tv Washington This Week CSPAN May 4, 2014 3:56pm-6:01pm EDT
closed nearly every factory in my hometown of hamilton, ohio. we lost everything. my hunkles lost their jobs at the paper factory. how do you think politics of the federal government can help cities like hamilton, ohio, get back on their feet? >> i would have to know more about the community, but this is one -- you know, i told you we were going to talk about this next time, but this is one of these deals where the federal government can provide either tax incentives at direct investments to help. sometimes you can even solve other problems but the community has to decide where they're going to go. when hillary was secretary of state she spent a lot of time lobbying for american companies to be treated fairly and
contracts in foreign countries, and they would have affects like places in this town in ohio, but what the town in ohio does and how they chart their economic future it's something you have to do forever. you have to have a strategy. whiffs governor, i suppose he spent more time on economic development than anything else. the mississippi debta was the second part of the time after the indian reservations. there was a county in southeast arkansas, with two towns about the same size. one of them had 12% unemployment rate. the other had a 4% unemployment rate. same socioeconomic incentive because there were all these go-getters in the 4% town that just kept redefining the mission and kept finding new
possibilities and kept trying to make those possibilities. since you lost all those jobs. became very worried in my second term that the empowerment zones and all that stuff was great. harlem got an empowerment zone, and their unemployment was 24% when i took office an 8%. detroit got an empowerment zone. their unemployment rate, including the largest area was about 9.5% when i took office. barely over 6% when i left. you have to have a local strategy that somebody else comes to, so we pass this new market tax credit, and i would be shocked if more than 10% of you in this audience knew what
it was. it basically says if you go to a place and there are unemployment rates above the national average and the income is below the national average, you can get a 39% credit on your investment. >> particularly the places that have been hit with factory closings. i can't answer your friend's question without knowing more. i can give you really good ideas if i had two hours to sit and lisp to what the place looked like. i used to do that for living. that's what governors do. >> well, mr. president, we want to thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. thank you. thank you all. >> before we go, i have one
quick announcemen mrs. clinton leave the building. please, everyone, remain seated while our guests leave the building. thank you again on behalf of everyone here at georgetown. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> senator john hogan once the senate to vote on legislation requiring approval of the keystone xl oil pipeline from canada. the north dakota republican is our guest this week on newsmakers. the interview at 6 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> they went off and became
these incredible successes. not only were they the first women stockholders in the world to owner brokerage firm, not to be repeated for 100 years, they had a radical newspaper. they became lecturers. they were celebrities. they have headlines with just their names. like madonna or whatever. they were really very famous based on their beginnings with vanderbilt. just kept threatening them with blackmail. we are going to expose you. and then the mother started this ridiculous court trial in which victoria then husband wanted to put her -- wanted to kill her. went wild and wrote about this very trashy family. the sisters had been trying very
hard for two years to hide all of that. were inventing and reinventing themselves. they were not at all the least bit educated, but they said that if it helped they had moved on. they were willing to wreck their whole life just to get home to tell fortunes. there were some really rotten characters in the family, which i address. >> barbara mcpherson argues that too little remembered torry and sisters change the course of women's rights in american history, tonight at 8:00 on "una." -- q and a." >> general carlyle speaks tomorrow at the center for strategic and international studies about u.s. military strategy in the asia-pacific region. you can see his remarks, live, on c-span, at 11:15 a.m. eastern.
in the afternoon, a discussion on the russian intervention in ukraine, u.s. response, and role of nato, live from the center for strategic and international studies. you can see that at one: 30 eastern monday afternoon here on c-span. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go, with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels, or c-span radio, anytime. there is a schedule for each of our networks, so you can tune in whenever you want. play podcasts from our recent signature programs. take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online or your iphone, android, or black area. >> defense secretary chuck hagel on friday said that european allies should contribute more to nato and rely yes -- rely less
on u.s. military spending. his remarks are about 40 minutes. hilary997 my daughter, -- i have a hillary and my family -- a senior, she picked nato as hers senior thesis project. she called her mother in congress to get my assessment. i really had to think about it. agreedsessment had been upon. there was real enthusiasm. certainly in the united states congress. -19, a veryvoted 89 unusual vote these days, to ratify the addition of three countries to nato. been addeds have now through six rounds of enlargement since the end of the cold war. but there were also skeptics.
tom friedman, the writer, who is also a former wilson scholar thomas wrote an op-ed last month in which he quoted his 1998 interview with the then 94-year-old george kennan. "i think the russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. we have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way." so, moved to 2014. and the urgent challenge to de-escalate conflict and avoid miscalculation over events in ukraine and russia. nato expansion is again being scrutinized. topic, into the fold or out in the cold, could not be more timely or fit better with what the wilson center does well.
by canyon institute, headed matt ridge and ski, sitting right here in the corner, was founded by the kenyan family, scholar over 1400 alumni, 100 of which are currently on the ground in ukraine. our global europe program, headed by christian auster lynn, has hundreds of scholar alumni bordering the conflict zone. we have assembled a program today, including former officials from russia and poland , in key roles in 1994, along with wolfgang kissinger from the foreign office, the deputy assistant secretary of nato, and wilson center global fellow, cheryl cross. margaret warner, right over there, will moderate. here to keynote and kick off our conversation is secretary of defense, chuck hagel, who was elected to the senate in 1990
seven and voted for nato expansion. i checked. [laughter] remarks, he will take a few questions from the audience. secretary hagel, a close friend, is the first enlisted combat veteran to lead the department of defense. we all know the serving in government at the highest levels is a combat sport. was the afghanle drawdown, the pivot to asia, realignment of resources, and very tough budget constraints. issue is yetraine another urgent file and nato's capacity and future role are on the line. myself, of the defense policy board, i grappled on this issue with my colleagues earlier this week. than mine are struggling to figure out what the best answers are. fortunately, my daughter is not
writing her thesis now, or mom would have very little advice to give her. just returned a few minutes ago from a breakfast with german chancellor merkel, in town to meet with president obama, secretary hagel, and others. it is a good thing that she is here and no doubt the conversation will center on these topics. tough issues, tough guy. ready for the challenge, educated at the university of nebraska on the g.i. bill, a nebraska football record last -four, lessnine distinguished than the prior year's, with a few touchdowns for u.s. policy right now, that would be a good thing. so, to bring a smile to your face as we welcome you here and look forward to what you have to for thee is a scarf cornhuskers. go big red. [laughter]
please welcome chuck hagel, the 24th secretary of defense. [applause] >> should i put that on for the presentation? [laughter] jane, thank you. i'm always overwhelmed in your company, but now you've outdone yourself with a special nebraska cornhusker scarf. and by the way, the cornhuskers will have a better season this year. thank you. thank you, jane. and thanks to the wilson center for what you continue to do for our country and for world affairs. you bring thoughtful analysis and leadership to these tough issues. the world is complicated, as we all know. it's not getting any less complicated, nor is it getting any less dangerous. so your continued contributions
and leadership, as well as this institution, are very valuable and important parts to all of our efforts global efforts to find peaceful, wise resolutions to these difficult problems. to my friends here who were on the panel, always good to see you. thanks for your continued contributions, as well. and thinking and and for those here who have been in this business of analysis and thinking and writing for many, many years, thank you, and now is no time to stop. we're going to need everybody more than maybe ever in our lifetimes. expand and challenges expand. technology unprecedented change all over the world. but it is our time and we must not fail the world.
as jane noted i have known jane many years. we worked together in congress, traveled together. always admiring her judgment and ability and sharp analysis of issues and in particular i have already said bayard and respected them and particularly appreciated her directness. those of you who know jane well and most of you do know that she is very clear in what she believes and says it very plainly and that isn't altogether bad. i'd think if there was ever a time for plain talk in the world today respectful, respectful of each other and sovereignty in our interests in the world but we have to be clear with each other. jane has done that and i think
we all appreciate that inner leaders said jane thank you and thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about this issue. i know what your theme is this morning. it's particularly timely as well as valuable so thank you. the challenges facing nato today and calls for a need for this historic alliance. what we must do to strengthen it. 65 years ago after a long debate about america's role in the force -- post-war world -- at that at the house to witness president truman formally accepting and ratifying the north atlantic treaty. doing so present truman with prominent voices has been noted here this morning including those prestigious voices. those voices called for america
and in kenyans words to relieve ourselves gradually of the basic responsibility for the security of western europe. instead general eisenhower arrived in paris in 1851 as the supreme allied commander fear. by 195311 u.s. air force ranks and five army divisions and 50 navy warships had followed. militaries of nato nations began working together. it began working to integrate north american in the european strategy. america did not make commitments in search of monsters to destroy instead president truman joined the north atlantic treaty because he said he was convinced that nato would serve as a shield against aggression and the fear of aggression and thereby let us get on with the real business of government and society. truman joined the north atlantic
treaty because he was as he put it a simple document that if it had existed in 1914 and in 1939 would have prevented two world wars. america was committed to nato because nato would help protect vital american interests by reinforcing the unity of transatlantic security. nato would ultimately protect security and prosperity here at home with this alliance. a truth that i believe endures to this day. on the centennial of the start of world war i in the weeks before the 70s anniversary of allied landings at normandy russia's recent action in ukraine has reminded nato of its founding purpose. this prevented a clarifying moment for the transatlantic alliance. nato members must demonstrate that they are as committed to this alliance as its founding members were who built it 65 years ago.
they must reaffirm the security guarantees at the heart of the alliance. they must reinvigorate the inartful joint planning exercises and capabilities that are its lifeblood. and they must reaffirm from the mediterranean to the baltics allies are a commitment to the security of every ally is resolute. the longest most complex operations in its history and one that is strengthen the capability and the cohesion of the alliance. it also comes as we prepare for a nato summit this fall in wales which will be an opportunity to re-examine our nato militaries trained equipped and structured to meet new and enduring security challenges. after more than a decade focused on counterinsurgency and stability operations for nato must balance within renewed
emphasis on territorial defense with its unique expeditionary capabilities because as we have seen threats to the alliance me to start -- neither start or stop at europe's doorstep. emerging threats and technologies mean fewer and fewer places are truly out of the area. balancing a full range of missions will require nato to have a full range of forces from high-end systems where deterrence to special operations in rapid response capabilities. allied forces will must also be ready deployable incapable of ensuring our collective security. i said at the defense minister meeting early this year that we must focus not only on how much we spend but also on how we spend. ensuring we invest in the right interoperable capabilities for all nato missions. this will require the united states to continue prioritizing capabilities that can operate
across the spectrum against the most sophisticated adversaries and it will also require nato nations, nato nations to prioritize similar investments in their own militaries. since the end of the cold war america's military spending has become increasingly disproportionate within the alliance. today america's gdp is smaller than the combined gdp sabar 27 nato allies. but america's defense spending is three times our allies combined defense spending. over time this lopsided ergen threatens nato's integrity cohesion and capability and ultimately both european and transit linux security. many of nato smaller members of alleged to increase their defense investments and earlier this week at the pentagon i thank estonia renewed commitment
and nato. the alliance cannot afford for europe's larger economies and most militarily capable allies not to do the same particularly has transatlantic economies grow stronger. we must see renewed financial commitments from all nato members. rush is actions and ukraine have made nato's guy you abundantly clear. i know from my frequent conversations with nato defense ministers that they do not need any convincing on this point. talking amongst ourselves is no longer good enough. having participated in the nato defense ministerial over the last year and a half and having met with all of my nato counterparts i have, way recognizing that the challenge is building support, the real challenge, the real challenge is building support for defense investment across there governance not just our defense ministries.
defense investment must be discussed in a broader context of member nations overall fiscal challenges and priorities. today i'm there for calling for the inclusion of finance ministers are senior budget officials at a nato ministerial focus on defense investment. this would allow them to receive detailed briefings from alliance leaders and the challenges we all face. leaders across her government must understand that the consequences of current trends reduce defense spending and help them make up the fiscal impasse. the united states must have strong committed and capable allies. this year's quadrennial defense review makes this very clear. going for the department of defense will not only seek but increasingly rely on closer collaboration with our allies and in ways that will influence
you a strategic planning and future investment. for decades from the early days of the cold war american defense secretaries have called on european allies to ramp up their defense investment and in recent years one of the biggest obstacles to alliance investment has been a sense that the end of the cold war ushered in the end to history, and into in security at least in europe. and aggression by nationstates. russia's actions in ukraine shattered that myth and ushered in embracing new realities. even the united and deeply interconnected europe still lives in a dangerous world. while we must continue to build a more peaceful prosperous global order there is snow postmodern refuge for me into the threat of military force. we cannot take for granted even in europe the pieces
underwritten by the deterrent of military power. in the short-term the transatlantic alliance has responded to russian actions and continued resolve but over the long term we should expect russia to test our alliances purpose and stamina and commitment. future generations will note whether at this moment at this moment of challenge we summon the will to invest in our alliance. we must not squander this opportunity over shrink from this challenge. we will be judged harshly by history. by future generations if we do. nato should also find creative ways, creative ways to find nations around the world to help them adapt to collective security to rapidly evolving global strategic landscapes. collective security is not only the anchor to the transatlantic
alliance, it's also a model for merging the security of stations around the from africa to the persian gulf. i say this having just contained a form of asean defense ministers last month having called for a corporation no defense minister of this year. these institutions bring all of our people all of our interest in all of our economies closer together. serving as anchors for stability security and prosperity. strengthening these regional security institutions must be as centerpiece for america's defense policies as we continue investing in nato. as these institutions develop their own unique security arrangements they stand to benefit by learning from nato's unmatched interoperability and command-and-control systems. there can be no transatlantic asperity absent security but we must also keep in mind investing in our lives and our collective
security means more than just investing in our militaries alone. it means the united states and europe must partner together over the long term to bolster europe's energy security and blunt rushes course of energy policies. by the end of the decade europe is positioned to reduce its natural gas imports by more than 25%. u.s. department of energy has conditionally approved export permits for american liquefied natural gas that ad up to more than half of europe's gas imports from russia. it means deepening our economic ties and trade initiatives like the transatlantic trade investment partnership and that means continuing to exercise global leadership and shared values like human rights and the rule of law. but may conclude by reflecting on the historic decision 20 years ago to move toward nato enlargement which i know as jane
has noted is the a focus of this congress. some argue that nato enlargement invited russian aggression. critics called it a tragic mistake and an irresponsible bluff. some still do. the historical record now speaks clearly for itself and it makes clear that nato has sought partnership, not conflict, with russia and that enlargement has contributed to stability and security. no one wanted to replace europe's cold war dividing line with the new one
instead, it is affirmed the independence and democratic identity of new members. it did not crisis then or now. instead settled old disputes and advanced regional stability. promote freedom and free markets and is advance the cause of peace. that is why nato still holds the door open for aspiring members and why it must maintain partnerships with nations around the world. consider the alternative, a world without nato and the assurances of collective security. that world would have risked the enormous political and economic progress made within and between aspiring members. it would have risked a precarious european security environment in which today's central and eastern european allies would be torn between europe and russia. it would have risked in security reverberating deep into the heart of western europe and ultimately it would have rest a
europe less free. thanks to american leadership and thanks to some of the distinguished leaders here today as we will hear from this morning that is not the world we live in. yes the world is imperfect, yes we have challenges but we must reflect on what we have done as we prepare and build platforms and institutions to take on these new threats of the early 21st century. in 1997 i sat set on the senate floor that america europe and russia could all benefit if the nations of central and eastern europe are anchored in the security nato can offer. today the transatlantic alliance anchors global security. offers the possible antidote to the aggression and fear of aggression president truman warned against in 1949.
freedom stability and prosperity and well in door well into this century. in the next century but only if nations on both sides of the atlantic see this clarifying moment. two gears of 19 days after general eisenhower arrived in paris as a supreme allied commander in europe he was inaugurated as the 34th president of the united states. president eisenhower was as war weary as the american public and people all over the world. he had written to his wife mimi in his words that he constantly wondered how civilization can stand war at all. he would lie awake at night smoking cigarettes and the knowledge privately that there was not one part of his body that did not panic but in his first formal address as president ike insisted that america had to remain engaged in the world.
he said no nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effect if cooperation with fellow nations. in 1957 president eisenhower returned to paris where in his address to the first nato summit of heads of state he connected america's transatlantic commitments to vitality of our factories and mills and shipping of our trading centers are farms in our little businesses and to our rights at home, our rights to produce freely. freely think freely and pray freely. those who doubt the values of america's commitment several abroad should read -- recall that command because the impressive piece of prosperity we enjoy today is heartwarming and we must remember it is always perishable. as ike like to say it takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice by a lot of people to bring
about the inevitable. without deep engagement in the world america would face more conflict, not less and on the terms of our adversaries not on our own terms. that is why america's commitment to its allies in europe and around the world is not a burden it's not a luxury but it is a necessity and it must be unwavering. thank you. [applause] thank you. steve thank you very much secretary hagel for it remarks that would inspire the cornhuskers and the entire world. we will now take a few questions from the audience.
please identify yourself and i suggest that you stand up so we know where you are when you are speaking. questions? way in the back. >> hi. i agree with congresswoman harman on your inspirational speech. i want to know especially in light of enlargement in the balkans do you predict any sort of efforts being done to resolve those old disputes similar to the macedonia greece dispute which has prevented the country from joining nato over the last six years? thank you. >> well as you all know, that is an area of the world that is working its way through
difficult historical differences you know i think everyone here, much about those differences. i think progress is being made in those countries as they sort through those differences peacefully. and perfect. it's a challenge. it's a matter of continuing to make progress, build functioning, free democratic institutions, respect all the people regard as of their religion or their ethnic backgrounds created i think a lot of progress is being made. we have seen that i think in the definition of boundaries in nation-states as they continue to work toward democracy and self-government in a responsible way so i'm encouraged by that. i do think that nato, the
european union and those alliances have helped that. i referenced generally, not specific way, to the balkans but generally what i think nato has meant in my comments regarding we have fostered nato alliance in the european union. we foster that coming together in building on common interests. not our differences but build platforms. where do we agree and work agree and where can we benefit? we have differences and we have got that but we will never peacefully resolve differences without building institutions and platforms of common interest. it's the whole point behind the coalitions of common interest built after world war ii weather was denied nations or nato or imf or the bank that came out of bretton woods woods. all of that was about common interests so we didn't revert back into a third world war as
the third one would probably go a long way in destroying mankind with his sophistication of weapons. i'm encouraged, more to do but i'm encouraged. >> more questions? and it won up front are several in the back. how about in the very back. i can't really see what you are wearing so i can describe you. >> i'm a russian professor living here and i have a question about the historic relationship with nato and russia. 69 years ago in may of 1945 our countries together were celebrating victory against prussianism. now america changed as russia's enemy. what happened over these years?
thank you. >> well, i think you might want to address that question to some others as to what happened but i would answer your question this way. i said in my speech that during the process of nato enlargement and many of the strong arguments that were made and i use this as just one example to answer your large question of what happened. all different views about nato enlargement represented. i was in the senate at the time and jane was in the house. we spent a lot of time on this issue. we were all part of the debate at the time weather was in congress or outside. there was a tremendous amount of focus and effort on this examining all points of view. what were the consequences of enlargement and should we do it?
russia's response as a sort have been noted here but in my opinion the right decisions were made to go forward on enlargement. during that process there was a reaching out from nato members to russia. i referenced a couple of the specific target ships for peace. we have the russia nato meetings and that was done specifically to recognize that russia would i'm sure think that somehow this was a threat to them, their security and unique gove -- need not go back in history to far to get all that. i was not at the center of every decision but i was in the senate at the time on the foreign relations committee at the time,
traveled a lot on this issue and i know our government at the time and our allies at the time did reach out to the russians to try to reassure them that this was about common interests, not about our differences. i think we have had in the last 20 years especially since the implosion of the soviet union we have had ups and downs in the russia-u.s. relationship in the nato-russia relationship that we have had periods of cooperation as well. we do a lot of things with the russians and we have differences. obvious to what has happened in the ukraine as i made clear at least in my opinion and my speech, that was not nato aggression that brought this action songs. and so we will continue to do what civilized nations must do, protect their own interest but also to find wise diplomatic smart resolutions to
we both remember howard when did this time. this is something that created a completely knew opportunities. it was meant to be that a guarantee of our security, but it was also -- and until today the public opinion post indicated about 60% of folks believe that it was made of that would support and defend. however, believe that what has changed is that the very concept in which nato was operating loss for many years i would say this is a concept of the prisoner's dilemma, presuming you have two people that are sort of lock in the same tale. whether they will cooperate and
not, they would have their result. no of leave the question is the one of those entities is no longer in the same jail. to believe that this requires completely new strategic concepts. my question is how would you address it. [laughter] >> well, it's a very simple question. you deserve a simple answer. i noted that my remarks that we have sphere the nato summit of heads of state coming up in september. this obviously your question in everything that revolves around it will be much the centerpiece of the indigent for obvious reasons. i referenced on a number of occasions in more general terms
of my remarks about strategic shifts in allies and commitments and not only financial commitments but other strategic issues, and on the chin specifically the relationship with russia. always is when they have to be reexamined. institutions that don't ever stay status quo. yesterday is gone. we each get a day older. so on and so on. institutions of this i'm white. institutions must remain relevant to the challenge which is much of the theme of my point, as you all know. irrelevance to address the challenges there are before us and we anticipate will be in the future. that is constantly a reassessment of strategic interest assets, the strength of alliances, the strength of all
the nation's assets, not just the military. we can separate stability and security from prosperity. you can't have one without the other. and so, yes, we are going to go through the process. i think in the world is so hair trigger as we are living in today where there's very little margin for real bad decisions, not like it was 20 years ago, certainly for your 50 years ago. so we have to be very wise, stay from but was and how we implement our tremendous powers thinking not just about today and not tomorrow but how this all works out, where we want to end of little economic anything. that is going to require more and more alliance relationships. every nation will respond in its
own self-interest. that's predictable. in no nation should be held captive to the institution they belong to. edna every nation must protect its own interest. those interests are now wide and varied where they include the true interest which i referenced wise leaders on both sides of the it lifted after world war to understand that. in perfect, flaunt, can solve the problems. with examine the record here. in a expand this out. we haven't done too badly. there is not a world war three. i think on balance their more nations with more possibilities for freedom and trade.
still want to do, absolutely. as imperfect and what does the mistakes we make, on balance, we should not dismiss once going right and how we get the right things. the costs of evaluation of strategic interest. we very much appreciate what your country is doing and continues to do. frank carlucci is a very dear friend. i have often said that frank things that i exaggerate. former senators every century. an usher and portugal would in turn the in that immediate time the way it did in 1980 and 1979. he's amazing and a great public servants. thank you. >> please join me in thanking secretary hazel.
[applause] >> the next part of the program begins right now. >> tomorrow afternoon, on c-span, a discussion of the russian intervention in ukraine and the role of nato. live from the center of strategic and international studies here on c-span. >> c-span's newest book, a collection of interviews with some of the nations top storytellers. >> at the beginning of the war, when you are parent -- pressed into it, you are of holding the gun. when we went into our first battle, and i shot someone, that does something to you.
very difficult in the beginning, but after time went on it became easy. it became normalized. situationmalize the so that you can actually live through it, if you don't you die. >> one of 41 unique voices from 20 years of book note conversations. c-span, sundays at 8:00, now available at your favorite bookseller. >> senator hartman wants the senate to vote on legislation requiring approval of the keystone x oil pipeline. the north dakota republican is our guest this week on "newsmakers." he details his efforts to get the pipeline approved. you can see the interview at 6 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> when it went off there were these incredible successes.
were they the first women stockholders in the world, not to be repeated for 100 years, they have a radical newspaper, they spoke to 6000 people and more, they were celebrities. they would have headlines with just the names. they were very famous based on the beginnings with vanderbilt. the family just kept threatening them with blackmail, threatening to expose them. and then the mother started this ridiculous court trial in which she said that victoria's then wanted to kill her. the press went wild and wrote about this very trashy family. the sisters had been trying hard for two years to hide all of that.
they were inventing and reinventing themselves. they were not at all the least and they had moved on forward. changere willing to their life just to get her back in the fold to tell fortunes. there were some rotten characters in the family. rememberedle victorian sisters change the course of women's rights and american history, tonight at 8:00 on "q&a." >> next, german chancellor angela merkel talks about u.s. relations with germany and the transatlantic trade and byestment partnership, held the u.s. chamber of commerce, this is one hour.
am the president and ceo of the spine institution. i would like to extend a special welcome to those of you visiting our headquarters for the first time. the chamber is a 102-year-old organization. this building serves as a central rallying point for the ..s. business community we host several hundred meetings here in this room alone every year. room we are gathered in today, the international hall of flags, is rich in symbolism and history. afterom takes its name the overhead banners of 12 great explorers who blazed the first paths of trade. they planted the first seeds of commercial and industrial growth in the new world. these flags remind us that the transatlantic relationship has been around for a long time.
today, we are reminded just how essential this relationship is. alliance is.-eu critical to global stability, peace, and freedom. this has been proven time and time again throughout recent history. the world is always changing and the transatlantic partners are being test it in new and difficult ways. competitorsrtive who are vying for natural resources, human talent, markets, economic, and geopolitical influence. to meet these challenges, we must step up and offer strong, smart, and positive global leadership in commerce, diplomacy, geopolitics, security, and advocacy of our most cherished values.
if we do not, others will fill that void. this brings me to our special .uest chancellor merkel since she assumed the office in 2005, she has not only revitalized germany's massive economy, the largest in europe and the third-largest largest in the world, but has put u.s.-german relations on a sounder fruiting. she has displayed exemplary leadership on transatlantic issues. she has been a forceful opponent of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership which we call ttopip. it will set the gold standard for straight -- for trade that will ensure the free flow of capital talent and goods and data and will ensure a more level playing field by reforming procurementroles --
rules and forcing regulatory corroboration. with the chancellor on the importance of this agreement. we are pressing for its advancement every day in washington. we will hold for global conferences and key countries, including germany, to demonstrate to the business communities unity on this important ttip. chancellor merkel understands we need prosperity to pay for security and without security, we cannot have prosperity. is critical to strengthening the economic foundation of our alliance and that is critical to demonstrating our global leadership. that europeggested needs this trade agreement more than the united states does and that is fundamental nonsense. let me be crystal clear -- american needs europe and we
need this agreement for our own economy and to strengthen the partnership that has done more than any other to advance the liberty,prosperity, and peace in the world. the world is watching period from moscow to beijing, the actions of the transatlantic partners are being scrutinized very closely. is a time of uncertainty, there are some things we can be sure of. we can be certain that went united states and the eu at gather, we make a tremendous difference in world affairs. we can be certain that expanding our commercial relationship is key to our ability to exert global and lawrence. we can be certain that chancellor merkel will continue to provide real leadership and commitment to a stronger and deeper transatlantic partnership.
i had the honor of seeing the chancellor on the opening day of the world's largest industrial fair in hannover last month where she spoke out strongly about this relationship. it is my great pleasure to welcome her back to the u.s. chamber of commerce. we're looking forward to hearing her message. ladies and gentlemen, the chancellor of germany, angela merkel. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, i am delighted to be back in .ashington today i am equally delighted to be year at the u.s. chamber of
commerce. we look at the fact how we are linked. it provides the political context and economic context. our relationship rests on shared values and aren't shared interests. we know that only together can mass of the great economic and political challenges in this globalized world of today. about a quarter of century ago, 25 years ago, the berlin wall fell. the confrontation of the two blocks was prevalent during the days of the cold war and some even talk about the end of history as we know it. with the crisis of ukraine 25 orderafter, the postwar after his button to question. the rest on the acceptance of
the principle of territorial integrity. , borders arers at changed by someone pitting the law of the stronger against the law. it was due to the annexation of the crimean immense love but i am convinced in the end, the rule of law will prevail but we this --ff that does steadfastness in we need resolved to pursue our transatlantic partnership and standing up for our values. the since the beginning of crisis of ukraine, both europe and the united states gather -- together our resolve to stand up for a democratic order for
keeping the rule of law. by the ukrainian people a reason if they are to decide their own future. for the social orientation of the country. open.ains in ukrainesituation however be further destabilized, all of the partners in europe and the united states will not be weakened in their resolve. i discussed this issue with president barack obama. is most important event here the actions of the 23rd of may which actually take place on the same day as elections. ukraineir elections in
can read and reviewed -- can mean a new beginning. they can prepare the ground for constitutional reform that includes all of ukraine. whoever wants a good future for ukraine will contribute towards elections on the 25th of may taking place in a secure environment. the osce is giving a very important contribution to this. also, through the admission that we created just for ukraine. we must not forget overseas support for ukraine. the european union, the imf, the u.s., japan have earmarked a substantial financial support for ukraine. right now, all eyes are on ukraine. we must not forget the transatlantic partnership also
is called upon to bring a conflict. to the iran there is a settlement bring -- being brought about. they need to go beyond abiding by the geneva joint plan of action. it needs to match its words. notld iran and not -- fulfill his obligations, we continue to stand ready to actually call this abstention -- of the suspension of sanctions and adopt a more far-reaching sanctions. right now, i thought -- i think we ought to give them a chance. the civil war that has raged in syria for three years also calls upon us to stand together. catastrophe has taken the lives of many people already.
millions of people have been turned into wretched -- refugees. the region is in need. accept this state. germany is participating in the national protection mission that is to destroy the inhumane and a number of the chemical substances will be rendered unusable in germany. we cannot and must not accept the syrian tragedy the is -- because human rights and human dignity. be individual freedom and rule of law is indeed the foundation on which our countries on boats bass on both sides of the atlantic rest. this is the foundation that our partnership. as regards to debate armed
collection of data in germany and other countries, this turned out to be the case. -- in political responsibility is well aware of the wealth of intelligence is absolutely indispensable security safety and freedom are .eople we are responsible for the protection of our citizens against a terrorist threat. also, we are responsible for attacks against the privacy of our individual citizens and that is in tune with our shared values of freedom. we all know there has always been a conflict with each other. to strikere important a balance and redefine it bounced between individual rights and protection and security and safety. it issued today with the digital revolution.
our citizens are expecting that a state needs to abide by the principles of proportionality in all facets. --'s be blunt about this over the past few months, we've seen considerable differences of opinions and interests between germany and the united states over these issues. think we willi do not fully overcome those even after. we cannot actually come to a reconciliation just by contacts between the intelligence communities. a need to enter into political dialogue where we are clear about the dramatic changes in instances of the digital revolution, not only on the intelligent work, but generally around the changes that this means for our societies, the way we do business, politics. u.s. was initiate a dialogue between the two countries.
know thisfied to project. we need to be clear in our minds that it is a very ambitious task to have the potential of the international data flow, but also to see that we continue to be in a position to be able to protect the freedom of people. this is what democracies are all about, protecting individual rights, protecting the dignity of man, and protecting the safety and security. nutshell, andn a end never justifies the means in everything that is not technically feasible should be done. discussed on the balance between freedom and security and the rights of the individual. on.s a debate that is going in spite of all the differences, i continue to abide clearly by the principle that europe,
germany, and united states could not wish for a more reliable partner respectively than we have in the transatlantic alliance. the alliance is a prime importance to all of us and this is the basis for our very close economic cooperation as well. the transatlantic economic the whole 15ure on million jobs on that side of the atlantic. it is indispensable. german companies alone a great in more than 600,000 jobs over haveand american companies created 800,000 jobs as of now. the u.s. chamber of commerce is an eloquent testament to these very close integrations of our tool economic areas. the world has changed incredibly.
you have more of a political and theomic weight of economies, the overall framework of the g 20. the global financial and economic crisis as greatly impaired progress and growth in the countries which has a lasting impact. globally, we see a tightening of growth which is something we are very pleased to. of imf is excepting growth 3.6% and next year to 3.9%. reason for usbe a to be complacent. in europe and the united states, just as other industrialized countries, we are still facing very grave challenges. public --r too high the burden of unemployment. increasing competition on global a continued
vulnerability of the global financial system. to masterly be able those challenges if we continue to work closely on the basis of trust in the transatlantic the imf, the also world trade organization, the osce, and the framework of you 20. g 20. 20 -- the transatlantic economic council was established, not only on very important areas ability whichral contributed to a smooth operation between the business community. the nuclear us of a project that at the time by considered a champion many. the project to take negotiations
on the transatlantic trade agreements. , we arece that summer negotiating about the transatlantic investment and trade partnership. it is a key project of our transatlantic operation. draw the two economic areas, europe and the united states, closer to each other and it will strengthen both sides. ism very grateful that it good to promote this. of the europeans and united states have a very close free-trade agreement. further negotiations take place with other countries and that we ought to be able to forge a transatlantic free-trade area between -- i am saying on our behalf, we are to make this possible until the end of 2015.
it would be a very clear signal of our resolve to draw down barriers of trade in the conference of way. i would also be a very important impotence to the global economy and all. is crucial to be comprehensive on one's approach. to draw down the still existing barriers between the european union and the united states. there are no longer keeping with the times. we want to do more with trade. sides,ny decades of both there have been a number of standards and a number of regulations that have been promoted and put into place. due to this duplication of regulation on both sides of the upset by anyis not
benefits, high costs are concurred to a business community. company that wants to export of machinery to the united states today needs to have registered individual development.r so that they correspond with american specifications. the function of these individual components are typical. that is the sort of opportunity that is opening up for us to be .ctually free this is why we want to further liberalize public determined. we want to develop future oriented technologies and also
-- our two countries have a hard time trying to access the market. for a small or medium-sized brewery, because of the very difficult's rules, it is difficult for them. i am tempted to say you don't know what you're missing. ladies and gentlemen, looking at , we not onlyons concentrate on the top -- the companies. it is important that both benefits on both sides are benefited because a joint area
will lead to lower prices and to a broader range of products. we've been able to come to an trade andon mutual these kinds of food stamps have been made much easier. i know that many citizens in europe have been following negotiations with a skeptical eye. these negotiations can only be brought to a successful conclusion if we show a high degree of transparency and also if we try to enlist the support and participation, so it is important that both partners to the negotiations have made it clear that a free trade agreement will not lead to the drawdown of rules that protect the interests of consumers, of people who work, and the environment.
also the has to be some kind of leeway for future regulation because it is not the aim of this free-trade agreement to give a prominence to the interests of companies vis-à-vis the interest of citizens. the aim is to learn from each other, to be in close dialogue, perhaps promoting new standards that go a long way toward improving the standard of living of citizens of both sides. if we are able to do that then we will also be able to, the two of us together, to set standards for the environment and protection. we have power that we can wield in global communications. our partners in the wto are watching our negotiations with great attention. i can only assure you that our aim is and remains to come to as
comprehensive a drawdown of their years, we have seen that bilateral negotiations offer better opportunities. i am convinced that any progress we make in ttip will not only reduce prospects [inaudible] but increase it. there seems to be a new kind of spirit in wto. there was a large share in the success that was possible in bali. trade policy can only be one building block of a comprehensive strategy to release the forces for growth in our countries.
four other areas need to come into play. first, public budgets need to be put on a sound, sustainable level. the debt crisis we have seen in the euro area has shown us very clearly that durable prosperity can only happen on the basis of sound fiscal policy. in coping with the crisis in the euro area beyond any doubt, we have made important progress. we have adopted rules for a stable monetary union and important support programs for countries in need and building up a banking union of the european level. we now at the same time that the european crisis, the sovereign debt crisis is not yet overcome, at least not in a lasting way, the mistakes that were made more than 20 years ago when the european monetary union came into place have not been completely addressed. we have to continue to work on this and our objective needs to be we must never see such a
crisis repeat itself again. this is a long lasting exercise in europe and our partners outside of europe such as the u.s. and japan. i know this is part of your public debate. both europe and the u.s. are facing great challenges. the labor market, it the educational area, creating the most positive environment for investment. the task is the same. rendering our companies of holding their own in global company vision. europe and america can benefit a lot from each other and can learn a lot from each other.
europe and germany can learn from the u.s. in terms of giving seed money to innovative companies. i am please that apparently the good affairs we have made with our training scheme has been looked at very favorably here by the americans as well. what is also important to see is achieving a secure supply of affordable energy. we are interested to work together with the u.s. here. the ttip negotiations ought to give us an opportunity to deepen our energy cooperation. in europe when we look at the crisis in ukraine, we also think about how we can make ourselves more independent of unilateral energy supplies and gas delivery from russia. the transatlantic mentorship also offers great opportunities.
we are duty bound to make global financial systems more resilient particularly in the g 20. we have made great headway. there are a number of areas where we still have considerable need for further reform. i am much interested in seeing regulation, bout on the shadow banking sector. we need to also do more on regulations where we see to it that any financial institution that gets into difficulties and irrespective of its size can actually be [inaudible] without taxpayer money. you have made enormous strides here and we have made some progress. this needs to be continued. all of these foreign and security policy challenges can only be mastered if we act together. the transatlantic partnership is and remains also in future the crucial key to peace, freedom, security, and prosperity for all of us. it is particularly in this year,
2014, that we are more than aware of this fact. 100 years after the beginning of the first world war, 75 years after the beginning of the second world war, and 25 years after the fall of the berlin wall. we must never forget what a treasure for both peace and freedom, for peace in freedom, what a treasure this kind of venture is and we feel committed to cherish and nurture this treasure politically and economically in germany and america. this is what this great transatlantic partnership is all about. thank you for your attention. [applause]
>> that was wonderful. now we have a great chance to answer a few questions, and i will start to give everybody a chance to get settled. i really am very interested for message from you on the practical things that the business community in this country and the business community in europe can do on their own to go out and drive us closer and faster to this agreement. >> well, i think that at the end of the day, the business communities to feel committed to this aim.
i am assured of support i have seen [indiscernible] how can companies which those people who see so much concern, who are skeptical so i would ask you to talk to their own labor force and asked the companies to talk to their own labor force and bring home to them who actually in the world already has such a trade agreement and what benefit they can reap from this. they are not aware especially in the asian area that indonesia has and free-trade agreements with china. there are many others of this kind. we need to make it understood that we are not trying to cut down certain standards that have been achieved with a lot of work over time. we are trying to secure the future of what as we know it jobs as we know it in our countries.
it would be important to talk to trade unions in germany about this because they are able to do quite a lot for people they talk to. go out of the box if you like and not meet only with your own people because they all know your viewpoint anyway, but go outside, go and talk to the public. bring this to [inaudible] and companies have a hard time. they are looking after their own and their own interests. we have seen that in negotiations with korea. that is also the case with japan. what will this mean for us if the south koreans are able to penetrate our markets and so on. it is interesting that there is this south korean trade agreement. there is an enormous growth rate. the other bit of what they
feared has come to pass and that is what the industry in general needs to see. we made the experience that sets free-trade agreements revive business. >> we have been told i our labor unions that when we negotiate that we should negotiate labor standards that are like the european standards. we have been telling the labor unions we have got that done now so support this agreement. and we will continue to remind them. so one more question and then we'll go to the audience. in recent days in meetings here and meanings we have had with others, we talked about the effect that the circumstances in
ukraine on the negotiation of this trade agreement. will it compete it or will it stimulate it and perhaps even move it faster? >> it's not going to get any more difficult. whether it is easy is something the jury is still out on. on energy, i think you may well have a positive effect, actually. that is where i see possibly the greatest benefit. we're currently talking a lot about what sort of lessons do we learn and particularly here in washington, i understand you are talking about the next sanctions, the next possible step. we ought to join forces.
barack obama and i were saying we want to bring about a good solution. we should not underestimate present sanctions already taking effect, have an effect. they have an effect that goes far beyond the sanction proper because right now, corporation with an economic area such as russia, which basically seem to be moving up, getting more intensive, getting better is called into question and the question of whether a company would invest in russia into the future, that is something that now they would have second thoughts about. we in europe have imposed sanctions that have taken effect and work for six months but in europe there will be a rethink on their own energy supplies.
they do not want to continue to be 100% dependent on russia. it may well be that the long-term, looking at the energy supply also in the united states, we may well have much closer cooperation with you. people have to be told if we do not have a free trade agreement , it will take a very long time before we can have the first deliveries of liquefied natural gas. and when we have a free trade agreement, -- this could go a long way toward convincing european countries. >> thank you. this is a very unique sitting arrangement because usually i can see over the lights. because of the press, we have extra lights.
for the people in the first rows, we're going to have to put you on your best honor. well, i can see you. who would have the first question? going once. you had better put your hand up or i will start the next question. over there. thank you. when you stand up, you introduce yourself and where you are from so the chancellor might know what you really want to ask. [laughter] >> i will do it in german. i come from berlin. thank you for your clear words on ttip. you mentioned there were discussions as regards lowering of standards and other issues mentioned that is something that is talked about back home and the lack of transparency of those negotiations.
this scheme is discussed at a very controversial matter back home. what is your viewpoint on this? >> we reacted in a very reserved way in regards to a particular area of investment protection. it has been blown a little bit out of proportion. that, in a way, stands for something that we need to do, we need to do more. we can do without this if it is not needed. if it is needed, we need to do it. there are individual components taken up by people who are skeptical, who want to use this by proving that something that is dear to our hearts back home, it is in many ways impaired by this agreement.
if you talk to people about free trade agreements we have with other countries, that goes a long way toward addressing such skepticism. we must be aware that during the whole of these negotiation process, people will tend to highlight different aspects and explain there is something horrible happening. we need to be transparent and explain more. negotiations cannot be happening at an open stage. one has to protect one's own interests as well. one should not be too secretive about it either. so that people are worried about our holding something from them. again, try and say there are other trade agreements and tell
people you were fearful than but these fears were not justified. >> very good. right there. >> the history of sanctions are pretty clear. if sanctions are truly multilateral, there is a chance of success. if sanctions are unilateral, companies or countries often try to game the system to win temporary advantage at the expense of the companies that are under great restrictions. where we stand today is the u.s. has more strict sanctions and other countries. how can the united states and germany be on the same page with the same sanctions so that we have a chance to really make a difference with truly multilateral sanctions where the
major countries have the same restrictions on their companies so that there is a chance to move forward? >> well, after all, we try to coordinate very closely. there are very different sorts of situations in place in europe and the u.s. but we have been able to align our policies pretty well. what is the difference? one difference is -- we are not talking about companies now. we are talking about sanctions against individual persons, the american laws are different than those in the eu. in the eu we can impose sanctions on persons that have direct responsibility for what is happening on the peninsula or what is destabilizing. in regard to iran we have always been shot down by the courts
when we went too far in their minds. we are currently working in the eu on such a legal framework and trying to broaden that somewhat and making it somewhat similar to what you have in the united states. secondly, in europe, we have 28 member countries. we have to come to unanimous decisions over anything that we plan to do. the impact that sanctions have also, by way of repercussions on member countries, are very different. if you talk about possible financial sanctions, germany is not particularly affected. if you talk about energy sanctions, germany is a little bit more effect it. in europe we have an interest if matters come to such a pass that we need to go further that we have a mix of sanctions where each and every country suffers a little bit.
not one country suffering a little bit and not one country suffering at all. in europe, we have possibilities to do things -- we have worked with russia and we give them credit lines and also european bank investment. we could take a moment and think whether we should not do certain changes as regards the way we treat russia. that is something the u.s. is not able to do. there is not 100% alignment between what we do but there has to be some kind of fair balance. that some companies are affected 100% and some not at all. the eu is careful in preparing work and looking at that aspect on the whole, trade between europe and russia obviously is
much more closely developed then trade between the u.s. and russia. >> show we go to the side? we shall move back here where they seem to have people with more questions. how much time do we have? 10? great. back there. >> i am a russian journalist. i'm hearing from my friends who work in germany that the business community is against sanctions. they do want to go to saint petersburg and take part in the next meeting. what do you say to your own business community?
>> i think -- i do not know if that is the case in any other parts of the world. people who want to do business and that is what the business community is about. i am not exactly longing for sanctions. in germany,some people are also against sanctions against iran. that is true now for russia. all of the top ceos of the business community and industry have said if that is the case if you decide on that than we will abide by your decisions and the community knows this. although they have envisaged a different kind of relationship. if two years ago you had asked me whether we would discuss such issues today, i would have said that is not very probable. one needs predictability. and one needs certain framework conditions for investments.
so, many in the business community -- i cannot talk obviously reliably on their behalf -- but many of them are aware that reliability and the basic acceptance of the european postwar order, namely territorial integrity, is a very important thing and the business community in doing business cannot completely neglect that. they will not be enthusiastically owed -- excepting that but they are open. there are possibilities there. let us work together with russia for the elections taking place in ukraine on may 25 so ukrainians are in a position to decide their future course of their country themselves and we do not need to introduce her -- further sanctions. no one is longing for that. do you think politicians like to talk about this? we cannot just sit back and watch. basic principles that ought to be prevalent in europe are being brought into question.
and since the first sanctions have been actually suspended against iran, the german business community was happy. it would be a strange community that is longing and working for sanctions. don't be under any illusions. the german business community, should we have to impose sanctions, will abide by them. >> i wanted to add that in the u.s. we hear from many of our companies the same thing the caterpillar representative said. it should be balanced and there should not be people taking advantage during sanctions. people understand that if we do not deal with this challenge in an orderly and a broad-based way, we will deal with lots of other, more difficult challenges. i believe, as the chancellor
said, that the leaders of the american business community will rally around this collaborative approach to dealing with the problem in the ukraine, and we will make sure that they do. we think we can take one or two more. someone else. right there. someone is bringing you a microphone very quickly. thank you. >> thank you. i am with the european union delegation. as you have seen yesterday, there was the report [inaudible] a big review on big data commissioned by obama that was just released in the report goes much beyond just the question of intelligence, of course, addressing what can we do with this data, what are the challenges and opportunities for our economies and our societies. i would like to have your views about how do you see the future
in this area, also in cooperative terms of both sides of the atlantic on how can we strike the right balance between privacy and security on economic opportunities? thank you. >> thank you. i believe that the current debate in the u.s. has actually already taken effect. the american president issued a presidential order making a few changes and now the question is obviously what does this mean for citizens outside, people outside of the u.s.? the interim debate has shown first results. i think it is a good thing that between germany and the united states, there is a good thing that a cyber-dialogue will take place. we will look at a data
management and questions, how do we use the data, what sort of attacks are we open to and vulnerable? in europe, we have to admit we have the following problem. we are developing a lot of these technologies no longer in europe these days. those that are behind those, the drivers of this particular line of technology are either in asia or, more importantly, even in the u.s., so we need to find ways to be in a position to give our own contributions to this technology and it will be easier for us also to set standards and how to use them. it is easy to make best possible use of such technologies and in the end complain that there is not some kind of standard that
governs how they are used. we need to be out there developing our own. there needs to be a dialogue on this. the foreign ministers will walk on this. i will personally be involved and -- >> we are now going to take the last question. we will go to the side. back there. >> i am marjorie krause. thank you very much for your remarks. i was interested in the comments about energy security and how those efforts are moving forward, and i understand what is going on is going to help in the longer-term. i just wondered if you could comment on any shorter-term vulnerabilities that europe will face until some of the new terminals and pipelines, online that will create a better path for energy security in the
future. >> it is not actually for the first time that in the context of ukraine we have been working on the better and more secure energy supply and better connections within europe as regards the pipelines. a few years ago, we already had a first gas supply crisis. they were difficulties between russia and ukraine in wintertime. slovakia did not receive any gas. at the time, we said we will explore the phenomenon of reverse flow which enables you to also supply countries with gas that may not directly be connected to the pipeline. we have tried to take measures that will avoid such a situation recurring again where other countries are cut off from supplies.
poland is doing that sort of scheme right now. due to -- we have also tried to supply ukraine because there is a possibility of this reverse flow barrier. 50% of deliveries to europe from russia come through the ukraine so there is a high dependency there and we are closely linked because we have gas storage tanks in ukraine which in summer needs to be replaced so that -- in winter, you have sufficient gas to supply europe. now, we have to look at the individual dependence of individual countries. we have 37% dependence on gas. six countries are 100% dependent. there are other european union members that are more than 50% dependent on russian supplies. we have to increase the building of energy terminals, for
example, as a means to avoid further dependence. we have a third framework on the single market energy package on the table in europe. even an owner of a pipeline will not be allowed under that scheme to use the pipeline only for his own gas, but there are certain features of that capacity that he can use for his own supply come but the rest has to be tendered for a public bidding process to take place, and you have to see that others use the pipeline so there is not a monopoly. this leads to russia being interested in seeing the pipeline being used more from russia, and there is one measure we have taken. these negotiations were stopped on how they can be used by russia because we said we want to see further political
progress before we relaunch that communication. we have done something and we are going to continue to work in that direction for a five- to 10-year plan to think how to do this. also, a polish proposal of also developing more of a clout as regards consumer position. we have individual contracts with russia for individual member countries, but we can also pool our markets which will then render a stronger consumer and call for uniform gas prices for the whole of europe. it is a broad range that goes from $300 to $490 per cubic -- per thousand cubic meters, and that is the same gas supply that is sold to individual countries by individual companies. >> chancellor, we have a lot of
guests that come to the chamber. this has been an extraordinary and important visit you have paid us. we are very anxious to know when you will be coming back. the sooner you come back, the sooner we can keep pushing this forward. we want to thank you very much for visiting. i want to thank you very much for your very candid and very helpful comments, and we want to thank your colleagues and your associates for everything they did to help put this event together. we look forward to seeing you again very soon. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the north dakota republican is our guest this week. he details his efforts to get
the pipeline approved. he can see the interview of the clock p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the woman went off and became credible successes. face up to 6000 oh. they were celebrities. they had headlines with just their names. like madonna or whatever. they were really very famous base on the beginnings with ben they said the victorious then husband wanted to put her in the asylum.
they went wild and wrote about this. they were trying to hide all that. they were reinventing themselves. anything that would help than they have move on for were. they were willing to wreck your whole lives just to get back in the fold. they had a lot of characters in the family. she argues that too little remembered victorian sisters change the course of women's rights in american history. >> met from this morning's washington journal, a look at u.s. military strategy toward china.
>> this is the former system for strategy development the officee secretary. >> i work for the deputy assistant secretary of defense. that is an actual title for strategy. strategy. the job of our office was to help develop the long-term ofense strategy in terms what types of forces the u.s. military out to be developing, engagement with foreign partners, overseas deployments, and those sorts of things. host: was there a region of the world you focused on? guest: i mainly focused on the asia-pacific region. because aring it on
headline to our attention. here it is. could you give a sense of what you think about the headline as far as the flexing and why we are so concerned about china? guest: i thought it was an interesting headline. what they described was the usual menu of options available in response to certain types of actions by other countries. i am not sure if it was a reporter looking for an angle it wastory or whether someone in the administration trying to say we have this menu of options, everything is on the table, we are well-positioned to respond to anything. host: as far as the exercises, what goes on? guest: we have our normal land exercises land a year or two in advance. like amething comes up couple months ago when china announced a zone over the east
china sea and the u.s. directed the b-52's to fly through that to demonstrate to china it could not unilaterally impose rules on the rest of the world in that region. host: in essence, china laying claim to this portion of the sea? guest: it is an interesting question. air defense identification zone's are common throughout the world. the united states has one that surrounds all of north america. japan has one as well. china has not previously extended these zones. they announced the zone not covering the entire periphery, but this one check -- section of the east china sea. air defense zones are common throughout the world. appeared to have significance as it extended over a set of islands in dispute between china and japan. host: what does it say that they
and its, about china military strength? that hasis is an issue achieved new salience the last couple of years dating back to 2012 when the japanese thesement was concerned islands controlled by japan would be sold by the private owner to the governor of the tokyo prefecture, who was well known as a right-wing nationalist. there was concern about what would happen to those islands if they were in the hands of this governor. the japanese government chose to buy them itself. an attempt by as japan to solidify its claim over the islands. that is the origin of the current dispute. host: as far as our response is concerned, the story says
possible strategies include arrange and display of flights near china, aircraft carriers in coastal waters, and more. guest: i think this is meant to let the chinese know that if you do things, we have things we can do. none of these are intended to be pescatore or provoke confrontation -- escalate tort -- escalatory or provoke confrontation. it is just to say if you want to assert your military power, we have plenty of errors in our quiver. host: do we know how strong china's military power is? guest: that is an interesting question. military power is complicated. you cannot boil it down to a single number or measure. people in the u.s. defense department study it carefully. i think the assessment would be
china's military power is increasing, but there are a number of significant weaknesses that remain highly problematic for the chinese military. host: such as? guest: a couple of things i would highlight. one is their organization and culture. they still have a soviet style top-down military organization. that is not well-suited to the types of military operations nations like to conduct today where you need a lot of initiative at the frontline level on the part of individual commanders. there are questions about logistics capabilities. they have shortcomings in training and quality of personnel as well. host: our guest is roger cliff of the atlantic council here to talk about china's military and u.s. sponsors -- responses. we have numbers for democrats,
independents.nd you can send us tweets and e-mail. roger cliff, talk about spending. how much does china spent on its military? guest: i think the most recent offense budget is about $150 billion. the u.s. budget is over $500 billion. they still only spend less than 1/3 of what the u.s. spends on military. we believe there are parts of china's defense spending not included in the official budget. if you added those, they would increase by another 30%. its overall defense spending is nowhere close to that of the u.s. this is what i am talking about when i say it is hard to boil down military capability to a single number. the defense budget is not a good measure of the capabilities of the military. china has a more simple military problem than the u.s.
u.s. has worldwide military commitments. china is focused on its own backyard, the asia-pacific region, so it is able to concentrate its development of military capabilities on those specific problems. it has not invested huge amount of money -- amounts of money and long-range -- and long-range assets like aircraft carriers. they have one now, but that is something they have been working on slowly. they don't have heavy bombers that can fly around the world like we do. they don't have huge fleets of refueling aircraft and those sorts of assets. has: president obama announced working towards a change in asian strategy. is there a connection between china's response as of late and that interest in asia the united states is taking? guest: the pivot to asia predates the recent actions by
china. the pivot, now called the rebalance, was announced in late 2011. more recent actions out of china, there have been things brewing in the region for some time. the most recent things going on have not stimulated the pivot, but certainly reinforced the sense in washington this is something important we need to follow through on >> a look at the upcoming midterm elections. our guest is nathan gonzalez of the rothenberg political report. then a conversation on tax credits that benefit large corporations. "washington journal" live with today's headlines every day on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can now take c-span with
you wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime . there is a schedule at each of our network so you can tune in when you want, play podcasts of "afterwards"like and "q and a." download your free app online for your iphone, android, or blackberry. the women win often became these incredible successes. not only would they be the first woman stockholders in the world to own a brokerage firm, and they had a radical newspaper. they became lecturers. they spoke to 6000 people and more.
they were celebrities. they had headlines would just their names. it was like madonna or whatever. they were very famous with their beginnings with the vanderbilts. the family kept threatening them with hotmail. we're going to expose you. what the past is like. the mother started this ridiculous court trial and what that the tories then husband wanted to put her in an insane asylum are wanted to kill her. the press went wild and wrote about this very trashy family. the sisters have been trying very hard for two years to heil that. they were reinventing themselves. they were not at all the least but educated. they said they were. thaning that would help they have moved on forward with. they were willing to their dust to -- willing to wreck their
whole lives. some really rotten characters in the family. >> she argues that too little remembered victorian sisters change the course of women's rights. >> joining us on "newsmakers," senator john hoeven, republican of north dakota and member of the senate energy committee. joining us for the questioning is matthew daly, who covers energy and environmental issues for the "associated press," and niels lesniewski, staff writer for "cq roll call." this week, the senate is taking up, presumably, the keystone xl pipeline. you are at 57 votes. how do you get to 60? >> it is a challenge because the democrat leadership in the senate and the white house are pushing back hard. i have got a bill that approves the project. we updated it.