tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 7, 2015 1:00am-3:01am EDT
t judge. see the house live on c-span, senate live on c-span2. >> at the pentagon early, france's defense minister said the militant group isis is no longer a terrorist group but rather has become a terrorist army. that briefing is next on c-span3. australian prime minister tony abbott talks about his country. and journalist alexei venedi can ktov. when congress is in session c-span3 brings you more of the best access to congress with live coverage of hearings, news conferences and key public affairs events. every weekend, it's american history tv. traveling to historic sites, discussions with authors and
historians and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. c-span3, coverage of congress, and american history tv. >> defense secretary carter and france's defense minister held a joint news conference. they spoke about combatting isis in the middle east and on going u.s. support for french efforts in african against al qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations. >> good morning. good morning, everyone. i hope you all had a good fourth of july weekend. and it's a pleasure for me to welcome my friend my colleague,
my admired colleague minister of defense le drian here to the pentagon. france, oss may know is america's oldest ally. i had a french girlfriend once. used to be able to. highly motivated. let me start again. and thank my good friend, my colleague, my admired colleague, the minister of defense of france, le drian here to the pentagon.
france is america's oldest ally. today our partnership is the strongest it's ever been. i first want to thank the minister for spending our independence day in new york city. he was aboard the sailing ship, a replica of the frigot made famous in 1780 by its voyage across the atlantic when it carried the marquee to lafayette, the legendary general and friend of the american revolution. in a ceremony aboard the ship on saturday, the minister commemorated the 70th anniversary of our shared victory in world war ii, another example of u.s./french security cooperation. by awarding france's highest
recognition, the region of honor to american world war ii veterans. minister, thank you forssell berating america's birthday with us. thank you for honoring our veterans. and thank you for reaffirming our centuries long alliance. we just finished a discussion on ongoing operations and opportunities to strengthen yet further our security cooperation. one area we discussed was isil. a campaign we agreed requires a sustained and long-term effort. earlier this year france deployed its aircraft carrier charles dugall to the golf to support counter-isil strikes, integrating seamlessly with u.s. forces. the french air force being the
first to join us in striking isil targets in iraq continues to play a critical role there. these are some of the reasons france continues to be one of our stroefpbgt allies when it comes to challenges in the middle east. we also discussed france's persistent leadership in africa. french operations are preventing spillover of terrorism, trafficking, extremism. boca more ram and other extremists in areas like niger and chad. and the u.s. military will continue to support france in these efforts with our lift and areal refueling capabilities. also, given new security challenges to europe's south and to its east we agreed u.s.
french cooperation is and must remain an anchor for security. following the initial acts of aggression by russia in ukraine france helped to assure our allies along the eastern borders. we will continue to work together. i committed the united states to providing an important capabilities to nato's very high readiness joint task force vytf, which france volunteered to lead in the future. now, i've been working on transatlantic security for a long time, both in and inside and outside of europe. i believe minister le drian would agree this is the best it has been ever. and we are committed to strength epping it still. we are reminding me celebrating
america's independence or committing our shared victory the partnership between france and the united states has long been instrumentalto building peace and prosperity for people here and around the world. we must ensure it will always be. i'll now welcome the minister's comments before we take questions. thank you. >> translator: thank you, my dear friend. i'm particularly happy to stand today in washington, d.c. after the celebration of july fourth for which as you recall i was in new york with the passage of hermoine, which is a sign of the permanence of our common history.
both the sailing and the legion of honor to 23 veterans who celebrated in the landing in france in 1944. this common history which is of course old now but also has the quality and the actuality since you mentioned it yourself our relationship has never been that tight for a long, long time. and i can confirm it. i thank you again for your warm welcome and for the quality of the exchanges we have had. we have already met in the past but it's the first time that we meet face to face since you have arrived in the pentagon as secretary of defense. we have mentioned our bilateral cooperation, which is excellent. france and the united states are acting together on many theaters.
and on the front lines, in the levant where france participating in the coalition led by the united states. the deployment of the french aircraft carrier in the spring for this coalition as you mentioned yourself was testimony of this french commitment. we are also fully committed and reassurance measured for our allies in central and eastern europe. both with air force navy, and land forces. the multiplication of crisis and tension will impose on us to get closer and closer. we mentioned libya and our support to the mediation of mr. leon. we have mentioned the support to the tunisian deposit. we have also mentioned the cooperation of training for drones, for instance.
or the perspective of the strengthening of our spacial cooperation in summary. consider that partnership our mutual trust is essential if you want to face the security challenges of our time, according to the tradition of the alliance between our two countries. it is very close and very frank at the same time. thank you, again. >> we would like to call first on the associated press. >> mr. secretary, considering the recent uptick in strikes in iraq and syria, i wonder if you could tell us a little bit about whether or not the united states is looking to increase in any way either the funding or activity against the islamic state and whether you think -- whether or not you asked the minister during your meeting if
france would indeed help start helping with air strikes or other support in syria? for the minister mr. minister i was wondering if you could address the latest news with greece rejecting the bailout and whether or not you think that that will have any impact on national security in europe and on nato and whether this may require any additional support from the united states for france in&any of its counterterrorism. >> well, thank you. well, we are doing more in syria from the air. i think you saw some of that in recent days. and the opportunity to do that effectively is provided in the case of the last few days by the effective action on the ground of kurdish forces which gives us the opportunity to support them tactically. and that's what we were doing over the weekend north of raka
which is conducting air strikes that limit isil's freedom of movement and ability to counter those capable kurdish forces. it's very important that's the manner in which effective and lasting defeat of isil will occur. when they're effective local forces on the ground that we can support and enable so that they can take territory hold territory and make sure good governance comes in behind it. so we are looking for those opportunities and trying to create those opportunities in syria. but it's the success on the ground of the kurds that explains the uptick the last few days.
>> translator: france is fighting with the coalition since the very beginning. we have declared a will in this coalition. this has been recalled earlier. we participate fully within the coalition. to the strikes against isil. our mission is in iraq. and we are pursuing our action permanently, regularly in iraq. i must say that what needs to be noted is that the size of the strikes, the repetition, the permanent allows us to block
isis. this action will be very long. because also we need to train the troops that will need later on to ensure the permanence. that's what we are doing, the united states and us. both in iraq and in kurdistan. but also in syria. as soon as it is going to be implemented so that the articulation between the action on the ground of territorial forces and the permanence of our strikes will give us a result which will not be immediate but will happen eventually. and i really believe in the determination and persistence. so that isil can never act without being punished. and your question was about
greece, the talks ongoing in europe. it will be a very bad analysis to think that a vote in greece is against nato. it was never mentioned on either side. greek authorities are a deceit of the atlantic alliance. we met in brussels. it is not a vote against the alliance for the west. they have refused financial proposals that have been given to them. discussions are to restart. it is not a vote to get out europe. it is a political affirmations and there will be new discussions. >> a question for both
ministers. [speaking foreign language] . >> translator: the situation in nigeria is sometimes tragic when we learn what's going on and the events succeed each other and massacres, slaughters of children and women. sometimes nigeria, sometimes elsewhere in chad. and this situation is one of the first security problems that we have. we talked about it.
what is the situation? if you remember in may 2014 there was a summit in paris which gathered heads of states of of concerned countries. not only nigeria. there's chad niger, cameroon. the president of the republic went to cameroon. and what i've noticed is that the countries in the region have decided to implement their own security was the mixed multinational force to which we are bringing support both through intelligence. we have created a center for that. since the beginning of the year. i went there on january 1st and opened up, if you want, the intelligence unit which is a unit for leaders and the
secretary of intelligence when we are present with our british friends. and then there's the implementation of the unit of the staff for the multinational force, which is going to be deployed now for the strategic part and the tactical part. and the president has decided to go much further than before. so we have this mixed multinational force and our support both in intelligence and logistics. i think that africans now are taking charge of their own security with our support. and this should allow us to attack to respond to boko haram and reach aggressively a situation where we can eliminate boko haram. this is what we are tending to all of us actually. >> well, i think it's a sign of
our closeness that i don't have a lot to add to that. to what the minister said. the governments of the region are responding to boko haram. and we are supporting them. we do that together. the french have been leaders in that part of africa in a very admirable way. we support them, as well as supporting the governments in the region directly. and finally the minister mentioned intelligence and the sharing of other information. that's something yet again we discussed. this morning. even as i said our cooperation overall with france and the security sector has never been stronger, that's true of the sharing of military information and intelligence information. and we took some actions this morning to increase that yet
further. the minister mentioned remotely piloted aircraft as one example of that in his statement. so that was one of the things we discussed today. and it's applicable to africa. but i just want to commend the french on what they've been doing there. we have been pleased to support them and admiring their leadership. >> cnn. >> mr. secretary i knowed to take you back to raka with some specificity. the strikes that you spoke about. what specific impacts do you assess now they have had on the isis leadership in and around raka? did you get any high-value targets? the kurds of course are 30 kilometers outside the city but yet you were able to strike
targets in populated areas. what specific impact did you have? and on the other on baghdadi, since you can't put troops and the french as well don't put troops on the ground in syria, as you edge closer what's the message for baghdadi? is this now clearly a kill mission because you can't have any realistic hope of capturing them? >> well, it's a -- the opportunities that we were pursuing in the last few days the specific tactical opportunities were not individuals, per se. they were the freedom of movement, of isil and its ability to counter the advances of the ypg. we are doing that in the way we have been doing it all along, namely, with local forces nominating targets. we validate those targets
including validating that there won't be damage to innocent civilians associated with strike. and then we take the strike. with respect to leadership they were not the seupblg of the areas north of raqa. we will continue to take action against isil leaders whenever we have the opportunity to do so and taking into account our restraint when it comes to anything that could include damage to civilians. >> on baghdadi, what is your assessment now since you don't put troops on the ground in syria. is baghdadi now a kill rather than capture mission? >> well, we're a able to target individuals currently.
we have do. and if we had an opportunity to go after baghdadi, if it presented itself and we look for that opportunity, we would certainly take it. >> but you still don't put troops on the ground in syria. >> we target isil from the air every single day in syria. tactical targets, including leadership targets. we have been doing that for months and months now. . >> >> translator: there are more details than what your counterpart said. tell us the reasons why france might not be committed overseer ya. is it the difference between you and your american counterpart?
i'm not going to make any comments about the strikes that the u. s. air force made. mr. carter just explained it to you. and i'm not going to make any comments on that. as to our choice and our presence it has been explained many times. there's a sharing of tasks. it's the will of france to intervene in the coalition. and we do it in a very large way and very regular way. to block what i call myself the terrorist army that isil has become. it is no longer a terrorist group. it has become a terrorist army. which both has the capacity to act as a classical army. they demonstrated it. but also to have operations in urban areas, which they also
demonstrated in terroristic operations. they can do all three at the same time. and the repetition of interventions and strikes in iraq allowed us to stabilize the situation. not to win but stabilize the situation. the coalition has intervened at a time where we thought isil was about to seize baghdad. it is not the case. it will not be the case. it's a long-term job. and mr. carter repeated it. there should be sufficiently trained forces on the ground with the support air support of the coalition in order to retake the territories lost to isil. we are in this logic. >> thank you. >> everybody. >> thank you. look forward to seeing you this afternoon, many of you.
>> defense secretary ashton carter and general martin dempsey testify in the morning about u.s. strategy for combatting the militant group isis. watch live coverage from the senate armed services committee 9:30 eastern on c-span. and unaccompanied immigrant children who cross the u.s./mexico bothered. live coverage from the senate homeland security committee also starts at 9:30 eastern. up next, australian prime
minister tony abbott talks about his country's security, while taking questions from members of parliament. courtesy of apac australia's public affairs channel. >> good day and welcome to qt rap. this is the most recent sitting of the australian parliament. officials paid people smugglers wads of cash on the open seas to turn around boat loads of asylum seekers back to indonesia. two ruled out the reports, said they never happened. when the prime minister was asked, he wouldn't say either way. the matter coming to a head in parliament. >> my question is to the prime minister. i refer to the attorney general's statement today about
whether cash payments have been made to people smugglers. attorney general said, well, i don't believe that has occurred. so the question is academic. prime minister if the foreign minister can deny payments were made, if immigration minister can deny payments were made, and if your attorney general can deny payments were made why can't you deny the payments were made? >> i call upon the prime minister. >> madam speaker, be very consistent position of this government has been not to comment on -- the consistent position of this government has been not to to comment on the operational details. >> there will be silence. >> what has been done. madam speaker, there is a fundamental difference between this government and members opposite. one obvious difference is that this government has stopped the votes where members opposite styled the votes. that's one opposite difference.
but very important in this context is that this government does not feel the need to broadcast our intentions -- madam speaker, this is a government which does not feel the need to be noted itself in public if the only beneficiaries are our enemies. if the only beneficiaries are people who would do us harm. madam speaker madam speaker, remember the only thing that really counts is that this government has stopped the votes. and we have done so in a way which is consistent with our position as a decent and humane country because the most decent and humane thing you can do is stop the votes. which is exactly what we have done. and madam speaker members opposite are very interested in what they claim may have been payments to people smugglers.
madam speaker they put it in the pockets of people smugglers. 50,000 illegal arrivals under members opposite at $10,000 a throw. a half a billion dollars is the fear. that is the extent to which members opposite have enriched the people smugglers of indonesia and elsewhere thanks to members opposite. and members of our region, half a billion dollars thanks to members opposite. madam speaker, we have taken the money out of the pockets of the people smugglers by denying their business model, by stopping their evil trade, and by saving the lives that were otherwise being put at risk by the policies of members opposite. madam speaker, i am very happy to answer any number of questions from members opposite
about border protection policies. i am very, very happy to answer any number of questions on this subject because it allows me yet another opportunity to assure the people of australia that their borders are safe under this government. if members opposite were to get back in government, the first thing which would happen is the people smugglers would be back. >> i call the opposition. >> thanks, madam speaker. my question is to the prime minister. by failing to deny reports that criminal people smugglers could be paid 30000 u.s. dollars if they make it to an australian vessel, isn't the government providing a cash incentive for these dangerous voyages to take place? >> no we're not. no we're not madam speaker.
>> silence on both sides. >> no we're not madam speaker. again, i contrast what this government has done with what members opposite did when they were in government. and we have stopped the votes. members opposite stirred up the votes. on members opposite, there were almost 1,000 votes. there were more than 50,000 illegals arrivals by both. more than 1,000 deaths at sea. and more than $11 billion in border protection. and madam speaker and members opposite, at $10,000 per person, some half a billion dollars found its way into the pockets of the people smugglers. madam speaker there are a lot of unemployed people smugglers in indonesia thanks to this government. a lot of people were put into business. a lot of people were put into business by members opposite. madam speaker, i am very, very happy, i am very very happy to
contrast this government's record when it comes to border protection with the record of members opposite. and madam speaker, members op on sit created rivers of gold in the pockets of the people smugglers of indonesia. and i want the australia people to know it is all under this government. and i have concluded the answer, madam speaker. >> australia and china agreed to an historic free trade deal late last year. but pen wasn't put to paper until just recently. and that is when the details of this agreement finally came to light. foreign minister was asked about those details in question time >> thank you, madam speaker. my question is to the minute officer of foreign a affairs representing the minister who trade in investment. will the minister update the house on the economy-wide benefits of the landmark china/australia free trade agreement.
>> i call on the minister of foreign affairs representing trade investment. >> thank you, madam speaker. i thank the member for his question. i acknowledge the fact that he is a real champion for list electorate. china is already our largest trading partner. our largest merchandise training partner. our largest source of overseas students. our second largest source of overseas. our total trade was $160 billion in 2013-2014. this trade agreement that was signed yesterday will provide even more opportunities for businesses in therein and throughout australia. last year, for example about two billion of australian manufactured goods was sold into
china but faced tariffs of 47%. once a free trade agreement is fully implemented 99.9% of manufactured goods from australia to china will enter duty free. this is an amazing outcome. likewise, we have energy and resources exports they will also over time end duty free. for the first time, china has guaranteed an open door for australian businesses to build wholly owned and operated by australia restaurants and hotels in china. this is a huge boom for our tourism industry. there is a similar opportunity for aged care facilities and hospitals in certain locations. so in tourism hospitality health services, all areas where australian businesses excel they can take their schools to china and the benefits will be felt back here. the free trade agreement will also benefit australian
companies already doing business in china, including areas such as architecture, logistics, manufacturing, banking. in fact, last year i chaired an investment and trade roundtable in one of china's fastest growing cities. and australian businesses were all present. some of them have been there for some time. they all see greater opportunities to grow their businesses under the free trade agreement. likewise opportunities back at home in agricultureal products prices of food, as the minute officer of agriculture has told us, when australian wine makers are well renowned, they can compete with the rest of the world. between 14% and 20%. they will be eliminated over time. huge opportunities in australia. the signing of the chapter as it is called is a major step with closer relationships with china. our relationship with china has never been stronger, deeper or
more diversified. i'm confident the chapter will be the catalyst for future gain between our two countries. >> how to deal with national security issues has been a big challenge for the abbott government. its most recent legislation looks at strip deul nationals of their citizenship if they have committed terrorist offenses here in australia or partnered with terrorists. >> my question is for the prime minister. can the prime minister confirm to the house that on the 23rd of april, in answer to your question about terrorists he said the following words. and then if people seek to return to australia, we want them arrested prosecuted and jailed for a very long time. and this is where close cooperation between australia and turkish authorities will help because we will identify them better. we will get more information about then. and that will help us to ensure
they can't do any damage back in australia. >> i call on the prime minister. >> that's right, madam speaker. if they are not natural citizens, we want to keep them out. when they are deul citizens, we want to keep them out. madam speaker absolutely crystal clear. if you are just an australian citizen and you are a terrorist and you come back to australia, if you are a dual citizen and you leave australia to fight for a terrorist army, we never want you back. if you're a dual citizen and you leave australian to fight for a terrorist army you've committed the modern form of trees on. we will strip you of our citizenship because we never ever want you back. madam speaker, we have a very,
very clear position on this. we have had a very clear position for some time now. we will strip citizenship from terrorists who were dual nationals. and i repeat, madam speaker, first of all this position was this was dog whistling. then there was the position that they would support it in principle. today, madam speaker, when asked what the attorney general would do with these terrorists fighting in the middle east so someone who is fighting in raqa, syria, attorney general, will get you get them back here? will you get them back here? not dual nationals, mate. not for dual nationals. >> there will be silence. i will not have this wall of
noise. there will be silence. the prime minister has the call. >> madam speaker, they are getting very excited here because they are feeling very, very anxious about the divisions and the splits in their own ranks over national security issues. madam speaker the leader of the opposition can tell us where they stand. when it comes to stripping the citizenship from terrorists who are dual nationals, is it something they support in principal, which is what he said a week ago. or have they jumped all of that and now say welcome back we want you back here in australia which is what the attorney general said this morning.
>> thank you madam speaker. my question is to the prime minister. last month, when asked if the power to strip citizenship from dual nationals will be exercised at our minister's discretion, the prime minister said, and i quote, that is correct. what made the prime minister change his mind on his citizenship proposal between then and now? >> i call on the prime minister. >> madam speaker, as i've said all along on this matter, the government's position is to strip citizenship from terrorists who are dual nationals. that was the announcement. that was the announcement by myself and the minister for immigration and border protection. that has been the constant position of this government. and madam speaker we have always been determined to do this. we have always been determined
to do this in the best possible way. we have always been determined to do this without prior judicial process. and that's exactly what we have done. and that's exactly what will be done by the legislation that is introduced into the parliament tomorrow. madam speaker i want to say how well the minister for immigration and border protection has worked with his colleagues. particularly with the attorney general -- >> there will be silence. >> they entirely realizes the objective of this government. madam speaker, our objective is to keep our country safe. our objective is to strip the citizenship from terrorists who are dual nationals. our objective, madam speaker is to ensure that if you are a terrorist, you are never going to be loose on the streets of our country.
that's what this government will do. and i do look forward to the support of the labor party in making this come about. >> something long sell pwraeultedpwraeult celebrated is universal access to education. a government green paper presented an option for wealthier parents to pay for their children's education. the opposition takes up the question. >> my question is to the prime minister. did the prime minister's own department circulate the federation green paper that provides an option that would see the australian government walk away from any responsibility for funding public schools? >> i call on the prime minister. >> madam speaker the department of prime minister and cabinet has certainly been engaged in very constructive discussions
with a whole range of state officials on a whole range of issues about a whole range of subjects as part of the federation reform paper. but madam speaker, as for the matters that were in the paper this morning, let me say this. the australian government does not and will not support a main test for public education full stop. end of story. if the state wants to charge wealthy parents fees for public schools, that's a matter for them. charging wealthy patients for their children to attend schools is not this government's policy. let me repeat that, madam speaker. charging wealthy parents for children to attend public schools is not this government's policy. it is not not now. it won't ever be. madam speaker, i entirely endorse the statement earlier today by the minister of education.
>> my question is to the prime minister. and i refer to the prime minister's previous answer. given the prime minister has said that if the states impose a schools tax that is a matter for them, what action has the government determined to take should any state or territory impose a school's tax? >> that is stretching a long way towards hypothetical but i will give the prime minister the call. >> madam speaker, i repeat, it is not the commonwealth's policy. it is not the commonwealth's policy. and what the states and territories do in respect in public schools is entirely a matter for them. but madam speaker. >> silence on my left.
>> opposite are always trying to rise yet another scare campaign. there are some libel leaders who -- >> member rankin. >> i notice that the south australian government is prepared to have a serious talk about tax reform. but madam speaker that is why the government is prepared to have a serious talk about energy reform, including nuclear energy in this country. and madam speaker the south australian premier said and i quote when asked about this today, it's only a discussion paper. but he went on to say this is the south australian paper we have been asking them to canvass the broader range of options. it is a good thing. so madam speaker, madam speaker,
we are perfectly happy to see a broad debate about the future of reform in this country. but i do have to say, madam speaker, the actual running of public schools is entirely a manner for the states and territories. it is entirely for the states and territories. madam speaker, i hear members opposite cat calling. i can inform members opposite that in the next four years there will be a 28% increase a 28% increase in commonwealth funding for public schools. so i say to members opposite you can run all the scare campaigns you like, but in the end people want to know where you stand. and madam speaker they are starting to get some answers. what members opposite stand for is taxing super for putting up your rent and bringing back the
people smugglers. >> the day the government presented national security legislation to parliament, the prime minister went down the road to asio, the most prominent and biggest spy agency to meet with some of the officers there. they brought cameras, which was a problem when some of the maps on the table were claimed to be classified, in full view of the cameras. the opposition pounced. >> thank you madam speaker. my question is to the prime minister. i refer to the visit by the prime minister, the attorney general, the minute officer of justice to asio headquarters with television cameras in tow. prime minister whose idea was this and what security protocols were put in place for the prime minister's photo opportunity? >> i call upon the prime minister. >> madam speaker this is a curious question from the leader
of the opposition. it's a very curious question from the leader of the opposition because, madam speaker -- >> there will be silence on my left. >> my ministers and i went to asio headquarters yesterday to receive a briefing from the director of asio. and the suggestion coming from members opposite is that -- >> i will not put up with that barrage of noise. it is a serious question you've asked. now listen to the answer. the prime minister has the call. >> and the -- >> and that includes the member from mcmahon. >> and the suggestion from members opposite is that asio in some way conducted this briefing unprofessionally. members opposite are impugning the professionalism of asio. madam speaker the idea that this briefing would have been
unprofessional the idea that there would have been -- >> the prime minister -- the members are point of order. >> thank you for the call, madame speaker. >> my question is to the prime minister. yesterday when asked for copies of maps on display at the prime minister's media event replied we are unable to provide documents. they are for official use only. this morning described as carefully and unclassified. what contacted the prime minister, his office ministers or their offices have after the initial response? >> i call the prime minister. >> madame speaker, i simply repeat what i've said before
that it's entirely appropriate that ministers should seek a briefing on the day -- introduced into the parliament. madame speaker, again i wonder why members opposite should have taken it upon themselves to impugn the professionalism. the idea that officers included -- >> member is warned. >> somehow expose classified documents to the world is just wrong. officers are highly committed professionals and absolutely know their craft. the idea that they would permit classified documents to be somehow exposed to the world is just wrong. i say to members opposite i would have thought that you would have had more respect for
the people running our national security. >> there will be silence on both sides. >> thank you madame speaker. i can assure the house that -- >> the member will resume -- one more time and you leave under 94 a. that is an absolute abuse of stand your orders and will not be tolerated. the prime minister has the call. >> madame speaker the shadow attorney general the man who thinks that terrorists should be brought back to australia the shadow attorney general -- >> member resume your seat. >> prime minister has the floor. >> madame speaker, who does the shadow attorney general think produced the maps in question? does the shadow attorney general
think that somehow i rolled up a few maps and took them into asia? madame speaker the maps in question are produced -- >> the member will leave under 94 a. >> and is absolutely crystal clear for repeated statements including by the director general they were unclassified maps. madame speaker let's have no more of this childishness from members opposite who are imputing the professionalism. >> and that's where we leave. thanks for joining us. the long winter break is upon us. we'll see you when parliament resumes. on the next washington
journal a discussion on the hurdles that are keeping third party presidential candidates from running competitive campaigns. our guest james glassman and how it changes to overtime pay announced by the white house effect employees in hiring. elizabeth molito and christine owens of national employment law project join us. washington journal live every porn morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can tell us what you think by phone and on facebook and twitter. like many of us first families take vacation time and like presidents and first ladies a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journeys. what better book than one that peers inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45
iconic american women inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summer time read available from public affairs as a hard cover or e book through your favorite book store or online book seller. next the conversation with russian journalist. he talks about the ukraine/russia conflict, press freedom in russia and the legacy of russia's president from the carnegie endowment for international peace this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> very generously a few words of introduction. he is a truly standout figure in russian media and political landscape. he is one of the most insightful commentators about what is going on in russia and internationally and based on his extended career
the station is observing the 25th anniversary so we are in the middle of a jubilee period and looking forward. what is interesting is he was born in 1955 and spent about 20 years teaching. i think about where his students are today. it's a very different career path. in many ways i think people in the russian studies field were still his students. i start my day and drive to work every day and when i go home i listen and it creates a filter and a source of information. in this environment i will turn things over in terms of our discussion now. the filters are getting very confusing. i think we are in a period of incredible unpredictability and uncertainty of what is happening inside russia and internationally. do you when you look at that level of uncertainty and unpredictability have a few facts that you keep reminding
yourself of. the one i keep reminding myself of is we are in a war-like atmosphere. does it feel that way to you? >> translator: good afternoon and thank you for inviting me here. indeed if we are going to talk about the environment it [ inaudible ] prewar situation when the war began everything became clear and predictable. this how in the vision of my president and our leaders we have confrontation. the war in ukraine between russia and the united states of america. ukraine is a territory where the clash took place.
still there is no direct clash between the citizens of russia and citizens of u.s. and i hope it will never happen but the perception is that our enemy in russia is the united states because not ukraine, not france, not england. that's why for me this is the territory of big predictability. currently the united states according to the poll is enemy number one for russia. i believe 78 or 79% of russians consider the united states the enemy. a few years ago it was about 50%. and this is a very sharp increase. our mentality is very militarized regarding the u.s. we can see in the news reports
every american politician a person who speaks on behalf of the united states any sanctions and any challenge any is seen as a challenge any statement of any journalist is perceived as a challenge. that's why everything is quite clear. >> you spent a lot of time one-on-one or in small groups with president putin. one of the striking stories i remember hearing about is when he explained the difference between an enemy and a traitor. he said you're an ma'am. can you explain what he meant by that? >> translator: yes. it was the year 2000 and
president putin was only just elected. he came to -- i was just a journalist. he came from a city. he met the widows of the perished sailors if you remember this russian nuclear submarine which sunk. he was very nervous. he was talking very tough to us journalists working with the president. later he toured the state and spent about 2 1/2 hours talking about media and about what was going to happen. it was a philosophical conversation. at some point i asked him how do you deem your enemies? how do you classify your enemies?
you always talk about your enemies, rivals, competitors. and he said there are two categories of foes. there are foes and traitors. foes are those with whom you fight the war, against whom fight the war and then conclude armicist and then peace and then you divide what you conquer and then you start the war again. they are foes. and we look and see. because these are people who were inside and then struck you from behind. i have no murzy for them. -- mercy from behind. i said where am i? he said you are just an enemy.
>> who's barack obama? >> translator: i know he is a rival. he is a competitor. he is an enemy. and any american president is a rival in this black and white picture. he is a foe. one can fight -- >> if you look where there is so much tension over ukraine and sharp nationalistic turn in russian politics and sharp isolation of russia from the international community. do you feel that this is a
political strategy as much as it is a reaction to the events we had in ukraine in early 2014 with the overthrow of kovic? >> translator: i believe that the confrontation between our nations under putin was unavoidable. of course, we have common sense. we have common contradictions between our countries but there is also mentality and psychology of our president. i believe that currently president putin feels very comfortable. he went back to his youth years. he became young again. i would like to remind you that he was brought up as the officer of the kgb. it was the time of the cold war. it was the time of two
superpowers. and it is quite obvious what to do and how to conduct, how to behave yourself and to restart, relaunch became very complicated things. he didn't feel comfortable in those environments. the environment is very comfortable. i would not say that he did it on purpose. but the fact is that he understands that he is the enemy and here are the battlefields and here are the interests and temporary allies. it's very clear for him. he feels much more comfortable. >> if you look at the logic of russian domestic politics it's a little different. having an external enemy that justifies tightening screws at home and deepening monopoly of political authority. having this atmosphere is basically a formula for long term survival. it is hard for us i think to
disaggregate which component of this is the natural result of tensions over a situation in russia's immediate neighborhood and how much of this is about the long term political survival of the regime. how would you weight the two? >> it is a joke although it sounds like -- putin converted the foreign policy into domestic policy. i don't know any politician who is so aptly used the foreign policy managed to convert the foreign issues into domestic issues. but talking about the issues would repeat what was said to the president. it's very hard to lie because
you need to [ inaudible ] it's always more comfortable to stay with the truth. it's a good way to [ inaudible ] my main point i guess to the president and why i disagree with him is the fact that the president goes [ inaudible ] everything else is a by product. we have eliminated in our country shrunk the political rivalry competition is economic competition. moral and different moral rules to the traditional ones, can you imagine that for example during the election elected president who belongs to the tea party? he is going to impose his own
ideas only and nothing else. to deprive the congress of their authority, to deprive the supreme court of its authority to abandon position parties, to dance unseen dances and songs. that's what happens in russia. and this is the country is turning into [ inaudible ] nation uncapable to compete. putin is going to continue this policy because it's the efficient one and efficient policy is the result we are going to face serious challenges. we are going to [ inaudible ] eventually everything goes back but this is a great mistake.
putin saying i'm saying this only because i said this to him. >> what are the big goals? people in moscow today are very focused on the pre-election -- so there's a -- someone's head set is making a terrible static noise. can you all check to see whose -- they all are. i'm sorry about that. i'm very sorry. >> as a result we have the static noise. if we could ask people to turn off their sound whenever you speak that would help. >> if you keep your head sets off while i'm speaking english we won't have this noise. so that's the technical effect. i appreciate people cooperating.
turn off your head sets while the discussion is in english and we will lose the interference. i'm sorry about the technical snafu. [ laughter ] what animates this government now? are there goals? or is this all sort of short term political calculations to justify what has been done in the past year and a half and to keep the political landscape so favorable? is there some big agenda? is there something beyond what is happening in ukraine that drives mr. putin? >> translator: i believe that in russia it is widely popular both among lists and people the past imperial syndrome. great britain has labored through after world war ii. we were rich the country not
people, but the nation. we were strong. we were powerful. everybody was afraid of us. everybody respected us. we became poor. we became weaker. we want to get it back. we want to be respected again. ñyv?7 that's why the current government understands this mood of the people and the choice to take advantage in the eyes of its own people not at the expense of united states or ukraine or georgia. [ inaudible ] stone, rock, whatever we can grab and fight
back. this reflects the mood not only of the party population which like me used to live in the [ inaudible ] but also the young generation who are looking for new [ inaudible ] in a great nation and how people of this country were afraid all over the world and respected by the rest of the world. and that's why putin is the mirror of the mood and he perfectly is aware of it and efficiently uses it for his domestic purposes. >> the level of self-isolation the level of antagonism inside ukraine which seems to be lost now for a generation or more in terms of having any kind of close relationship with moscow, the sense even among other neighbors countries that russia is dangerous, that it is
prepared to take huge risks to violate all sorts of international norms in pursuit of the short term political goals. how is that a smart strategy? if anything it seems setting up the process of degradation of the stability that putin craves. >> translator: that's wonderful. people started to be afraid of us. this was the goal. why should we give it up? you should be afraid of us. that's good. probably going to hear us maybe you can use this to clean up your ears and start to take into account our interest. there is no contradiction. there is understanding and a goal to bring back the respect as the respect. that's everything is correct. >> so let's turn a little to the
domestic political environment. it was about four months ago exactly that the noted russian politician was killed just a short distance from the walls of the kremlin. there is no clarity at this point, i think about why about who and about the long term effects. can you give us your sense of why this happened? >> translator: what i can say in knowledge of the case which is the onus on the public and by conversation with different people who were close to the race and close to the investigation, to the generals. first, the investigators convinced them the people who perpetrated and this is proven not by the