitalized again. i was u.s. attorney for new jersey and i was a conference in

san diego. my younger brother called me. he said mom is taking a real turn for the worse. if you want to see her again you need to come home now. i took the redeye flight from san diego to newark. i got in the car, went directly to the hospital. i got there in the morning, my mom was there. she was in and out. they started to give her painkillers. finally, she woke up and saw me sitting next to the bed. she hadn't seen in five days. i didn't get a hello or how are you. she asked me what day it was. i said thomas it's friday. she asked what time it was. sheetal me to go to work. -- she told me to go to work. i told her i was taking the day off to spend it with you. she said it is a workday. go to work. i asked if she was worried about

making her taxpayers money worth. she reached over and grabbed my hand and said, christopher, go to work. it is where you belong. there is nothing left unsaid between us. she knew her life was at the end. she told me there is nothing left unsaid between us. she was giving me permission to let her go. that was the last conversation i had with her. later that day she went to a coma and she died three days later. she was right. there will be no deathbed confessions. what she taught us was that in a trusting relationship, you need to tell the person across from you what you really feel. i know that if she were still alive today to see the circus

that my life has become, she would say, christopher, these people that you are asking to support you, that is a trusting relationship. don't hide anything from them. tell them who you are and what you feel. that is what you own them. there will be times i will say things that will make you shake your head. there will be times i will say things in a way that will make you think he could have probably said that a bit better. but what you will never say is that i don't know who he is and i don't know what he believes and i don't know what he is willing to fight for and who he is willing to fight to get there. i think that is the essence of leadership. it is the essence of what you should demand of anyone who asks to lead in the society. to let you know who they really are hearing and what they really believe in.

let me be clear about that with you. i believe this country is an extraordinary place. it is the one rate hope for peace and liberty and freedom in the world. i believe that we cannot and should not be the first generation that leave this country weaker and lesser than it was left to us. i believe that we need to take the risk that will lead to us seizing a great opportunity presented to us as a country. i believe the only way that is going to happen is through our leaders displaying strength and vision and toughness and speaking directly and honestly not only to our people, but to the rest of the world.

we haven't had that for the last six years under this president. we need to get back to that. we need to get back to it quickly. i will end with this. frank mentioned president washington. he was truly one of our great founders. but my favorite of our founders was from the state who is your neighbor. john adams was an extraordinary leader for this country. when our country was approaching its 50th birthday and adams was approaching the end of his life at the same time, he was concerned that our citizens were

losing what it really meant to be an american. the essence of what their responsibilities were. so he wrote in his diary for posterity, for us, adams wrote for us. the future citizens of this country that he helped define. what did he write? adams wrote, "you shall never know the great sacrifices that were made to secure for you your liberty. i pray you will make a good use of it, for if you do not, i shall repent in heaven for ever having made the sacrifice at all." adams, in his typical straightforward, blunt him a direct way laid the challenge at the feet of every generation of americans that would come after him. he did not want to die without laying that honest challenge

before each and every generation that would follow him. think about those words. i pray you shall make a good use of it. for if you do not i shall repent in heaven for ever having made the sacrifice at all. we are confronted today with the very real possibility that the 21st century would not be an american century. we are confronted with challenges at home and around the world that need to be confronted. we know what adams would tell us if he were here today. get to work. like my mother told me by that bedside. get to work. this country is too great and too filled with promise. if tomorrow can be greater than its today that and it's yesterday's if we are willing to

stand up and fight for what we believe in and take on the challenges that make some uncomfortable but have always made america great. i am not willingly going to be a member of the generation who leave this country lesser and weaker than it was when i was born 52 years ago. i don't believe that good people in this state will willingly be part of that generation either. now it is time for us to decide. are we willing to fight confronts the difficult choices to lead our citizens and the world again? i believe we are. we just need to have the type of leadership in our country that inspires us to follow it. we have time to make this decision. but we have no time to waste.

i am a peer tonight, not only to support really good republicans at every level of government you are doing great things to make our country a better place, but i'm also here to let you know that we have a lot of work to do . we have a lot of work to do to repair the damage that has been done to our country over the last six years. i will do my best to work with all of you to be a part of the solution to what ails america. i know that solution is the strength that lies within each of every one of you. the great news is that is up to us. like no place else in the world, it is up to us. we have, within our grasp, the ability to make the 21st century the second american century.

we have within our grasp the opportunity to give our children and even greater place to live and raise their families. we have within our grasp the opportunity to make the world once again a stable and peaceful place. i know there is no way that guy from new jersey is going to go down without swinging on this one. i believe in the live free or die statement. you understand that too. [applause] let's get to work, everybody. let's make this country a better place. let's fight for the things that deserve to be fought for. let stand up for the principles we believe in. let's make the solemn pledge to each other that we will leave america better than it was left to us. if we fulfill that, adams will not repent in heaven for having

made the sacrifices he made. he will rejoice at the fabulous country that he helped build and that we may even greater. thank you all very much. [applause] >> all right. thank you so much, governor. intro new hampshire style, we have true for a few questions. if you would like to ask a question, please raise your hand. can will come to you with the microphone. over there. >> governor, thank you.

traditionally, we have seen that elected presidents are able to pass one maybe two uses of signature legislation. were we fortunate enough to have you as our next president, what would one or two q of those signature pieces of legislation be for you? >> i would say two things and then add a third thing that i think is extraordinarily important but wouldn't depend on legislation. the first is, we have to change this ridiculous tax system in this country to one that encourages entrepreneurship and spurs economic growth better than the anemic 2% of growth we have now. that is what will increase opportunity and lifestyle in this country. it is something we absolutely have to do. within the first 100 days, if i were to run for president and be elected, he would change this tax system so that people and

companies aren't leaving the country anymore, but are wanting to stay here and invest in america because they feel they are being treated fairly and given the right type of encouragement to be a will to develop and grow. secondly, we would pass a national energy policy. one that takes full advantage of all of the resources that we have available to us to help grow our economy and make the world more peaceful and stable. the fact is, america has great gifts that we need to take advantage of not only for our own citizens, but for the world. as i said before, all of the above is not a national energy policy. it is a bumper sticker. we need to get down to the granular level of a national energy policy that gives us the opportunity to exploit the opportunities we have in this country. that would also lead to extraordinary economic growth. thirdly, the intention to

reestablish american leadership around the world by first reestablishing our relationships and friendships with our allies and making sure that our adversaries understand that we wish ill on know people in this world, but we will not stand for tierney in the world that threatens our way of life and the way of life of our allies. we need to do both. that is something a president can do without any legislation but through his or her intention, honesty and time to spend with the leaders around the world. [applause] >> halfway across the room. a question was submitted ahead of time. we are from new hampshire. if we go to the ocean, we say we go to the beach. you say you go to the shore. you clearly get reelected multiple times in a blue state.

we are saying the same thing with beach or sure. how could you translate the same thing you have done in new jersey to the national level. ? >> i don't think there are different brands of honesty. straightforwardness and honesty is what it is. in new jersey, i told you what a blue state we were. i got 48 and a half -- 48.5 percent of the vote. i ran for reelection against a female opponent, a state senator. i got 61% of the vote for reelection. i won by 22 points. i had 22% of the african-american vote, up from 9% four years earlier. honesty and straightforwardness

plays no matter what neighborhood you are in a new jersey, or what state you are in in america. that's the way you would do it. [applause] >> another question over here. >> governor, my name is wayne. recently, i have seen a lot of veterans coming back to school. i think that is encouraging. i'm the son of a 100% disabled veteran. i've seen what happens when we don't take care of the veterans when they come home. i think we have a crisis in this country that we are ignoring. i'd like to think -- i like to know what you would think of doing to support them. >> we should be keeping the promise we made them when they volunteered to provide the service. the scandal that is happened at the veterans administration is a national disgrace. the fact that our veterans were being kept away and turned away from the health care that we

promised them both for their physical well-being and their mental well-being, is an unacceptable state in this country. it not only affected those veterans, it affected the morale of the active fighting men and women as well. they look at it and ask if it is their fate. the need to make the veterans administration, not just a governmental compartment but people who understand that their mission every day is a moral promise that we have made two men and women who have put their lives on the line for our country. it is not just another job. it is the fulfillment of a sacred promise that our nation's citizens have given to those who been willing to sacrifice for war. the first way to fix that problem is to reorient the

veterans of ministration as to what their mission really is. it is not just the veterans, it is those who are serving now. second, it's a ring the type of management into effect that is going to demand those type of result. third is to make sure that it is funded so that not only their physical health is dealt with, but their mental health as well. i think those of the ways you deal with those issues. >> we have time for one more question. this young lady up here. >> thank you. governor christie, i wanted to thank you for your strong support for national education and earth and common core in the classroom. i know you have expressed some concerns previously about the obama administration's interference with that. now that you have teachers unions in new jersey and elsewhere, attacking higher standards and also trying to avoid testing to measure those results, is now the time to stand up for higher standards and accountability? >> sure. it absolutely is. let's be sure that we know that

this higher standard should be determined by the people who were educating the children in those particular states. my concern about what the administration has done is the federalization that takes education further and further away from parents, it's not the kind of education that i think we want or need in this country. there is nothing more personal for a mother or father then the education and the future of their children. what we need to be doing is encouraging parents to be even more involved. my concern about what is happening in this debate is that, by federalizing this and taking it further away, you can't do that two things at the same time. you can't take it to washington dc while also saying that the role of parents is vital.

the two things are opposites. we need to have absolute standards. i believe in making sure that we test. we are taking some heat for that in new jersey now. i believe in testing. we need to know if our children are learning and if they are meeting standards that will help them maximize their god-given ability. i am very concerned about the idea that we would federalize this. the further education moves away from the parents home, away from the local school, and even the local board of education or education commission, i think it is a problem. we need to empower parents first in four months, -- we need to empower parents teachers, and administrators to set high standards and enforce them in a way that meet the community's expectations for their children.

i don't think there should be any debate about there being high standards. the question is, who determines the standards. should a bureaucrat in washington dc be deciding it or should local school boards be deciding it where you or i as a parent can walk into the meeting and say, excuse me, i object. war to applaud them for standing strong for something and then they have the community's support. that is the essence of the right type of educational system. there are a lot of other problems that we talk about. it is antiquated. we need to modernize it. we need to adjust to different types of children who need different types of things. there can be one-size-fits-all for education. the child who is in a single-parent home or a home where both parents work three or four jobs, that child leave the different level of support from school that a child who has more support at home.

this is not about making parents at fault. this is about adjusting to the circumstances we have and trying to maximize the god-given ability that is in each of these children, whether they live in a major city or on a farm, within a higher performing suburban school or lower performing school. i think high standards are exactly where we need to be. 80 to be high standards that the community determines it is comfortable with so they will support it and be a part of the team that makes our children the priority. not the comfort of adults, but the needs of our children. i will tell you that i think this is the biggest fight that we have for america's continued economic strength. we can no longer continue to be 25th in math and 27th in science in the world and consider we will still be the number one economic power in the world. we to focus on this.

if we still consider ourselves more concerned about whether everyone is going to like us and everyone is going to feel comfortable and every adult is going to feel good more than we care about whether our children are producing, we are going to wind up falling behind. it is a really important question and a really important area that i care deeply about as a governor. i think we need to encourage everybody from the community level up to focus on this. these children are going to be who will determine the greatness of america. we as parents and supporters in the community need to be focused on it. thanks for the question. i will say i have done what hundred 27 townhall meeting since i been governor of new jersey. i know i have to get back home. this is really nice. i hope when i come back that we are going to get more questions and more time to have a conversation and back and forth. if any of you haven't seen that,

go on the internet and look at some of our more interesting interactions with my constituents back in new jersey. we have a lot of fun. we discuss important issues. i know you like to do that appear. more i come back, the less speech you were going to get and the more time you will get to ask me questions and challenge me. that is when i most company. thanks for being here tonight and for being great republicans. thank you very much. [applause] >> we wanted to present to governor christie a little taste of new hampshire. i wanted to thank howard and robin for putting this basket together. it has lots of goodies. they do so much for coming. >> inc. you. my son patrick who is 14, i told him i was going to new hampshire.

the last time i was here, i bought maple syrup with walt. the kids loved it. especially patrick. i told him and my other kid they were home from school today. they saw me leave to come up here. they had two different reactions. patrick said, "are you going to bring home syrup/" he is going to be really happy. bridget asked where i was going. i told her i was going to new hampshire. she rolled her eyes and said "the president's thing." that is what bridget think that all of you. thank you very much for the gift, i appreciate it. [applause]

[indiscernible] >> thank you, governor, i really appreciate it.

[indiscernible] >> my wife and i made this maple basket for you. >> thank you. >> you are so welcome. [indiscernible] >> thank you both. >> would you mind signing this? >> not at all. [indiscernible] >> thank you so much. we appreciate it very much. down south, baby.

[indiscernible] >> can i get a quick picture please? >> i enjoyed the speech. >> thank you. >> how long will you be mulling this over? >> i'm not mulling anything. >> let's make this dinner happen. >> that would be great.

[indiscernible] i'm going to get we be for god's sake. -- weepy which one of these characters. >> they follow me everywhere.

>> thank you for your hard work. [indiscernible] >> back again. how are you? >> good, how are you. >> this is ryan mccormick. >> thank you for coming out.

>> my pleasure. i am happy to be here. >> how are you? really nice to meet you. [indiscernible] >> how has your trip been so far? >> it has been pretty busy.

>> small world. we have friends that say hello. >> thanks for coming in. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> of course. >> thank you, sir. good luck to you. >> thank you.

>> they come back in different iterations. >> governor, could i ask you a quick question. ?? >> keep an eye on me. good.

the internet can stand on its own. the federal government shouldn't be preventing the state-by-state decisions. the federal government should stop telling states what they can and cannot do. >> i know you have patched up relations with mitt romney. >> patched up? >> do you think he would make a good president? >> my relationship with mitt romney has always been great and it continues to be great. the person who gets nominated to

run can be speculated about. i think it is presumptuous to speculate now. i've not even announced i am running yet. [indiscernible] >> don't worry about it. >> that is what he told me. >> you get what you get, giuliana. [indiscernible]

>> the national governors association winter meeting start saturday in washington dc. the chair and vice chair will open the meeting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch it live on c-span. coming up on c-span, a look at the white house summit on combating violent extremism. first remarks by president obama. then we will hear from john kerry and you and secretary-general ban ki-moon. that is followed by a discussion on moderating extremism. on friday, president obama addresses the winter meeting at the democratic national committee in washington dc. the three-day conference focuses on the party's strategy after the losses in last november's midterm election.

live coverage starts at 11:10 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the barbed wire guard towers are gone but the memories come flooding back for so many people who, until today, had lost such a big part of their childhood. for many released after the war some buried the memories and with it, the history of this camp. now more than 60 years later -- >> this sunday on q and a. >> the government comes and says we have a deal for you. we will reunite you with your family in the internment camp if you will agree to go voluntarily. then i discovered what the real secret of the camp was.

they also had to agree to voluntarily repatriate to germany and to japan if the government decided they needed to be repatriated. the truth of the was humanely administered by the ins, but the special ward division of the united states used it as roosevelt primary prisoner exchange, it was the center of the prisoner exchange program. quick sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> the white house summit on combating terrorism concluded thursday at the state department were international leaders spoke about efforts to counteract violent extremism within their borders. next, president obama's remarks. this is 25 minutes.