tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 18, 2014 6:00am-8:01am EDT
there, you can imagine as russia contorts internally from ideological and religious tensions and presses west ward for demographic and economic reasons, there's heightened tensions with europe and the nato block. all right? all of this is a long way of saying what i said at the outset which is that we americans tend to see russia at face value. when putin strives for large on the world stage, when he creates a hazard geopolitical coo with the arms deal in syria, with sort of his relationship with the iran, we tend to assume that what you see is what you get. russia is arriving and has to be dealt with or accommodated to make progress on world affairs. what i'm telling you is that that might not be so simple. in fact, the real challenge for the united states in 20 years,
30 years, may not be from russia's strength, but weakness. that, i think, should inform serious policy thinking about russia and our approach to it. we know that the reset of relations, that the obama administration attempted to ork state with moscow in the last four years is, well, not as healthy as it could be, i would say today; right? the reset has been a failure. we know now that the white house is at least beginning to think about what comes next. what this is intended to do is to give them a little bit of food for thought about where russia is headed because knowing where russia's heading is determinative to figuring out what our policy towards it should be, so, thank you, guys, i'll stop there. [applause] >> we'll take questions, be kind to wait for the microphone to be passed to you, and state your
name and affiliation if you care to as a curtesy to the guest, and i'm going to take the prerogative of reading one of the questions we received online, and i'll change it a little bit. >> how can the u.s. or could the u.s. effectively support positive transformation in russia without creating the perception of foreign interference, which only aggravates the anti-american feeling and also targets liberty issues in that country? >> well, i think it's a great question, and it actually sort of -- to go on a slight tangent for a second. one of the republicans why russia is so uncooperative on middle east policy, and, for example, has spent two and a half years supporting the assad regime against the opposition is because it's seen the movie before. remember, a decade ago, russia witnessed what we now call the color revolutions; right? in elsewhere, and they are
scared those trend lines take hold in russia. here's a secret. putin is not that popular. the last credible pulling that i saw came out in the spring from the center in moscow, and it suggested that of respondents who voted for -- who participated in the vote for the presidential elections, the last presidential election in russia, only 34% said that they would vote for vladimir putin; right? in a democratic society, that is catastrophic. even in an authoritarian one, it's deeply troubling, which is why what you have seen over the past year is a deepening of russia's antidemocratic trick. the real dilemma for u.s. policymakers is how to square the circle, how to invest in democratic institutions, democratic infrastructure without seen as meddling in internal affairs without having its proxies, whether it's the international republican institute, the national
democratic institute, whatever, blacklisted with agents, sort of, you know, kicked out of the country. i think that's a very difficult needle to thread, and that's the reason why the obama administration has spent so little time thinking about it because there's large things that we can work with on -- with regard to russia, work on reductions, and counterterrorism, and these things, these are thornier issues. i think one of the most fruitful conversations with russia moving forward is the start -- branching into something larger, is a discussion on relations, and economic opportunity for russian's minorities because russia and the united states on a number of issues dealing with radical islam and counterterrorism have a tremendous amount of commonty, and russians are wired to listen when we talk. especially now, start a tactical dialogue on security ahead of the sochi games and migrate into a larger conversation about now
using blunt force to deal with your sort of, with your discrepancies in your muse lime minority. have that become a larger conversation. it's not an easy conversation to have. >> hi, i'm an intern here. my question was about the liberal opposition within russia, and i wanted to ask you how much of an influence realistically do you think people like the deutsche channel or anything has going into the future? >> i think it's a good question, and the state of russia's democratic opposition is one of those things that you tend to watch sort of sporadically; right? when he's put on trial on charges and released and sort of, you know, gets wrapped up again, you tend to notice, but there's not a lot of sustained attention. i point out a couple trend
lines. one, profoundsly negative, and one slightly positive. profoundly negative one is vladimir putin understands very much because of his popularity ratings that there is a problem. there is a problem if there's a sustainedded liberal opposition to his rule. as a result, he's tried to widen the conversation. putin's political faction is known as united russia. they have undergone a series of public black eyes over two years. members in the lower house of the parliament caught with property in the united states, you know, above and beyond sort of what they should have been afforded, based on their paycheck, defense minister who, you know, engaged potentially in graph based upon a personal vendetta, all sorts of things tarnishing the united russian brand. what putin has done in two and a half years is to widen the conversation. since 2010, he's been talking
and recently, acting, to create something called the russian national front. this is an conglomeration of 200 political organizations, geos, social organizations which are intended to be an umbrella to feed ideas into united russia. it is intended to, one, rehabilitate united russia to show that united russia is more accountable, listening to all the groups, and, second, push the liberal opposition to the outskirts of russian politic. because if everybody but everybody is part of the national front and you're not, then that just means you're a crack pot, and as a result, putin's managed, at least so far, to deathly maneuver through russian politics, but there are hopeful signs that this is not going to be indefinitely the case. for example, mayoral elections suggest this dominance of united russia and russian linked parties is a transient affair,
and left to their devices, voters vote to elect somebody else. i'm not exactly sure that they want specific person, but somebody else. other than the established hierarchy, something the kremlin is cos any cant over, not clear they can control or clamp down on, but gives you a glimmer of hope there are yearnings for pluralism beyond the construct that putin created, but it's not clear yet they come to any sort of real meaningful fruition. >> hi, as you know, one of the projects to reviet al lies -- view vitalize, and focusing on the central asian and now the south caucuses. i think the idea is, you know, allows russia to reconstitute
the margs that they could hold the line, tiny penetration in some ways in the union in euroasia and so on. what do you think the chances of that success of the project would be, and in terms of reversing some of the trend you caution us about? >> well, it's interesting. you mentioned this was intended as hedge against china. it is up to a point, but i think it's a hedge against european liberalization. look what happened with russian strong arming of ukraine over two months. you've seen ukraine that was on track signing the association agreement with the european union, and as a result, penalized by the russian federation. it was essentially the ukrainian government told in no uncertainly terms, you make the mistake of choosing europe and not my eurasian economic block, there's adverse consequences, for example, i'll clamp down on trade, clamp down as a raising of customs restrictions. this is a hedging strategy for
sure, but it does not alter the overall trajectory, and, n., among certain governments, it actually increases their push westward; right? to buck the trend of realignment with moscow. it's not clear that russia's economy is as vibrant as dynamic as it needs to be to really draw people to it if the dak -- deck was not stacked, and this is, i think, a real problem. if you -- a great little vignette some missed is in the last two weeks, china has bought up the equivalent of 5% of ukrainian territory for agricultural purposes. this is a big deal, a big deal suggests that china is increasingly moves west ward also in the economic plans, but a challenge to russia because if they covet ukraine, covering it economically, increasingly they are not just dealing with
ukraine's western leanings, but a difficult variable, the intryings of china. against all trends, it's not clear that the economic plans of the russian federation are robust enough or forward looking enough that they're actually going to make russia sol yent and amealuate trends i talked about, they are trying. in the long term, it's a very difficult road. i'm from israel. two questions. one is a short term question about russia, and the other iranian situation, negotiations going on now. what do you think is going on in putin's mind about that? play a positive role? try to be a spoiler a and second question is longer term china, which i think is a name of the game longer term, what is the
trueness formation going on in russia mean for china, and china's role in the world scene? >> well, so, the ukrainian issue first because i think it is useful to unpack this. i think that the russian government creates a problem and sees itself as the solution to the problem. for example, the russian government initiated the sale or approve the sale of s300 antimissile batteries to iran, table that sale, and now the sale is back on the table. this is a little bit of a pattern, and when you look at what russia is seeking, it's useful to point out that partnership with iran is not across the board an uncontroversial issue in russia. it's not a settled issue. there's a strong vocal minority that points out the islamic
republic is closer geographically to the russian federation than israel, and it's anything that any capability that iran gains, if they are not careful, could be directed to russia itself, but the dominant line has been cooperation, cooperation as a result of defense industrial ties, cooperation as a result of the fact that iran has the potential to exacerbate these radical islamic tendencies in the caucuses, if it wants to, and you keep it at baby engaging in commerce with it, and it's animated by, at least in some of the russian elites, by good old fashioned anti-americans. best defense is a good offense, and if the west is bogged down with fires in the middle east, it's less likely to interfere in russia's, and they are a concern about the encoachment of europe, nato, and of the united states, and i am skeptical, but, you
know, don't let 30 years of u.s.-iranian politics stop you, but if you believe this is going to happen, you have to understand that russia's going to be disadvantaged as a result, but those same, iran is now no longer an adversary of the united states, but a partner, then iran moves from being an asset to a liability. with regard to china in the long term, the question is about economics. china needs something on the order of 20 million jobs created every year to keep the unemployment rate stable, which is why you see a massive export of chinese human capital to latin america, africa, and the russian far east; right? china's growth, the explosive growth, what the average, like, 10 #% -- 10% growth, despite the global
recession, suggests that china needs to fuel the fire. china's hungry. as a result, they are looking for new economic markets and economic opportunities that the russian far east in the context, quite frankly, is low hanging fruit. >> the only country that turned the ship around is georgia because they got involved, and the patriarch was blessing every third child. tell us about the state of the orthodox church in russia. is it a player? could it perhaps fix the demographic situation somewhat? >> well, absolutely it a player. a good point to draw out. something that's remarkable, and, again, sort of alliances in putin's russia are no tore youly mercurial, those up today are
down tomorrow, and those viz l in the tv tomorrow disappear into academia for seven years and come back, but what you notice is the macrotrend line seen over three or four years has been a growing closeness of the kremlin and russian orthodox church to the point where the church has become, if not a across the board rubber stamp for policies, a powerful voice vocalizing in support of large percentage of kremlin policies, but notice this this is not demographic, a demographic question, but a political question. it's enshrinement of ideas as translated by the kremlin and russian orthodox church. whether it translates to more babies in russia? probably not. you know, it's not a mistake that putin hit upon the alliance with the russian orthodox church because he saw the trend line in georgia and understands how the things work. the russian orthodox church, for
him, is less of a demographic salvation and more of a political ally. >> you mentioned earlier in the 1990, russia does not a a peace dividend, no investment by the government as least in social services, infrastructure, what have you, and in the same peer, there was a great deal of u.s. aid, as a result, sitting up ngos, public organizations, nongovernmental organizations, that -- to try to build a civil society in russia. has there been any evidence or any work that these private institutions have stepped into fill the void to perform these social services that the government has not? >> i think it's a good question, and, yes, you know, i probably
overspoke sort of over estimated only slightly when i said there was no peace diff depped. there was in real terms; right? russian economy got better and ancillary runoff that went to russian society, but, and because, you know, per capita gdp now is better than the collapse of the soviet union. you can't say there was no progress, but you see there were not serious systemic investments in the type of infrastructure you talk about, in, you know, transparent elections, monitoring, social services, outreach. that's where the international community came in. that's where you had sort of a real sustained investment track on the part of the international community, who, also, by the way, from the defense department you know there was a sustained investment track in the dismantlement of russian's strategic weapons. also, the dividend from that, where, you know -- we can talk about it -- but nonetheless, these were the two main tracks of sort of u.s. interest in
post-soviet russia. i think what's happening now when you see the rollback of civil society in russia, it's very much a function of precisely that, a function of the fact that the kremlin sees these entities having been either created or at least partially supported by the international community as a threat, as a potential insur gent threat; right? the russian government's approval over the last couple years, the now foreign agent laws requires political ngos to gain this, to be outside plight russian politics tells you everything you need to know about the fact that the russian government is more interested in margin alizing governments than exploiting them. the elements effective as political voices, but a threat by the kremlin and as a result, they are margin alize.
visa are already by the way i don't know what the actual tally is as of this week and bet on the order of dozens of billions of dollars. it's the most expensive olympics that has ever been constructed. there are lots of indications that there is graft -- the head of the olympic committee was replaced because the project is not on schedule so this is as much a public image problem for the russians as it is a security problem but both things matter. russia has to provide when the world is watching russia has to
provide a secure environment and that means sadly a lot of very heavy-handed security tactics but they have a real problem on their hands. but it's also going to mean that they really have to get their economic up and running so when the world begins to look at sochi it doesn't look like a -- a village. >> hi. thank you for the presentation. i'm from the north caucasus diaspora. last week i attended a conference at george washington university about russia and a certain statistic jumped out at me. plagiarism and russian economic institutions is as high as 70% so how can you tell when u.s. officials go to meet with russian officials, how do you know that these officials are not? >> you can't in fact and this is
a real problem. the dead devaluing of educational integrity in russia is a symptom of that decline where there is a culture of corruption that does pervade other things and we understand it or baits industrial and economic sectors but it does have an impact on ancillary sectors. the fact that this is acceptable and university records turn a blind eye tells you everything you need to know about what's for sale and what's not. but i made mention of it when i was giving my presentation this is why statistics in russia at least in part or so suspect because it's not hard to discern who is getting good research in russia particularly when they have 70% of resumes padded area that is why i moved to the u.n. estimates is being the main estimates because they tend to aggregate both the high and the low of what you are seeing. i have seen russian statistics which are far more belief then i
laid out for you. the fact that this is the legal line of the estimates should tell you everything you know about how bad the estimates are. >> hello sir. thank you for speaking. i was curious about the territorial ambitions you are talking about. are you talking about abkhazia or south ossetia or the balkans should start to get worried? >> again this is a question of you know sort of ice being bigger than stomachs and military capability and no one is saying that rush is going to go to war with everyone the outright complex that what putin has built a mean the best way to describe it is a postmodern empire and empire of legal and economic influence even if there is not military influence. so those things for example russians strong-arm tactics to prevent the construction of a pipeline that would create independence for the ukraine
things that would functionally keep these countries and russia's orbit even without a shot being fired or things that should be worrisome. but also the truism is that the longer russia's territorial boundaries remain the same without being pushed outward the more more the imperial urge diminishes and vice versa which means the more russia has military successes abroad as it did against georgia for example the more its appetite is wedded for other skirmishes so i'm not a prognosticator and i can tell you russia is going to go over war over ukraine or belarus but i can tell you in those places they are watching these trend lines closely than the one variable that they tend not to talk about is how the russian imperial impulse is being strengthened simply by demographic mathematics. if you need to widen your population and expand your population there are not that many places you can go.
>> we have one final question. >> ken meyer. what is happening with russians living in the former republic of the soviet union? are they moving back to russia and what role do they play in russia's relations with the former republic? >> the kremlin would certainly like them too for sure and as a result they have done all sorts of things where they have created relatively hasslefree assumption of russian nationality for example for people who live abroad and claim russian heritage so it increases the virtual roles. not the actual roles because they are not in the russian federation but the trend line in economic and political terms is profoundly negative. a great example of this is at the tail end of the medvedev
presidency the kremlin dreamt up this project of creating a high-technology hub outside of moscow. it was intended as a hub for technology, innovation and everything from software to biotech essentially the new silicon valley. and a tremendous number of russians or people of russian -- you are fantastic and the sciences and russia reached out to them and i remember this wasn't the sum total of the answer but there were two russian laureates that were approached that live in the united states who were approached to come back to russia and bring their innovation and their technology and bring their companies to rush and set up shop and there will answer wasn't no, it was hell no because they understand very well that the culture, the political culture that exists in russia's going to mean their
intellectual property is not synchronous thanked and will be capricious with how it apportions aid or how it takes proprietary products so as a result they are perfectly happy to seek their fortunes elsewhere. there is a huge drain for russia because the more the russian government appears to be hostile to entrepreneurship individual entrepreneurship, the less ability to has to compete on the world stage and that is one of the reasons why you see this mass outmigration of russians because those with the means to do so are increasingly looking for economic alternatives. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you ilan for a wonderful discussion and thank you for your participation. of course we do have copies available if you elect to purchase one. ilan will be appear to sign them and carry on the conversation
skimming today's young adults who are having a lot of trouble getting started in life because they have come of age in a very hostile economy, they are paying money into a system to support a level of benefits for today's retirees that they have no realistic chance of getting when they themselves retire. so there needs to be a rebalancing of the social compact. it's a very important challenge, a difficult challenge for this country politically because not only social security and medicare half of our budget or about to become have over budget, by far the biggest thing we do, but it is symbolically, as a country we are community all in this together. these are programs that affect everybody. and the old math doesn't work. >> paul taylor on saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday at nine
on booktv's afterwards. in a few weeks your chance to talk with military strategist and former defense secretary bing west. you will take your calls, comments, e-mails and tweets on the mideast, iraq and afghanistan live from noon to three eastern. booktv every weekend on c-span2. also this month join the online discussion of peniel joseph's new biography of stokely carmichael. look for the book club tap at booktv.org. >> we return now to afterwards with angela stent on her book, "the limits of partnership: u.s.-russian relations in the 21st century." >> host: when you talk to russian officials, they often would tell you that there is a tendency in the united states and more broadly the west, the west of russia. and sometimes without good evidence. you mention in your book and
then who was a former agent of the kgb, the federal security service, who became a political immigrant, some side effect, lived in england and then was poisoned. as you describe in your book, a common perception in britain and the united states was that he was a victim of nuclear terrorism and begin a strong assumption is that it was arranged by the russian government. do you agree with that? >> well, i think the evidence from what i know and from what i've read is, first of all the polonium he was poisoned with, it's not something you could buy on the internet. italy produced in a few laboratories. and there was clearly evidence
of it when it tested the plane on which the two gentlemen with whom he had met in london and new apparently administered the poison. the plaintiff they were on, the real activator from the traces were found on the plane. i don't think anyone disputes the fact that people came, somebody came from moscow carrying this polonium and that they met with mr. litvinenko and subsequently he got very little and he died. and, of course, probably it wouldn't have been discovered, it was only discovered at the very last moment that it was polonium otherwise he would just have died and no one would've quite known. there are other people who believe that this was a conspiracy that was manufactured in britain and that mr. -- the now deceased oligarch who fled to england them that he was somehow involved in all of this, although it's never been clear how he was. but, of course, what makes it even more difficult is the
british government which was conducting an inquest into his decided it is want to publish the evidence that it has about this particular murder, for national security reasons. unspecified. so the assumption has been that's because it would summit implicate some part of the russian government. who knows what, but we'll probably really never know the truth about any of this. and, of course, when mr. berezovsky a fairly hanged himself last year, there were also those who believed that he didn't hang himself. so when a lot of these issues, it's called in obscurity and i think one will never know the truth. >> host: i'm very interested in this case. not because of the case itself but because it's a perfect example for how often we make assumptions. we don't quite know the truth. i became familiar with the name litvinenko back in the 1990s
where a book by yeltsin's first chief of presidential administration, a man of real democratic reputation and real integrity. and he was standing about provocations against him, arranged by some security services. they did not like litvinenko. and the man who was very much involved was mr. litvinenko. that was long before mr. litvinenko was out of favor. then, 1998 there was a press conference in moscow. mr. litvinenko, who just had left the federal security service, announces that there was a plot against boris berezovsky. it was a very dramatic
conference, one little problem with it. the director was a man called vladimir putin, and only later, according to all available evidence, including the berezovsky testimony, it was berezovsky hill helped putin to become russian premise to. berezovsky thought that putin was plotting to kill and to berezovsky would hardly be promoting putin. so that whole press conference was a farce. and there were many of the things. obviously, polonium when you kill somebody with polonium in london, now if your assumption is that the russians expect it that it would be discovered. then you may say well, it was dissension but if that is the case, it's not clear what was so
important about mr. litvinenko to take chances. the russian soldiers would not be caught. why would they just polonium? there were many cheaper and easier ways to get rid of this little kgb hoodlum, and so when there was a major informational scandal, it was a huge uncertainty that the russian government and putin personally decided to use a nuclear material to kill somebody in london. now we are since we don't really know. is this correct? >> guest: i think it's correct. all of these things again are shrouded in obscurity as you yourself said, mr. berezovsky was largely responsible for putting mr. putin in the kremlin. he then fell out with mr. putin when he became clear that mr. putin was going to take charge, and mr. berezovsky the credibility what he was doing before. so yes, i think nobody really knows. and no one will ever know.
i think that we're in a situation where it's partly has to do with whether people made their money in the 1990s. you can refer back again to what was going on politically and behind the scenes, nobody really knew. so that's a period about which many people have many questions. we do know that once mr. berezovsky was in london, he and mr. litvinenko were highly critical of what was happening in russia and what mr. putin was doing. and mr. putin didn't like that, and the other thing that mr. litvinenko was doing was investigating the murder of a journalist. she was a muckraking journalist. she was assassinated, shot in the doorway to her apartment. again come it's never been result. i think one of the problems here is that the number of rather high profile murders in russia, most of them in russia in the 1990s and since then, but particularly the 1990s of
journalists, businesspeople, and none of these things were ever results. sometimes they would pick up the actual assassin, and i think that adds to this tendency in the west to assume the worst about everything, just because they have it's also many of these high profile cases. >> host: i thought for a long time actually that the russians, the russian government could not be involved in in killing litvinenko because i could not see sufficiently good reason. now i'm totally agnostic on this and the reason is the testimony of a man who as you may remember a former chechen separatist leader who is a very close friend of litvinenko in london and actually litvinenko spent the afternoon after he was
poisoned with him. he was close. he liked him a lot. he testified that one of the things that litvinenko was doing, using his contacts in the russian security services, was to buy or obtained by other means information about russian -- russians and chechens against separatist, some of the outright islamic terrorist. and that litvinenko was providing this information to the chechen terrorist. now, it was a informational way, he's not passing judgment but, of course, if something like that was going on i would say that by the standards, then the russian security service could decide to go after them. but it don't see many of the reasons. again this is one of those mysteries where it's a human initiative, that we know the
answer is that the russians have learned that a, then several years later we still do not know. >> guest: it's obviously had a very bad effect on the british-russian relations, but it doesn't really have that much effect on russia's relations with other countries come including the united states. because the united states actually, with the exception of another separatist leader who's in the united states, we haven't really given aside from the that many chechens except for and, of course, the comeback to the boston bombings earlier this year, some formerly low-profile people but it has been such an issue with the united states. >> host: the reason i ask you about this in addition to the issue of unsolved mysteries is because you talk about in your book, about opportunities and the need for partnership. one thing in making this of course counterterrorism.
and when i was thinking about terrorism, i was thinking about -- the dramatic results in u.s. history. one is september 11. and as you know, at that time before september 11 happened, the russian government specifically prime mr. putin, he was not yet president, were proposing the u.s. government, a close cooperation against al-qaeda and taliban. it was dismissed by the clinton administration because we already did russia as an imperial power. they want to reestablish their influence in central asia. it looked almost like the trick. rush was talking about cooperation against al-qaeda and taliban, but, in fact, wanted american blessing to become more relevant in central asia. i have no idea what would happen if putin himself at that time was take more safely. i would be interested in your
view. and in the boston marathon. the russian security service approached the guy talking about the tsarnaev brothers and question about the tsarnaev brothers. i talked to officials here and they talked to security council officials in moscow. it's pretty clear to me what has happened. the russians have provided some information that this information was incomplete and insufficient. people here, because this information were incomplete and insufficient, did not want to be manipulated by russian security services, against people who came as political refugees from russia. the chechens who ar were escapig russian institution -- persecution, the result was the russians were told, it was not taken very seriously. the question is, do you beat
leave that we could save american lives by having a closer cooperation on counterterrorism? and it is something that is really achievable in the current years in russian and violent? >> guest: you raise the important question of course the cooperation of counters and goes back to chechnya. so in the beginning when you have the first war in chechnya that, remember present clinton says this is like abraham lincoln trying to save the message trying to save the union. and then as the war progressed it became more brutal. there were much more pressure in the united states to take a different stance towards what was happening in chechnya and focus on the human rights issues and the width of the russian army was conducting itself in chechnya. now, you are quite right, and we also had the incident with the men who then became the number two in al-qaeda, also weary,
he and others were in pakistan trying to get to chechnya earlier on. the russians pick them up and they held a but then they didn't have enough evidence about him and they don't think they consulted the us about the. so they let him go but it will back to afghanistan and we know what happened on 9/11. but putin was when the united states about these dangers and united states didn't take them series looking up and, obviously, from the russian perspective they understood this because of russia's own problems in the province the north caucasus. but the issue again has been that the united states has been reluctant to classify many of these fundamentalist terrorists in chechnya in the same way that it classifies al-qaeda operatives. because of these other issues that surround it. now, the catechism cooperation did work in the fall of 2001. we were on the same page and president bush certainly
endorsed the russian view when we're not talking there was a second chechen war obviously that happened shortly after putin became prime minister. but for a rather short very we are certainly in a line on this and working together and russia gives all kinds of information about some of the people who were in afghanistan that enabled the nato effort to succeed, at least in the fall of 2001. but in a situation i think went back to the status quo where we focus a lot more on what was happening in the north caucasus. we begin to believe that when russia talks about terrorism it really only focuses on its own problems in the north caucasus and didn't see terrorism and the same as we do as a global threat with al-qaeda. and i think that has definite continue to i think your characterization of what happened with the tsarnaev brothers is completely correct. we did get some information from russia. after which we did try to share more. the russian said if you had listened to his earlier maybe you wouldn't have given these
people assign them. so there is -- some of his works. it works sometimes. it's a limited partnership and cooperation on terrorism is limited. i don't know whether we could have prevented 9/11. i think that's a much bigger question right we have been hampered in the counterterrorist cooperation with russia because of these very different views about what's happening in the north caucasus and what, if you like, isn't just about repression of religious expression in russia itself. >> host: again talking about human diplomacy, you have a section in the book, iran is one of the of the central issues for u.s. foreign policy. we are preoccupied today with the city of but let's face it, see it is a great humanitarian tragedy. but once this is the kind of localized, it will not lead to involvement of major powers. it's not something that fundamental affects american
security. iran is a different. if it would come the u.s. and israeli attack on iran, iran respond in a way, it may become really very safe. how does russia feel an american policy area and what is it doing, what do we expect them to do? >> guest: things have improved very much in the u.s. russian relationship on iran but we had a problem in the 1990s with russia going in and taking over the contract to build the nuclear power plant with i was in control elements when yeltsin was in power, doing business with iran. and the russians have always claimed and i've heard others say this -- lavrov is the foreigners and he's another person we've met over the years, very impressive professional, he's been foreign minister for 10 years in russia. the russian expedition has always been that the iranians
have not been anything so far that contravenes the agreement they made with the international atomic energy agency. and so that was an issue of greater tension between the u.s. and russia. that situation improved when obama came into power and he showed president medvedev evidence of a secret enrichment facility in iran, and russia been agreed with the u.s. to tougher sanctions against iran in the u.n. security council. but russia has still always claimed there's no evidence that her brain is trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability, and i think some cynics have said russia would might the u.s. and israeli attack on iran because of in oil prices would go up and this would be good for russia. i don't believe that. i think the russian government doesn't want to see a military attack on iran because again that would have repercussions in
russia's own neighborhood in the north caucasus. it would fuel islamist sentiments. it would cause unrest and, of course, it would cause a great deal of unrest in their neighborhood. i think right now the u.s. and russia are aligned because at the moment we have what looks like a relatively promising agreement between the p5+1 powers, the united nations security council, the germans, the iranians to walk back on the enrichment facilities, and for iran to promise that it won't go increasing the capability to get that agreement works and if we get to the next stage, then i would say that u.s. and russia are cooperating very well on iran. in the longer run if the u.s. really work to improve its political relationship with iran, u.s. businesses were to go back, u.s. energy companies, that would also affect russia's current role as iran's major
great power interlocutor and that might not be something that the russians would favor. but i think that's relatively far down the road and at the moment i would say this is an area where we are working better together. because the sanctions worked, because the really tough sanctions i think have forced the ugliness to the papal. >> host: another area where we don't entirely agree, to put it mildly, is ukraine. you talk about russian attitude to ukraine, orange revolution or you could not write about a your book what is happening in kiev with my gone. a recent visit. can you talk about that, the more recent developments? >> guest: yes. the leadership of ukraine actually owned revolution, i described in my book the russians were very disconcerted
by this book we were very hopeful and, of course, it turned out that it didn't work out the way, lease the west of the wickets of leadership, he was the president, i miss you, to argue all the time and so you had a relatively free and fair election in 2010. mr. yanukovych came to power and the european union was trying to entice them to the eastern portion to find a deep free tradtrade good, designed and association agreement which does not mean membership in the latest promising ukraine membership but that should tell the way organize its economy and its aside more towards european norm. the european union itself doesn't believe that it believes it's a postmodern grouping but it doesn't like to engage in old-fashioned geopolitics. russia doesn't mind engaging in old-fashioned geopolitics. and for russia, ukraine is a key country.
the quote unquote loss of ukraine to the west of the work to join the european union, it would be a major historical shift for russia because russia and ukraine have for centuries been part of the same system, if you like. and russia does believe that it has a right to interest in its backyard. this is a right that neither the united states nor the european union have been willing to concede. so as it became clear that mr. you know coverage appeared to be serious about signing an agreement -- yanukovych, which would have come it would've meant a shift in ukrainian priorities and in a way to organize them so the russia personal put pressure on ukraine to the asian part of ukraine is very tightly integrated economically with russia. one should point out that ukraine is in many ways still a divided country. the eastern part of ukraine that was traditionally part of the russian empire does look to russia. it has won the of russia. the western part they just be
part of the austria-hungary in empire, indivisible in the interwar years looks much more to europe and it's much more suspicious of russia and speaks, speaks ukrainian. we are reminded ukraine, put pressure on in terms of cutting off trade. if it's signed and agreed with the european union. and then increasingly as we near the date of the signature it was offering carrots to mr. yanukovych. there are quite a few people who believe that mr. yanukovych never intended to sign an agreement with the european union but he was trying to get the best deal possible, the ukrainian possible is in a very patchy. ukraine is going to default if it doesn't get economic assistance. and so in the last couple of days rush has offered $15 billion rescue package to ukraine that installed making sure that ukraine doesn't default and then cutting the gas prices from around $400 to 283,
but cutting substantially so that ukraine would be doing much lower prices for russian gas. and the european union has sort of taken a step back now. interestingly enough, you suddenly had a rash of european politicians, american politicians going to kiev and speaking to the thousands and thousands of demonstrators who want to ukraine to sign an agreement with the european union who are in this my gone square were as you have the same russian officials going and making speeches. it quietly been talking to the ukrainians. clearly at this point russia has one. russirush is going to bail out ukraine. rush is going to hope that in the 2015th election mr. yanukovych gets reelected. if he doesn't been the we a question about what ukraine would you in the future. i think this underlines the fact that a lease for the united states come ukraine is a long way away. there's just so much that we can do to get involved in the
post-soviet state and russia's neighbors but there's a limit to the. there are many other foreign policy parties and and the bush administration at one point the bush administration wanted nato membership for ukraine more than ukraine did. ukraine isn't interested anymore. europeans are closer. does make more of of a reason for them to get involved in ukraine but geography does matter and i think when you look at the map i think everyone has to understand that maybe ukraine has to work out something in the future it doesn't have to choose one side or the other but they can somehow work with both sides because otherwise i think it's unrealistic. >> host: the russian foreign minister much online by some commentators in the united states in my view often unfairly. just the other day he was in brussels talking to the union. he complained about what european and u.s. officials were doing in kiev during the
demonstration. he complains about two things. first he complained that european officials, actual u.s. assistant secretary of state said nothing about senator john mccain, where, appealing to the antigovernment crowds in kiev and were creating a strong impression that the united states and european union were with them against their own government. and lavrov felt this was an appropriate and that something like that would never be allowed in the united states or in european union countries. but his second complaint was that american officials, european union officials were claiming that ukraine was overwhelmingly and cooperation with european union because of the size of the crowds. and he said wait a second, there were hundreds of thousands of
people in paris demonstrating against same-sex marriage, but the french socialist government said, wait a second, we have won the election, we have a majority and legitimately elected parliament. we decide what is in the best interest of the country, not the size of the crowd. and lavrov said that mr. yanukovych government was legitimate elected in ukraine. nobody really questions that. why was the size of the crowd protesting the policy would be an indication of what the ukrainians -- >> guest: erased an important general issue which is one of the problems in the u.s.-russian relationship is a tendency serving on the part of the russian government to question the consistency of what the u.s. does, the sincerity of it, and to point out that what russia does is absolutely no worse than what the u.s. does. so that's a general framework,
where we get into these arguments, that is part of the reason why this is a concrete relationship to one of the analogies that russia sometimes likes to use is the occupy movement. i don't know how many, i don't o think a top russian official and editors he occupy movement when we were protesting the i knew it was featured on television and it was certainly some russians who went there, but not high official but i guess the answer to this is that there is no reason why u.s. officials and european officials shouldn't go and address the demonstrators if they want, but it do think that it's true that it's not completely clear whether the majority of ukrainians want to go in one direction or the other because ukraine is a split society. so i think it's when you get, i mean in 2004 during the orange revolution you certainly did have russians going to give an doing similar things but they didn't do it this time as i said, but the russian official state and mosque and a
negotiated with mr. yanukovych. but there were also people in the united states who question why, since mr. yanukovych was democratically elected in a reasonably free and their election, whether the u.s. should be going there and trying to push ukraine in one direction. 's i think the differences, we are divided. there's quite a lot of criticism of what happened and there some people endorse it but i think it just, i think it shows also rush i think played this very well this time. >> host: it's really important, informative and fair vote. congratulations. >> guest: thank you. >> while congress is in recess this week c-span2 is featuring booktv in primetime.
tonight will feature military stories. booktv in primetime all this week on c-span2. >> here are some of these batteries live programs today. the wilson supposed the lead negotiator of the palestinian authority for discussion about israel-palestinian negotiations. after president obama hosted palestinian president mahmoud abbas. live coverage and center at 8:30 a.m. east turn. the chair of the democratic national committee debbie
wasserman schultz will be holding a news conference marking one year since the republican party's plan to rebuild the party. we will have that live at 10 a.m. eastern. >> c-span to providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events, and of the weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span to created by the cable tv industry and funded by local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow was on twitter. >> now the senate banking committee holds a confirmation hearing for the nomination for federal reserve vice chairman, and the nominees for the housing department and the national credit union administration. this is 90 minutes.
>> [inaudible conversations] >> i call this hearing to order. before we begin this morning, ig want to say a few words about housing finance reform. first, i want to thank rankingga member crapo. he has been a great partnerfirs throughout this process, and i'm very pleased we were able to announce our agreement tuesday.m second, i want to thank all the.
cosponsors of corker-warner. a lot of work went into their effort, and it provided a good pace for the committeeso t negotiations. i also want to thank other members of this committee whone. provided invaluable input during this process. last, i look forward to workingp with all of my colleagues on the last, i committee in the coming weeks ae we look to move the bestming possible out of the wee committ today, we consider five nominations. today we cy fischer to be a member and vice chairman of the fed board of governors. the honorable jerome powell ando the honorable lael brainard to b be members of the fed board of governors. mr. gustavo velasquez aguilar to be an assistant secretary of the department of housing and urban
development, and mr. j. markmenf mcwatters to be a member ofnd the national credit union administration board. the federal reserve board union currently has important tasks at hand him including theportant implication of wall street reform, establishing policies to improve financial stability, reduce systemic risk and ending too big to fail in providing monetary policy to grow our a economy and improve employment. it is important the board has thoughtful leaders while up not apply -- and community banks, insurance companies and asset managers. it is critical that we have a full board with diverse view, and ready to respond to economic
challenges that may arise.d dr. fischer, mr. paul at mr. brainard are all very well-qualified to serve as fed d board governors. mr. aguilar surf from 2007-2013d as director of the district of columbia office of human rights and he will bring on the groundf experience to the role of assistant secretary for fair housing and equal opportunity to ensure all americans have equal access to housing o. t last, mr. mcguire said been nominated to fill an expired bn seat on the ncua board, the national credit union administration plays a vital role in overseeing credit union and community across this country. i believe mr. mcwatters will hit the ground running with an
eagerness to learn more about wl these important community financia gl institutions. mo it ires my hope we can act quicy on all five of these nominations. i now turn to ranking member crapo for his opening statement. g> thank you, mr. chairman, andn i join in your introductory comments about housing financead reform, and particularly i int appreciate the relationship we have and the opportunity we had to work together on this. the and also want to thank ourand il colleagues, bob corker and markt warner, and those who worked with them to help us lay the foundation for this effort. and, frankly, each member ofwitt this committee has been veryfour involved in working with us andt frthink it should be acknowledged as we move forward. iourth welcome each of nominees today. knowle at today's hearing we will hear from nominees to the federal reserve board, the department oe housing and urban development of
the national credit unione fed administration board as the chairman has already indicated.e during dr. yellen's nomination hearing to chair of the federai reserve, i noted that the turnover of the board by thed. departure of chairman grenadesh, and elvis raskin and duke needed to be dealt with.at the i emphasize again that the gov replacements must bring balanced views about the direction of monetary and regulatory policyi from the fed. replac the nominees before us, from fr academia, from policymaking and finance of both the international and domestic levels. makind dr. stanley fischer is a noted economist. most deserving as the head of the bank ofleve israel. isel brainard and mr. paul both been confirmed by the sender drl bush of as the undersecretary of the treasury for international nfirmed by affairs and mr. polis are on the fed board of governors since 2012. i lookun forde someone more abot these nominees positions and the normalization of monetary policy
as well as the continued application of dodd-frank.noneei in addition to the seats they will fail, there will be one enem remaining opening at the board. i'm hopeful hud bank experience, with a priority will be utilized in this option the qualifications for this last uti position. ng the qualifications for this last position. today we will also consider nominations to the national credit union administration and the department of housing and urban development. credit unions play an important role in our financial system and are leaders in our relationship based lending in our communities. i look forward to hearing from mr. mcwatters about his priorities at ncua and the opportunities and challenges facing the credit union industry. mr. velasquez brings experience in economic development and housing policy having worked in the d.c. government as directors of the dlum's office of latino affairs. hud's use of the disparate inpact theory, even without any
direct discriminatory intent has increased in recent years and is a concern of mine. it's important that each of these nominees today understand the impact of their broader decision on our economy. i look forward to the sthouts of the nominees on how we can properly balance these rules with the needs to keep our markets competitive in the global economy. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i look forward to it. >> thank you, senator creper. would any other senators like to make an opening statement? >> i'm not going to make an opening statement because i don't like for any of us to do that other than the two of you. but i am going to say something, okay? >> go ahead. i had the opportunity to meet with our three fed nominees and spend an extensive amount of time. i'm not going to stay here and ask questions. i'm glad we're able to get the other two nominees in today. what i want to say is i want to thank the two of you and the staff members on both sides of the aisle because housing
financial is really a complex topic. i think all of us have figured that out. i really think we have an opportunity on this committee to pass something that actually matters and to do it in an environment when it would be difficult to pass a resolution thanking mothers for what they do. yet, i think we may well do that because of the efforts that you and your staffs and many members on this committee have put forth. i thank you and look forward to working with you and hope we can get it not only through the senate but in the house and into law. thank you both very, very much. >> thank you. i want to remind my colleagues that the record will be open for the next seven days for opening statements and any other materials you would like to submit. i will now introduce the nominees. dr. stanley fischer is currently a fellow at the council on foreign relations.
he was head of the bank of israel from 2005 to 20. prior to his service at the bank of israel, dr. fischer held positions as vice chairman of citigroup and the first deputy managing director of the international monetary fund. before the imf, dr. fischer was a killian professor and head of the department of economics at m.i.t. where he taught some of the most preeminent economists of our time including former federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, former treasury secretary larry summers and president of the european central bank mario draghi. mr. jer ohm h. paul became a member of the federal reserve board of governors in 2012. prior to his appointment to the board, mr. powell was a visiting
scholar at the bipartisan policy center where he focused on federal and state fis kat cal issues. from 1997 to 2005 mr. powell was a partner at the kern law group. mr. powell also served as an assistant secretary and as undersecretary of the treasury under president george h.w. bush. dr. leal brainard served as undersecretary of international affairs at the treasury from 2010 to 2013. dr. bernard previously served as deputy director of the national economic council and as the u.s. sherpa to the g8. dr. brainard also served as vice president of the ber kins institution and was associate
professor of applied economics at m.i.t. sloan school of management. mr. gus tap poe velasquez aguillar is currently director of the latino economic development center in washington, d.c. previously served for six years as the dlum office of human rights. he was also previously the director of the office of latino affairs in washington, d.c., d.c. mr. mark mcwatters currently served as assistant dean for graduate programs at southern methodist university's school of law. previously he practiced for more than two decades as a domestic
and cross border tax merger, acquisition and corporate finance attorney. in addition he served as a judicial clerk to the honorable walter eli of the ninth circuit court of appeals. we will now swer in the nominees. will the nominees please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? do you agree to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the senate? please be seated. each of your written statements will be made part of the record. before you begin your statement
i invite each of you to introduce your family and friends in attendance. dr. fischer, please begin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm very happy to have my wife rhoda of 48 years sitting here behind me and friend from high school in zimbabwe, now an american citizen, attorney abrams also sitting behind me. shall i make my statement now, senator? >> yes. >> chairman johnson, ranking member crapo and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. i'm greatly honored to be nominated by president obama to serve as a member and vice chair of the board of governors of the
federal reserve system. i look forward, if confirmed, to working with this committee in the coming months and years. in recent years the federal reserve has made significant progress toward achieving its congressionally mandated goals of maximum employment and price stability. nonetheless, normalcy has not been restored. at 6.7%, the unemployment rate remains too high, and the rate of inflation has been and is expected to remain somewhat below the federal reserve's target of 2%. at present achievement of both maximum employment and price stability requires the continuation of an expansion remonetary policy even though the degree of expansion is being gradually and cautiously cut back as the fed reduces its monthly purchases of longer term treasury securities and agency mortgage backed securities. i'd like to add that in their
efforts to achieve aggregate goals, policymakers should never forget the human beings who are unemployed, nor the damage that high inflation reeks on the economy and thus on the lives of so many people. the financial collapse that intensified in the last months of 2008 and early 2009 threatened in the view of some central bankers, including this one, to result in a recession even deeper than the great recession we experienced. the federal reserve's policies in dealing with the financial collapse were courageous and effective. nevertheless, we must do everything we can to prevent the need for such extreme measures ever again. among the lessons of the financial crisis are the necessity of dealing with a too big to fail problem and the necessity of greatly strengthening the resilience of the entire financial system. the dodd-frank act put in place a framework that should make it
possible to advance these goals. the united states has moved rapidly to put a series of important measures into effect. among them are the significant increase in capital requirements and the introduction of countercyclical capital buffers for banks, the introduction of a liquidity ratio, the sophisticated use of stress tests, the importance of which becomes ever clearer, enhanced resolution authority in the single part of entry in dealing with sifis, living also and the dealing with the oversight council, the fsoc. at the international level, the stability of the financial board whose membership includes the countries of the g-20 and a few other financial centers, provides an important mechanism for strengthening international coordination of financial regulation. while we've undoubtedly made important progress in strengthening the financial system, we must also recognize
that maintenance of the robustness and stability of the financial system cannot be attained without strong regulation and supervision. financial systems evolve and while financial crises have many i'm larts, they are not identical. the fed must remain ever vigilant in supervising and regulating the financial institutions and markets for which it has been assigned responsibility, and it should be no less vigilant in its surveillance of the stability and resilience of the financial system as a whole. the great recession has driven home the lesson that the fed has not only to fulfill its dual mandate, but also to contribute its part to the maintenance of the stability of the financial system. almost always these goals are complementary. but each of them must be an explicit focus of fed policy. in all the situations of which the fed will have to contend in
pursuing its goals, it will be called upon to make wise decisions which draw on the experience and the analytic skills of the staff and of the members of the federal reserve board and the federal open market committee. i hope that, if confirmed, i will be able to assist chair yellen and my future colleagues in making those critical decisions and so to the contribute to the well-being of the citizens of the united states. senators, i thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today and for considering my nomination. i would be pleased to respond to any questions. >> thank you. mr. powell, please proceed. >> -- my brother matt in from california. chairman johnson, senator crapo and members of the committee, i am honored and grateful to president obama for the privilege of appearing before this committee today as a nominee to the federal reserve
board. i have served as a member of the board since may 2012. if i am confirmed to the new term for which i am now nominated, i'll continue to work to the best of my abilities to carry out the responsibilities of this office. over the past two years i have been deeply involved in the work of the board and the federal open market committee. important challenges lie ahead and i am eager to play my part in meeting them. before joining the board, i spent close to 30 years working in the financial markets as an attorney and investment banker and an investor. i believe my practical experience of the private sector and the financial markets provides a valuable perspective in the work of the board and the fomc. i also served as assistant secretary and undersecretary of the treasury of finance from 1990 to 1993. throughout that period i worked closely with this committee and appeared in this room many times as a witness in hearings and markups. more recently i testified before this committee on anti-money
laundering and the bank secrecy act in march of 2013. the early 1990, the time of my earlier service were turbulent years for the economy and the markets. we faced the savings and loan crisis and the resulting bailout, a severe credit crunch with some businesses and households unable to get credit on reasonable terms, the insolvency of the fdic's bank insurance fund and the failure or near failure of several large financial institutions which squarely presented the problem of too big to fail. i was deeply involved in addressing these crises and in the major legislation that followed including particularly the federal deposit insurance improvement act. i also led the administration's efforts to address a very troubling episode involving market manipulation and submission of false bids in treasury auctions by employees of the investment firm solomon brothers. that scandal resulted in the government securities reform act of 1992 as well as extensive revisions to the treasury's auctions rules.
today our economy continues to recover from the effects of the global financial crisis, unevenly and at a frustratingly slow pace. the task for monetary policy will be to provide continued support as long as necessary and return policy to a normal stance over time without sparking inflation or financial instability. this will require a careful balancing as there are risks from removing monetary policy accommodation too soon as well as too late. the regulation and supervision of financial institutions and markets are as important as anything the federal reserve does. this is at a time we continue to investigate the weakness exposed during the crisis and set the stage for another long period of prosperity. working with fellow regulators around the united states and the world, the federal reserve is engaged in a once in a generation renovation of the financial architecture. there's much work to be done both in the implementation of congress's decisions and in finalizing and implementing
international accords like bozal 3. at the heart of these broad reforms is the project of ending the practice of protecting creditors and sometimes equity holders of large global financial institutions or too big to fail. there's been significant progress but more work is left to do. realizing this objective will take time and persistence. i am eager to play a part in that. thank you again for holding this hearing today, and i'll be pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you. dr. brainard, please proceed. >> chairman johnson, ranking member crapo, distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today. it's an honor to be nominated by president obama to serve on the federal reserve board, particularly under chairman yellen's leadership. i'm very grateful to my husband and my three delightful daughters for supporting my return to public service after a
wonderful but too brief time at home, and i am happy to be joined here this morning by my husband kurt and my daughter kira who is representing her two sisters very ably. i cannot think of a more important moment for the work of the federal reserve. if confirmed, you can be sure i will be intensely focused on safeguarding the fed's hard won credibility in preserving price stability while supporting its indispensable role in helping americans get back to work and strengthening its work in ensuring a safe and sound financial system. the federal reserve has a critically important and appropriately delimited role in addressing the challenges we face as a nation in the wake of a deeply damaging financial crisis. it will need to carefully calibrate the tools of monetary policy to ensure an appropriate pace of normalization while supporting the fragile recovery in our job market and ensuring inflation expectations remain well anchored.
the federal reserve will need to continue robust implementation of financial reform and enhanced supervision to ensure that no financial institution is too big to fail and to discourage the massive leverage and opaque risk-taking that contributed to the financial crisis. at the same time it is critical that the fed protect the savings of retirees and sound access to credit for consumers, small businesses, students and families seeking to own their own homes. for me service on the federal reserve would be a very natural progression, building on work that i've done previously at the treasury department, the white house, in academia and in the private sector. it would enable me to continue my life's work of promoting an economy that delivers opportunity for hard working americans while safeguarding financial stability. it's an honor to be considered for this position. if confirmed, i would look forward to working with members of this committee to advance our shared goal of making sure our financial system works for all
americans. thank you. >> thank you. mr. velasquez, please proceed. >> thank you. good morning, chairman johnson, ranking member crapo and members of the committee. i would like to start by introducing my wife emily and two boys sebastian who is 7 and javier who is 4. they were promised two candies if they behave well. i am grateful for their love and support which means everything to me. i'm honored to appear before you today as you consider my nomination as assistant secretary for the u.s. department of housing and urban development office of fair housing and equal opportunity. i came to this country in my mid 20s, have proudly become a citizen and have devoted the last 15 years of my life to
public service. my career has been marked by the pursuit of justice and the defense of civil and human rights for people from all walks of life. i'm committed to providing equal opportunity in combating discrimination and becoming assistant secretary for fair housing would be a tremendous opportunity to continue to fulfill that commitment. my commitments are based on my record as a leader, bringing people together. my experience in and knowledge of the field of non-discrimination laws, regulations and enforcement including fair housing and my management abilities, particularly with respect to streamlining the investigation of discrimination claims for careful analysis and expeditious resolution. most of all, i want to highlight my experience in finding every possible way to inform the public about the rights under the law. in my previous positions, i have demonstrated expertise in working with federal civil
rights laws, regulations and programs including title viii of the civil rights act of 1968 and many other federal and anti-discrimination laws in employment, education, public accommodations and publicly funded services and programs. i served from 2007 through october 2013 as director of the district of columbia office of human rights. in this capacity i have been ultimately responsible for the vestigation disposition of filed by individuals and organizations. i've also been responsible for helping establish or modify rules and guidelines to investigate and adjudicate employment in housing discrimination complaints under one of the most comprehensive nondiscrimination status in the country. the d.c. human rights act of 1977. .. so, i have studied and applied federal laws and regulations from hud and other agencies for consistency and the enforcement of civil rights