tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 12, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
my employer got letters regarding garnishing my wages. my senator verified it could not be discharged. my warning had gone through a bank which i had thought was a bank loan and not necessarily a federal loan and i just wanted people to know, they pay for the rest of their lives. thanks. any final thoughts on for-profit universities, anything we have not covered today? guest: do your homework, know what you're getting into. , here to talkkorn about for-profit universities and student loans. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you so much. it for ouris program. another one comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. ♪
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> here is a look at what is ahead today. live in about 30 minutes, we will bring you a discussion on u.s. russia relations and the 2016 campaign hosted by this center for global interest live at 10:30 eastern. today forouse returns a busy four-day workweek appeared on the agenda, legislation to expand the ability for the veterans affairs employees based on performance and misconduct and also a measure prohibiting the defense department from transferring a release on guantanamo detainees in the u.s.
the house will be back for legislative is this today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. live coverage is here on seized and. the senate will resume consideration of a bill with a vote set for 5:30 eastern. negotiations continue behind the scenes to give operating past the december 30 headline. back at 3:00 p.m. eastern. watch live on c-span two. ,he topic of a meeting today roll call reporting today that president obama invited house and senate republican endemic addict leaders for the meeting today to discuss the administration's priority of the september session. the white house is confirming that end of year spending would be on the meeting agenda. that is set for 4:10 today and we will keep our eye out for any news following the discussions. , libertarian presidential
candidate gary johnson and his running mate had a campaign rally this past weekend in new york city. he explained why it is important to a third party candidate be in the debate. needs 15% in the national polls. >> thank you. i know you are thinking for yourselves or you would not be here. you will help us change the channel on this horror movie, argue? -- aren't you? larry sharp had a number of questions for you and i have got one little teeny question. are you in? a number of questions for you and i have got one little teeny question. that is good to hear. the days since may have really flown by for me. they have been a pure joy. that isthe reason for gary and i have known each other
for a long time. it did not hurt that we have the same value system and the name you of the world that we think governments, like households and individuals, should balance the checkbook at the end of every session. [applause] mr. weld: i should not have to say that and it should not be an applause line except the concept is utterly unknown in washington, d the gary and i also feel it is the essence of democracy and the kind of society that we want to that the individual shall not be thrust into a corner. [applause] that translates in politics to a bunch of issues and each of us have not hesitated to be outliers over the years.
teri was an outlier for 10 years on the question of legalization of marijuana, a relatively harmless -- [applause] mr. weld: i was out there for the full decade of the 1990's on gay and was in issues. ii started my first month in august. i appointed as a judge the woman who wrote the initial opinion holding that marriage equality is constitutionally compelled and that became the basis for the supreme court decision and i am proud of that. [applause] mr. weld: so gary and i have had a great run already and it will continue to be a great run. there are only two down and those are the chess games but it has been a real treat to get to
know each other better. we had a great run out west of rallies and more recently a run in new england and it is in mydous to be here native new york city as well. so thank you. [applause] mr. weld: in addition to being pure joy, this adventure of ours also has the character of being a patriotic duty as well. why? turn on your television screen and look at any evening you care to and you will see two people .creaming at each other it is not reality tv but unfortunately, it is reality. the two candidates, they really seem to have gotten just about everything wrong. their discourse is not constructive at all.
7%h of them has close to negative favorability ratings. never heard of an unfavorable rating over 50% before. that record has been shattered and then shattered again. it is not just that. , the what is behind that partisan rancor and people getting more and more extreme and refusing to listen to each other. when i first worked in washington, it was for the senator in new york -- thank you for that. when someone was going to give an important speech in the senate, the galleries of the senate were full of spouses, friends, interns, whatever because everyone was there to listen and see whether or not they would be persuaded. now when there is an important speech to begin them, it is at 3:00 in the morning with the tells -- the television screen
not allowed to let you see there is no one else in the chamber, just the speaker. , filling thetcha news trough, technical game. the two parties in washington seem to live with no other thought than to its -- to destroy each other rather than getting the people's is this done. [applause] mr. weld: these are the same two parties who believe they have a divine right and a hammerlock on the presidential election or selection cycle and that no one should be listened to very much except for someone who has an r or a d next to the name. it is not that they deserve that. that is partly what is at issue in the question of debates. we have an saying until quite recently we take there is a
majority chance the commission will do the right thing. [cheers] [chanting] mr. weld: one reason i have been so confident the commission would do the right thing is we can get there organically through the 15% and 76% of people in the united states want us on the debate stage. [applause] mr. weld: the function of the commission is supposed to be education of the public. they are a tax-exempt nonprofit. avoidingre not partisan positions, they will
lose tax exemption and i think they understand that. thought they would clearly do the right thing. if they don't, i think there will be something of a national of war and people will be outraged that -- outraged that the fix is in. [applause] mr. weld: so i have been thinking ahead in my mind about what would happen if that did happen and they did the wrong thing. i think they would be tarred and feathered and run out of time -- run out of town on a rail figuratively speaking in the press. every day that the system is shut down and full discourse is day thewed is a national media can comment on that. the reason without the debates were so it essential is that will be saturation media coverage of the candidacy every day between september 26 and
november 8. there is a national of her and reaction to the shutting down of favor of the two monopoly organizations in washington that are not really doing is any good, that media go untilmay very well election day anyway. there is a scenario where gary the debatetside of hall, answering in real time, the same questions that have been put inside -- [applause] that out liveing on facebook. that could be reaching scores of millions of people at one time. gary and i have a wonderful time recording these amusing web videos. the first thing we did was a little over 60 seconds long.
it was seen by over 16 million people. that is a big number. what we do put out these days on the web is reaching 30 million people. i think there is movement out there and i felt it in my political bones. i do have some. three weeks ago when the adrenaline began back into my bloodstream and i started to notice when i was in -- walking through, he was being absolutely mobbed. sosa -- something is happening out there. [applause] mr. weld: i think the situation is serious but the ice is beginning to crack. what will we do about it?
what are gary and i in particular going to do about it? .e will win the election [applause] win"]ing "we can the reason i say that is we have winning arguments and i think the american people are curious. they seem star for information so they will listen and this is what they will hear. gary johnson and bill wells are two term republican governors of juststates who seceded succeeded democratic governors and put the fiscal house into order in a matter of months. [applause]
mr. weld: that is kind of what needs to be done in washington .c both other candidates have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of going anywhere near putting the fiscal house of the government in order. they will not touch entitlements. they will increasing -- increase spending here and there. are not serious about doing what has to be done. gary and i have both done it. it is not impossible. all that is required is political will. inot 71% of the vote massachusetts on my reelection. that is a big number. [applause] mr. weld: mr. trump has no government experience whatsoever. it consists of saying "believe when whate me," even
he is saying is top of be ridiculous -- palpably ridiculous. [laughter] mr. weld: mrs. clinton has a little bit in the state department but not the type i am talking about, truly executive asked. demanding political will and reversing decades of neglect and bad practices. the most either of them could say is i hope to do the same as these two governors did but hope is not a plan. to do exactly what was done before. that is the first thing the voters will hear and i think it is persuasive. [applause] the second thing they will hear is on the merits, we represent a mix of policy commitments not represented by either other party. no one would view the demo at a -- beingteeing
fiscally responsible these days. the taxes will go up and spending will go up and nothing could be clearer than that. similarly, mr. trump is the head of a party which tries to be as mean-spirited as possible. they had a mean-spirited platform before they got to cleveland and then they amended it to be more mean spirited. mr. trump has set up from the beginning to hit -- pit group against group. i in general are optimistic about the country and america's aspects and we think we are well positioned as a country. one thing that troubles me is mr. trump and others have succeeded in hitting group against group and they are doing the opposite of what president reagan did, make people feel good about being an american. mr. trump seems to think his job
is to make people feel that about being american. that is no way for a presidential candidate to act. the voters will hear from us that we are optimistic and we will go to washington and appoint libertarians and republicans and democrats who .gree with us on the issues that has a better chance of getting something done in washington than a continuation of the poisonous sleep partisan rancor that characterizes it right now. so we get more work done in washington and i think that will be persuasive as well. [applause] mr. weld: the polling shows 60% , system --le fiscally responsible and socially inclusive. we have got
a six lane highway going right up the middle of the electorate, and talk about an addressable market. once the message is heard and people are focused on us, whether we are inside or outside the debate hall, easier if we are inside but not impossible if we are outside, the point is focus and name recognition and then list and, and we are all happy you are here today. once that happens, we think the people will not go to one extreme or the other and we will not be brainwashed by what is coming out of washington dc and we will win the election. [applause] mr. weld: at the end of the day, the last reason i have such confidence that we will win the my ticket made.
-- mate. it gives me pride to introduce you to the next president of the united states, gary johnson. ♪ mr. johnson: thank you, thank you. thank you. thanks, thanks. really. wow. gary!"]g "gary! mr. johnson: thank you, thank you. thank you. look, i want to start off with an apology to all of you. gaffe.le aleppo hard and werk so care so much about the issues
and i want you to know that i really care about these issues. i care about the fact that american men and servicewomen are losing their lives, they are areing injured, that they coming back with afflictions we need to deal with perhaps the rest of their lives. i care about the fact there are innocent tens of thousands of people getting innocently killed around the world because of our military policy and it is not intentional on our part but there is an opportunity to bring peace to the world and all of us care about this so much. whole what ishe aleppo and i am sorry about that. but listen. the issue is, everybody wants to , that thef the gaffe issue is here we have at the epicenter of this. in crisis, we on one side, the
free syrian army on the other side, when we are supporting, islamistsllied with we are inalive with, free syrian army and they lose their weapons so the islamist gets the weapons. then isis, aligned with the kurds but they are sideways to with our ally turkey not as much as an ally as they were because we invaded iraq. [applause] mr. johnson: this is what we are so concerned about. this is what we are doing throughout the world. the unintended consequence of us supporting regime change that
has made the world less safe and not more safe. [applause] right now, on the eve of 9/11, something that profoundly affected all of our lives, garrett goodman -- garrett goodwin is here with us, who was combat medic 9/11 ground zero at the pentagon -- the pentagon and then came here to new york and work days, starting24 on the 12th, a representative of thousand people like himself. we all can together for new york. you are here and you saw it. please just wave your hand. thank you for being here. yes. yes. yes. thank you.
[applause] that is who we are as a people. that is who we are. this is the craziest election ever. it is. it is crazy because even in spite of aleppo, i think i will be the next president of the united states. [applause] mr. johnson: i do. gary!"]g "gary! mr. johnson: and beyond my wildest dreams, beyond my wildest expectations, bill weld he isrunning mate and
somebody who passionately cares about this country and the direction this country is going and made an incredible difference as governor of massachusetts, being a role model for me throughout the whole process. bill and he has called me honest gary. we will trye names to adopt for ourselves. adversity. we all make mistakes, right? are part of everyday life. but it is how you deal with mistakes that ultimately .etermines success [applause] so tell the truth. you do not have to remember anything and the unforgivable in life is hypocrisy. [applause] saying one thing
and doing another, bill weld and i are not hypocrites. [applause] of us believeoth in entrepreneurs. both of us believe all of us have the opportunity to be entrepreneurs. all of us have the opportunity , not toe our own jobs laugh, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. deal with it. it is how you deal with it. [applause] mr. johnson: sometimes i think there is a conspiracy. i get all wound up on television and then all of a sudden, satellite need meringue loosely goes away.
goes away.usly but believing in entrepreneurship, really. all of us. if there is advice i would have for everybody in the room, my advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it, which is nothing, but my advice is whatever it is you do, apply it entrepreneur late. there will never be a greater reward. create your own job, create jobs for others here at does have a role in all of this. government can make it easier, not harder. now, -- [applause] right now, the government works to make that as difficult as it could possibly be. model of the future, which is incredibly exciting, is the sharing of the economy.
, it is over, everything. uber electrician, over dr., eliminating the middleman, allowing for u.s. the provider of goods and services to directly give them to the end-user, they pay less, you make more. i think we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg with regard to where this will go. [applause] government can play a role in this, making it easier for that to happen as opposed to making it harder. what bill weld and i are going to bring to the table more than anything else is just, certainty, that taxes will not approached were given tax reduction, we will always sign off on tax
reduction, certainty when it comes to rules and regulations, your and my ability to live our lives more soon late income liens of course with being good human beings, that we will be able to do that. [applause] mr. johnson: so there are three innarios, three outcomes this election right now. one is that trump gets elected. one is that hillary gets one -- ifnd is either either one is elected, does anyone believe it will get any better? worse than ever. scenario three, bill weld and i, libertarians, get elected. [applause] bipartisan:
administration, democrats, republicans, libertarians, everyone can be libertarian leaning but calling out to both sides to come to the middle and deal with the issues we are facing in the country. i think the third scenario is the only scenario that even has the remote possibility of succeeding. i think it goes beyond remote. i think it has a chance of succeeding in a big way changing the worst of the country moving forward. libertarians, common sense, keep government out of the pocket book and out of the bedroom. [applause] a pledge on both bill and my part to submit a balanced budget to congress. that is about future generations, your kids and their kids. budget, not balance the
we will get it all but you have got to pay for it all? that is not fair at all. these are going to be tough issues. the outcome of that is that it will not be available for anyone. we can save social security but there are some reforms that have with social security and doing nothing is not acceptable. it is not acceptable to do nothing. [applause] immigration is something to be embraced. we are a country of immigrants. make it as easy as possible to so issue the country
work of jesus, the main reason why there are 11 million undock meant it workers in the country get a workyou cannot visa from the government and yet jobs do exist that u.s. citizens do not want, embracing immigration and recognizing it for what it is. we are a country of immigrants and by allowing immigration, we will grow the economy. [applause] building a fence across the border is just nuts. it is nuts. donald trump was watching the olympics intently to see how high the mexican poll vaulters would go. . believing in free markets, the romney capitalism is something we should all despised their
crony capitalism is really where government decides winners and losers. you pay to win. you pay to play, you don't pay, you don't win. this should not be like that here it should be free markets, equal opportunity. equal opportunity for everybody. [applause] and billon: i support weld supports, i think we all absolutely have to support, term limits. [applause] mr. johnson: term limits is a silver bullet. politicians would do the right thing, as opposed to whatever it takes to be reelected. we would not have a $20 trillion debt today if term limits were
in effect. [applause] jobs, certainty that taxes are not going to go up, neither of us raised a single penny of tax over the terms that we serve. believing in free markets and when it comes to health care, and i do agree with chief justice roberts that health care , president obama policies of orderable act is a tax. my insurance premiums have quadrupled. i have not seen a doctor in three years. when it comes to health care reform, we need a government really that will blow thatid off of the services health care might provide, make it easier to provide front end,
instead of dealing with the problem after it is all ended let's talk about health and diet and exercise so that it does not happen at the back end. [applause] mr. johnson: believing in personal choice, always coming down on the side of personal choice, that each and every one of us should be able to make decisions in our own lives that only affect our own lives as long as those decisions do not put other people into harms way. [applause] mr. johnson: believing in marriage equality, whom you might love, whom you might marry. abortion. how can there be a more
difficult choice and anyone's life. involved. who but the woman involved should be making that choice other than the woman involved, the woman involved. legalizing marijuana, bringing an end to the drug war. mr. johnson: we have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. are any to believe we less law-abiding in this country than any other country in the world. we have tens of millions of americans convicted felons that, but for our drug laws, would otherwise be tax paying, law-abiding citizens. [applause] i may, all lives
matter, ok? [applause] mr. johnson: but black lives matter and here is why. lacks are being shot at the rate of times that if you are white. if you are of color and you are crime,d on drug related there is a four times more likely that you will go to prison than if you are white. we have had our heads in the sand over the discrimination that continues to exist in this country. i am the first one. [applause] believing in the second amendment of the cost to. -- the constitution. [applause] but alsoon: recognizing that we should have a debate and a discussion on how
we might keep guns out of the has of the mentally ill. [applause] mr. johnson: being open to a debate and a discussion about how we might keep guns out of the hands of would-be terrorists, recognizing what happened in orlando and as resident of the united dates, i would love to know what transpired between the fbi and the fact that they did interview the shooter in orlando on it apple of occasions. i will bet they have the best ideas of anyone on how to move forward. obviously the system worked up to a certain point, and then it broke down. death penalty, as governor of an issue i this was reversed myself on. i believed in an eye for an eye but as public policy, the death penalty is flawed. [applause] arguably, there is
a 4% error rate when it comes to the death of team. i do not want to put one innocent person to death to punish -- [applause] mr. johnson: to punish 999 that are guilty, much less put for people for 96 that are guilty. if you remember in the mid-1990's is, governor ryan of illinois ordered a review of 36 inmates on death row because of to be tested,oing and over 20 of them were released because they were categorically proven to be innocent. the death penalty, although it sounds great, is flawed public policy. it costs less to lock somebody up for the rest of their lives than it does to put them on death row because of the appeals involved, but then you find out somebody gets released because
they are categorically innocent, what price do you put on that? that is the united states of america. that is the constitution of the united states of america. [applause] mr. johnson: there was a poll on active military personnel three weeks ago, and their choice for president of the united states was me. [applause] would like: what i to think that means is this guy is saying some people need to understand. have a we need to national defense.
when we are attacked, we will attack back. when we involve ourselves in regime change, it has the of making consequence things worse and not better. thinklifetime, i cannot of getting myself involved in a single regime change where it has turned out to be better and not worse. [applause] mr. johnson: how is afghanistan for an example? attack attacked, we back. i supported us going into afghanistan in 2000 three because we were attacked. after being in afghanistan for seven months, we went out al qaeda. we should have gotten out then and left our options open for coming back to get osama bin laden. 13 years later and apparently, we are going to spend another 20
years there or apparently for some we will be there forever. we need to get out of afghanistan now. [applause] mr. johnson: has life in this country ever been better? it has not. come on. we get along better with people, we communicate better than ever, our kids are smarter than ever. the number one law enforcement tool we all have is in our pockets, it is in our smartphones. dealingommunicating and with issues. black lives matter. we are dealing with this in a way right now that is more and he will come to deal with this, we are recognizing it as a country, a great and wonderful place to live.
[applause] mr. johnson: my last pitch to all of you, if elected president of the united states, i will bring an end to the imperial presidency. [applause] is aohnson: this constitutional office. and i are going to serve as good stewards of this constitutional office. [applause] when i come to new york city, i will not snarl all the traffic in new york's 80. there has to be a smarter way to travel and i will find that way. i pledge i will be the most frugal president to serve in your lifetime.
[applause] mr. johnson: you cannot do this if you're not going to lead by apple. saturday afternoon and you are all here. you have no i yeah how honored we all are that you are here. much.you so whoa. and lastly -- gary!"]g "gary! mr. johnson: you are too good. you honor us and you honor me. thank you. thank you. woo!nce: [cheers and applause]
>> we are alive now for a discussion on u.s.-russia relations in the 26th campaign and this country and a look at the russian elections, hosted by the center of global interests, just getting underway. done by the presidential administration and there is really very little left to do. it is a decorative appendage. these elections do not matter to russians very much. the elections of the united states capturing attention everywhere. i have been to pakistan and sweden and what i have seen is those were the elections everyone was focusing on because of trump, a bizarre candidate who have -- who has come to american elections. the fact, chavez talking a lot about russia. in answer to his other question,
why russia is getting so much attention and it does not seem to come down to the harm of trump to be pro-russian, it is because hillary clinton has not picked up on it. she has blown a big opportunity. when trump called on the russian government to hack into hillary clinton's e-mail, she is joining people to engage in treason. this is american to go along with this thing. this is a guy doing something who is so bizarre by american standards. this is one big reason why russia has come to the for in these elections. back to the point about the elections not really mattering. the lower house of parliament in bysia has in occupied fully putin's party, united russia, and a couple of parties as well as the communist party of the
russian federation now for quite a time. the elections will not change that a bit. in mind both elections coming up on the 18th and also the presidential elections held sometime between one year and a year and a half or two years after the election. it really does bring up election politics. the elections have changed a bit the way the governor is doing with opposition. moderate,been a slow, crackdown on opposition in russia with elections impending there. 2011 right after the parliamentary elections in the december of 2000 election. , and was a demonstration then of course, especially since
2013, when victory and a code ,hich was thrown out of power it has -- obsessed with the abroad,f his opponents those at home, very worried about that happening. this was a big deal to putin. i think the fear is completely unjustified but he seems to think there is a dangerous possibility of especially the americans teaming up in the country and trying to topple him. is bigger than the elections themselves. it is significant in my view that this moderate but noticeable repression really started in 2012 during putin's
third term in office as president. it has been especially noticeable before the elections. i think this is important acause it really represents departure in putin's approach, i , thethe whole government, administration in particular which runs the country now, because the administration has in better than just about any autocratic regime in the world at maintaining control without the use of naked coercion. this is a vital aspect of buddhism that we need to -- of need to focuswe on what i would like to discuss with you today is what i will call the nl can see of the dictatorship in russia and we will understand why this guy runs on 80% plus approval ratings from your after year. it will be hard to think of another political leader in the world off we depend on this kind
of popularity. the polls are telling us anything that are not true. i think it is remarkable and in order to understand, we have to focus on the nature of the dictatorship. -- it shows us this is a dictatorship. think about it. a decade and a half ago, russia had a freewheeling media, contentious is underpowered heart -- parliament, partly manipulated and still competitive election and today had none of those things. the remark of thing about it in utin and company is he has gotten people to like it. it is not what you see in most other autocracies. from a comparative perspective
-- perspective, we look at other indications of dictatorship and this is very rare. a greater use of coercive method -- methods to achieve a full-blown autocracy. this is worthy of our attention. we consider how the government has done in russia, we can focus tactics and how they have achieved a high level theontrol, we can discuss slickest and most subtle indoctrination machine in the world at the time. also the process by which putin and company brought the legislator to heal starting with 2000, his first year and first month in office when he made a strike on the autonomy of the upper house of our limit, the federation council shortly after they came into office.
we can consider how he was able to lightly seize control of the lower house of the parliament by seizing authority and state sources as well as by pushing for changes in the role enabling them to eliminate virtually any autonomy and dissent within the 2007t before legislative elections. in any discussion of the elections, we would have to gradual, from's top to bottom, a mechanism designed to maximize for himself and his preferred candidates and parties in order to understand control,t of putin's the central electoral commission vladimir, a guy who
thes his own first law following law, which is that putin is always right. that is what he said old -- openly. this is absolutely remarkable. what is even more interesting is most russians seem to subscribe to that law, which is precisely having such a man in charge of the elections is not the object of much attention in russia. that is a bigger story underlies these others and helps beenplain why putin has able to achieve all of these things creating a well ordered autocracy in a country that, just a decade and a half ago, has something resembling a
democracy. even if the economy has slowed, putin has been able to remain an object of affection and adoration by probably most russians and has become almost blame form basically anything that does not go right in russia. are many reasons for his extraordinary authority, really the thing that drives elections and election politics in general right now. one is the 1990's and the fact that in 1999, 2000, as he was coming to office, the economy started recovering dramatically. made possible, the rise of russia's prestige. another that putin's's policies for the most part, even if they look harsh and authoritarian and hyper nationalist to us, actually place him in the dead
center of the political spectrum. that byto keep in mind privileging russia's international status above all else, this guy is pretty much in sync with mainstream russian opinion. not every nation in the world is concerned with his position and status in the world as a first priority like russians are. most are not. most people care about other things just as much. we americans really do. to russians and americans alike, the ability to kick ass in the world is a big deal. at putin's's priorities, which put russia in first place, we keep in mind this wears well with the countrymen. here, itpeople actually suits russians reasonably well and the things i
am talking about get to the question of how in fact is this ,ossible that this dictatorship remain so popular. in opening remarks, not yet things. the same old not at all. putin's face they do not get tired of her they do not have all of that power. there is another basis for the bulletproof level of trust that they enjoy that brings us back to the elements of dictatorship. it is a relatively strong and consistent preference for using incentive over punishment. this is a big part of his government style and a -- an important part of why he is as popular as he is. ready to use coercion as
necessary in order to protect itself. it uses coercion much more selectively and frequently than other authoritarian regimes in the world do. this combined with a moderate killing,n mafia style since the 1990's, helps ordinary and feel theafer physical security is better now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. putin is really emerging as the achievelin, helping him more prestige and respect and power then stalin ever had. -- than stalin ever had. we hear about the fascination -- the assassination. why standards of other autocrats in the world, the force can hardly be left promiscuous. uses violence selectively and and mostly, serial
offenders, the bottom line informal rule against betraying his security services. other regimes that are as close and authoritarian as putin's's russia is, and many are not as , engaged in far more deadly violence and coercion generally against opponents than the regime does. are so voiceless in elections, where elections are so right, so manipulated by the media and unprotected by the courts, they are remarkably on repressed. unrepressed. this is why he is still so popular and people are not yet tired. there is typically much more within regime coercion and regimes as close, with an elite,
someone falls out of favor, they are on the wrong side or they simply lose favor with the ruler, typically there is much more coercion than there is in contemporary russia. as long as they remain loyal, they will not the subject to correction for whatever reason and that is remarkable. grasps the truth above all, that has eluded many other ,uto rats, including stalin which is the use of violence produces weakness and it is a sign of weakness rather than strength. it makes more enemies than one needs to, and putin has surprisingly few enemies for someone who has a power as he has for the last 17 years. whether he's dealing with his own inner circle or the public at large, he really prefers voluntary and willing
compliance. he wants to be feared but he understands in the modern day that being like and being the object of veneration and respect actually gets to even more than being feared does, as long as you are a little feared underneath that. i think he is showing other rulers this, it does not mean they are paying attention but it is coming obvious a commanding ruler resorts to violence only when he reaches the end of his rope and each have a long rope as well as a long fuse and be patient. there is no greater sign of his political mastery than seizing and wielding so much power while inflicting so much damage. so little damage in making so few enemies. to the vast majority of subjects, including his own subordinates, his iron fist really touches lightly. how stable is the system? extraordinary authority, insual in regimes that are
power, combined with the identification of him personally creates i think a great deal of stability in the regime itself. it inoculates it to a mass , and as long as he is perceived as a wise ruler that is fully and perceived as a wise ruler that is fully in charge. pretenders to the throne and any autocratic regime, anyone who may seek to displace the ruler has to grapple with what public reaction would be. even though the russian public is very under mobilized politically, any possible pretender to the throne of russia knows that an attempt on putin would be met with mass popular disapproval. putin is able to wield his popularity as a bludgeon very
effectively. this is why he is, above all, concerned with his popularity and using social scientists to record where the popular polls is. while his remarkable authority and personalization of the system as a source of stability in the regime, i think it is a source of instability of the regime. as long as putin is alive, the whole system seems safe. if he dies or falters, all that's are off. all bets are off to a much greater extent than much other authoritarian regimes in the world. we think of this as a very modern dictatorship you -- dictatorship area -- dictatorship. mastera of putin as the is certainly conceivable. regimes don't break down over policy differences.
usually it breaks down over who will be in power after the main man leaves the scene did i those fights are inevitable. we have no idea who would be in charge a month, a year, or two years after he leaves. the reason is there is nothing above written in the system, unlike the soviet system there is no organization to which he answers. there is no ideology to guide him. even when stalin died in 1953 there was still something you are than stalin left behind in the system, so of course he exalted himself and put himself above the party. we know there was a party thereto restore power. -- a party there to restore to power. china, there is no party, mechanismo formal
for success in russia as there has been in china for some time. factrity derived from the not that he holds the presidency, but the fact that he is putin. that is why when he stepped down from the presidency in 2008 and 2012, no one in russia or abroad thought -- was in charge. everyone accepted putin was still in charge. unlike the communist party system there was no party, no ideology. think about the bureaucratic authoritarian dictatorship in the mid-70's and 80's. 19 70'suth korea in the -- 1960's and 70's. there was a military organization that can survive his ouster.
-- this pattern of regular succession and mechanisms that are in russia, there is nothing like this. a rick perry in saudi arabia, for example, or is no family. is -- unlike in saudi example, there is no family. this is an odd talk generally considered to be modern -- an generallywe considered to be modern. there would be a transfer of power according to the constitution. after the president leaves the scene, if he resigns or is
incapacitated, or dies, the prime minister becomes the acting president, elections are held. power --ton came to when putin came to power, after yelton resigned -- this is something i don't think is possible to imagine in russia, the idea that mejia of -- that dvedev would that me be in power. the elites are going to have to .ort this out for themselves the elections are going to have to be rigged. with our minds back on the present moment, the thing to watch during this election season is how far the government's crackdown actually goes.
leaders, putint has little to fear. in his turn toward harsher methods in his term in office, i think it is not prompted by real threats at all to him in the country. i think it is unjustified. his very prompted by real, but unjustified fears, that opponents at home are linking up with nefarious forces in the world, especially western security agencies, and somehow througho undo him, social media, through public demonstrations, through something else. it is important to keep in mind that putin does believe that the uprising against yemen cove itch in ukraine -- against yana kovic yanukovych in 2013 --
we have to bury this paranoia in mind when we consider his behavior. he does have this fear and he is turning toward coercion in a way he hasn't in the past. jail forcan go to wearing a putin mask in public, or for reposting putin means mclinton -- reposting putin --we are seeing a movement toward greater coercion than beenregime in the past has willing to gauge and. other certainly does have the ability to do so. -- to engage in. but it does certainly have the ability to do so.
putin has never boiled any of his opponents alive. i'm a little unsure about the that president -- had opponents boiled alive. more capable of it, perhaps. one about the state of putin's and what thesm elections mean for him. future of the russian-american relations after the election. i agree with steve that the most important stabilizing factor in russian politics is putin's authority and popularity and
popular approval. disagree with what i may call the second most important potentially destabilizing factor. and that is the rest of the are far lesslicies popular. mostieve the third important fact is that the expressions of dissatisfaction related with other aspects of the system can have repercussions for putin. the thing most on putin's mind this election cycle is the last time around, the protests that were sparked were not directly against putin himself. they were about the fraud and body that -- f a
since 2012, putin's popularity has gone way up. mainly it is the crimea affect. mainly because of the economy and what people experience in their daily lives. a drop of approval from 39% to 31%. what the love auto center thentially tells us is that party of crooks and thieves is widely accepted. there is a paradox for putin. when putin is on the ballot, he wins. the problem for him next week's he is not on the ballot.
so there is a greater risk that people will vote what they really think. tried to solve that problem. by oppression. but also by showing his heavy personal responsible miss -- personal responsibleness -- go back and people watch this one show. it is putin listening to the people and hearing an earful of grief. he is trying to make russia more attractive. new candidates, debates, his lectures. we heard last week about listening to people, trying to show the fairness of the process. steve didn't mention that sure
of -- didn't mention that -- has been replaced. replace him was somebody who is prepared to say, these elections really don't pass muster. i don't know how well this has worked for putin. and i would that he is not altogether sure himself. the poll does not give you a lot of confidence. and here is problem in contemporary putinism. he can say until he is blue in the face that he is against corruption, what if the center reports that the system is corrupt all the same it undermines the credit putin wants to get for being against corruption. just a put this in the context of this week, how will he cope
with perceptions of unfairness? happened last time, remember. i don't know. i don't know whether there will be real strong protests. things putin has done that would fall under the oppression category that would make it harder for people to protest and find out about the real results. that was sort of true in 2011 when it was declared russia got 42 .9% of the vote, people went to nuts. getquestion is can russia less this time and still have this victory? and still have more to say about this? let me turn then to what you want me to talk about, which is why rush is so important to is soection -- why russia
important in the election to putin personally. this wouldn't have happened to any other candidate. in my mind it is harder to decide what is more comical about trump's praise of putin. is it the claim that the reason that he is praising putin is that putin praised him when he didn't? or is he so seemingly swayed by praise? why should a candidate for president of the united states be so susceptible to ms. translated praise? would he, for example, say kim jong on was a great leader if he praised him? putin is kim jong jong-un.
idea thatole underlies trump's descriptions is a strongat he and respective leader. he always makes this comparison to barack obama. be somethingem to the world in general agrees with. if you take poll results across europe, what do you find? you find barack obama is actually enormously respected. the approval rates that obama europe all countries in are overwhelming. they are like putin's popularity.
but putin does not get that kind of result. in fact putin is not respected across europe. people to not think with donald trump, oh yeah, putin is a great guy, he is a strong leader, all of this stuff trump says. there is only one country in europe where putin has more positive than negative views, and that is greece. europe,countries in popularity-- putin's is in the 20% range. you don't find this for many other leaders. although you do find it for one other national political celebrity, and you'd do know who that -- and you know who that is, donald trump. the only person who polls worse
internationally than putin is donald trump himself. the onlyited kingdom, country in the course of this campaign he is visited other -- and the one he has reached out to over brexit, what are the results for trout in u.k.? negative -- 85-12 negative. this is cost free in american politics, and -- it has been said this is cost free in american politics, and i'm not so sure that is right. it is an odd calculation by trump, the bet that he can make russia a positive factor for him electorally. years, the three
american opinion has turned , largely as at result of the ukraine crisis. consider the summer of 2014, at the height of the ukraine crisis. was 15-75n of russia negative. far worse than the year before. it has eased a little bit, but still the people who think russia is an all-out adversary or a problem is still in the 65% range. and that is before hacking. it is before an agreement on syria, which may or may not take hold, but it is still a formidable obstacle out
of anybody who was to make by associating themselves with putin. question,to this whether or not it has helped trump, i tend to think of it as something different. it is not a political calculation. ways trump's views of a , you can detect in them the cruel and cynical attempts to play on american popular prejudices. you know, anti-immigrant stuff, xenophobia. but the case of russia is different. he's telling us what he thinks. paydirt. this is not a political winner, this is potentially a big political loser.
and still it is the line he has pushed. let me turn to a little bit about the future of russian-american relations. that is the implicit subject of a lot of this debate about putin, even though it is very implicit. to call this political debate that we have so far a debate is with a little more elegance and coherence than israel deserves. but i think there is underlying debate. a column in the new york times , trump in his
unusual way has put his finger on something we ought to be talking about more, even though we shouldn't agree with the answer he has come up with. question is, what rush are we talking about -- what to russia are talking about totallysay trump is wrong or totally right? are we talking about the russia conquered crimea, that is clearly guilty of aggression in eastern ukraine and created a gigantic war scare in all of europe? or are we talking about the russia with whom we are trying might be, with secretary to work outying some kind of cooperation in syria. whomrhaps the russia, with the united states is trying to
in a strategy toward china. the russia you have in mind in those two cases may suggest different policies. this question is being posed by other people who are elegantly debating and seriously debating this issue, just not mr. trump. i would also recommend to you my old colleague's book on the return to cold war, essentially saying our term -- our -- someives now are hands-onierce competition or some kind of corporation.
-- arm's-length cooperation. goals ofthe strategic the united states point in russian-american relations? to my mind the obama administration has a more sustainable answer to this question. if you disaggregate the pieces of the relationship and the obama administration's policy i think you would get the following answer, if you take four or five different pieces of the relationship. in europe, what is the obama administration's answer? it is something like a new cold .ar it is sustaining nato and eu unity around sanctions over ukraine until russia's policy in ukraine changes.
but if you look at the middle east, it is different. it is probing for cooperation, some assuming there can be potential alignment of u.s. and russian interests. third if you take a whole set of nuclear issues, particularly nuclear arms control, the assumption of the obama administration is there should be some possibility for working approach,ooperative and in fact there has been substantial cooperation on nuclear issues. although lately the russians have said -- we are ok on nonproliferation policies. we are not interested in arms control. and the final element of the obama administration's policy is
, his personality is a bit of a turnoff, but it is not a fundamental obstacle. it is a bigger problem than and yet there was an agreement on syria. there is no agreement on ukraine. there wasn't any -- the agreement on ukraine was in the price of getting the agreement on syria. at the g20 the germans stiffed putin. so my prediction would be that thisin the helical -- that policy would be largely the one that continued in an obama administration. difficult to sustain, may be difficult to sustain, but may
be sustainable. that it isnvinced wracked by such internal contradiction that it cannot work. i think it is a workable strategy, which the obama administration has struggled to find a bumper sticker that is .uite as good the fact you don't have a bumper sticker doesn't mean you don't have a policy. reset, what was it about? what did it amount to? it amounted to transactional improvement on particular issues where there was an alignment of interest. personality was a plus.
now the new version of it would be transactional improvement, where interests are aligned. personality, a minus. but i think a minus that is still relatively easy to accommodate to a policy that is mixed in the way that i have described. >> before opening the floor for i will take the opportunity to ask one question to each. one talking about political we mayions, i think ofoke some examples successful transition in the countries with very weak institutions.
i mentioned turkmenistan several years ago. just recently everyone was talking about the crisis during their transition in these countries and other potential countries, but there is no crisis. if we take this into account, this kind of experience, what can we say about russia? overwhelming foreign policies in russia is [indiscernible] there is a most a consensus in the russian community that the thatpolicies told russia moscow can expand and based on realpolitik principles. donald trump is open for trade in russia.
at the same time we all know prominent republicans changed the assumption that donald trump is a realist. i don't want to go with the the foreign policy. but i would like to ask the specific question, can we electedly claim that if trump's policy toward russia will be based on realist principles or not? mr. fish: could they be models for russia? it is certainly possible
it could be. we have to bear in mind several things. is morehat russia complex than turkmenistan is. nobody expected there to be elections right after the president the part of the scene. these are dictatorships of the type and had been more close then russia has been. completelyre even close down then russia is paid in russia, the constitution calls for new elections. takes over as to acting president. if that were followed, then there would be elections. like tod thing i would say is putin is younger and healthier than either -- in
turkmenistan. he was 80 years old, so his departure was expected for some time. secessionn planning -- planning succession behind the scenes for years. that is not what is happening in russia. putin is much younger. he is not planning for succession. he is very self-conscious from preventing anyone from thinking here is my success. to have't want anybody an interest in his death. he loves not having a vice president. he doesn't allow anybody to do that. i think russia would be a much more complex case. transition?a smooth someone who isn't even called
for by the constitution, who , and his mother was actually good friends 40 itrs ago, came to power and all just kind of happens anyway. i can't see that happening in russia. i can see what happened in lose pakistan -- what happened in uzbekistann -- in happening in russia. mr. sestanovich: i totally agree they will not follow the same model. prized -- i would be surprised if they constitutional amenities were not served.
today, myied prediction is -- would be named acting president and would run an election in 90 days. you discover that russia doesn't need to be run like a dictatorship. russia is ready to have a more won't take- people too long to discover why we're redoing this all this time under putin? we are a margin -- we are a modern country. and it would be a weaker system that would have weaker leaders. maybe people would be ready for that. functioning institutions would have an
advantage, is just a guess. now about realism. when i am not on leave from columbia, i would this week be where wea course examine and apply theories and international relations. the first weekly to realism. and i kind of find it hard to assimilate trump's news to the readings that we give to the students. for example it seems unrealistic to undermine your own -- realists don't advise that. are supposed to try to understand the elements of your and to just say maybe i won't defend my allies wouldn't hans morgan.d by
so i don't think this is realism, this is amateurish and privatization. aviationrish improv is -- improvisation. in that respect the obama administration is much more serious about it and understands how to do it. i think if you had a trump administration, you would have a complete bedlam within the be -- excuse would me, the republican foreign-policy establishment is divided about trump that any credible set of advisors that you brought in would also be provided and they
what have to figure out kind of foreign policy to put together. i think one could not come up -- with an sample example of any major presidential candidate. think you would find a totally new set of advisors. you kind of have to mix the old and the new. would be madly trying to figure out what kinds pursue thatey could would meet the boss's inclinations.
mr. zevelev: now that we have established that russia is not uzbekistan --we can move onto other things. [laughter] -- >> i heard the week and is here and i challenged -- to a bet. let's bet that in the elections medvedev is not running. >> in what elections? after putin dies? go ahead. beif it was today it would [indiscernible]
and others deciding who their candidate would be. terms of this discussion, i want to ask the panel, the three , how the cooperation between the russia and the u.s., as you described, fits with the militarization of russia, the massive program that started around 2006, 2007. how does it fit with our engagement or lack thereof in the former soviet union, with exception of the baltic sea? what should be our position of democracy and human rights, the deterioration thereof ongoing? from there we can talk about cooperation and competition. mr. zevelev: i would suggest to
collect several questions. sestanovich: and we may divide them up. , until recently there was a debate -- >> until recently there was a debate. say in six years i was predicting this would be the last year of putin. the other was [indiscernible] who was saying putin was going to be there forever. basically do not hold your breath. the question boils down to a simple thing, are we supposed to wait until putin dies or should there be another scenario option
that putin would be replaced? mr. zevelev: thank you, one more question. >> thank you very much. i have two short questions. first question, what do you innk russia really needs democracy in an american understanding? last -- we are was go to the same system of one strong leader. -- we always go to the same system of one strong leader. of talk about trump. if he wins, what happens with u.s. foreign politics with russia then?
sestanovich -- mr. fish: i will stir. i don't think this is consistent with cooperation with the united states. i see his point. at the same time i don't see a lot of cooperation with russia going on at all. there is not much i can see. i don't think there is any word to go in terms -- anywhere to go in terms of relations. i don't see how much cooperation is going on. should the united states be concerned with democracy in russia? absolutely. i would say the idea of promoting democracy in russia is a turkey. this is not something the russians want. it is great to promote democracy
people that like democracy. if they need a little help, great. help the people when 20% of people want help is not a good idea. does russia need an american-style democracy? they don't seem to want it, so my answer is no. i think they may want eventually something more that profoundly disappointed by the turn in russia. ever since putin came into the office. my last book was about this. don't thinktime i democracy promotion is something we should be engaged in in a country like russia. i think it just helps the bad guys. i just want to say something about our colleague.
one analyst says it is putin's last year in power. we have been hearing this every year since 2000. i don't understand why people keep saying this, this is a fairly stable to tater ship as far as dictatorships go. will he be just as popular five years from now? we don't know for sure. i think he is going to get a permanent boost out of crimea. he has been able to d-link his economicarity from performance. he gets blamed from us nothing. corruption, he is not blamed for that. putin is looking out for us. is he correct himself? i think most russians would say of course, he has taken a lot. but they seem to tolerate it.
board withore on those that say he will be there. we don't know where he will be 10 years from now. i do think we have to deal with this guy. how old is he? early 60's. this is a guy who could be there for a long time and sit around and wait for him to leave power. coat --ump to our other our other question, what if hillary wins the election? i think hillary knows she has to deal with putin. some continuity from the obama administration's policy. they will come out. think is going to happen, first of all she is going to have to show who she is. she is a woman in power and she
likes to show she is tough. she is going to be even tougher with putin. although the comparison to his or was indirect. she is going to be real tough at first, turning the screws on putin. she is going to start realizing that it is in our distro's -- in our interest to deal with this guy. he pretty much has given up. we are quite to the testing of ,olicy followed by relaxation as long as putin is willing to play ball. we are not interested in nuclear arms control right now. who is still open to negotiation come as long as we are willing to give a little as well. someone offers him something
of real value, let's say respecting the right to put them near and abroad, i think he will -- should --t -- sestanovic mr. : if trump is selected, the first order of business is going to be managing the chaos and panic in american trying to and reassure people that the president didn't mean all those goofy things that he said. walking back ave lot of bad ideas and trying to show that actually the united states is still committed to the kinds of principles and western
democrats do not look to the west to create or promote democracy in russia. what they want is simply for the united states and the west not to pretend that russia isn't a democracy. that means the kind of clarity that the kind of regimes steve has described in his remarks. that means talking about human rights. means understanding and reaching out to civil society. russia is no special target here. but seeing relations is a normal part of international relations.
seeing corruption that is characteristic of relations to lots of other countries, a threat to international border. the fact that russians have not been able to pick up on the vast , in your word, unspeakable corruption. it doesn't mean that other countries are not going to become increasingly concerned about that. last point about militarization, i completely agree with the underlying point and steve's response to it. increase of russian , more thanending
doubling, has created new obstacles to cooperation. and the biggest obstacle is the fact that the russians are an active participant in the syrian civil war. that has made it extremely difficult to find a common position. that would have been almost out of the question 10 or 20 years ago. that will be a new factor. i don't think it completely rules out cooperation, it just makes it more complicated. the russian reaction to any of the negotiating offers that are made on military issues is going
to be more unyielding and less interested in cooperation. i think the idea of respecting russian rights in the near a , a nonstarter. pointthe beginning at any toan administration, likely be part of a formula for seeking cooperation, that is going to be an area where the united states and russia don't agree. : we will take three more questions. >> i was struck by steven fish's description of vladimir putin both as a very popular and effective dictator.
unpredictability of trump is a problem, many believe it is no difference, it doesn't matter who wins. so i wonder, are we focusing too much on personality and not may beat thet russian leader or sees that is a fundamental characteristic? >> [indiscernible] especially if you look at the far right in europe, where putin seems to be an inspiring figure.
[indiscernible] zevelev: we have only about four minutes. fish: is this about putin's political skills? i think it is both. of his most remarkable skills as being so in tune with what people actually want, what they want out of their leader. he's very unappealing abroad, he is the anti-gorbachev. gorbachev wasn't very popular at home as well. he knows which buttons to press. feels it himself. he is a typical russian mother comes to his own political views. that is a recipe for success. skilled politically, no doubt about it.
the question about his purge of mostdministration, now the figure -- most recent figure -- g his chief of staff he is getting rid of his old comrades. and you do not remark him as a god. it is just because he wants to surround himself with sycophants. these guys have their own game going. i think he was long brought under control. he lost a clear that out in a cleaner know what -- cleaner know republican administration working for them. if he surrounds himself with , younger people who seem to regard his leadership as
the natural order of things, and who don't give him the bad news and don't speak to him -- they don't tell him the truth about things. i think a lot of his comrades from the old days do. is, unlikebout putin a lot of dictators, he wants to hear the bad news. privately, of course. but he wants to know what is going on over this going on -- what is going on abroad. it is potentially destabilizing and that could be a bad thing. in terms of his unpopularity in the world, i think the polls in europe are right on. --you look around the world i spent some time teaching in china a couple of years ago. the chinese are taught that he is a great leader, the best european leader out there.
and they believe it. he is very popular in many countries around the world. even if he is unpopular in europe. putinisming to present foreignternative to policy. it is an alternative to the american ways and he was to demonstrate that in the middle east. i think the world is sitting up and paying attention. mr. sestanovich: they do an interesting breakdown of a world -- of a number of world leaders. for all we have heard about the fabulous success of russian propaganda, still putin is the one with the slender wrist -- approval ratings.
they are not so many where it breaks 30% approval. does are many where obama -- obama and merkel do. china and india do show more approval of putin, even though -- high by kind of european standards, but it is not the kind of popularity you see for obama, for example. there is a real division. if you are an american ally in europe, you don't like putin. japan, south korea, you find hostility to putin. thing todd one other
your question about putin's skills versus history. >> we believe this discussion on u.s.-russia relations and the 2015 campaign at this point for live coverage of the u.s. house. you can see the entirety on c-span.org. they will come back at 2 p.m. for legislative work. live coverage of the house. be in orr. the air lays before the house a communation from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, waon, d. september 12, 201 i hereby ant t honorable mark meadows to act as stte on thisay. signed, paul dryanspeaker of the house of representatives. e speaker pro tempor pursnt to e order of the housef january 5, 2016, the chair will now recognize members frolists submitted by majoritd