tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 23, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
understanding that just because of you being from a modest means does not mean that your aspirations or your opportunity ought to be limited. and it certainly means that you can have the talent to succeed and achieve the american dream. after five years as mayor of my hometown, i know this much -- we are in a century of cities. america's cities are growing again, and housing is at the top of the agenda. i look forward to being part of the department that will help ensure that millions of americans all across the country have the chance to and to reach their american dreams. if confirmed, i stand ready to , andt you mr. president your administration, and local administrations across the country to make sure that we do housing right and that more
americans achieve their dreams. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am hoping for a quick confirmation. listening to these two individuals gives you a good sense of why i am nominating them for these positions. they are going to do outstanding work. n that it is-- shau rare that an announcement about confirmation gets people choked up false [laughter] they are milking that. [laughter]
thank you everybody. [applause] >> for more information about president obama's nomination to lead had, he is 39 years old and he is serving as her term as mayor of san antonio will stop julian has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential and -- canada in 2016. is some of his speech in charlotte north carolina will >> the unlikely journey
that brought me here again many miles from this podium. my brother and i grew up with my mother and my grandmother. my grandmother was an orphan. she had to leave her home in mexico and moved to san antonio. relatives agree to take her in all stop she never made it past the fourth grade will stop she had to start working to help her family. my grandmother spent her whole life working as a maid, a cook, and a babysitter. she worked hard to give my mother her only child, a chance in life so that she could give my brother and me an even better one. older, shemother got begged my mother to give her grandchildren. she prayed to god for one grandchild before she died all you can cannings -- imagine her excitement when she
found out her prayers were answered. she was so excited that the day had a we were born, she cook often one $300. that is how she paid her hospital bill. along, thiswe came incredible woman had taught herself to read and write in spanish and english. i can still see her in the room that we shared with her reading her agatha christie novels late into the night. i can remember her every morning as we walked out to school. she made the sign of the cross behind us. you.aid, may god bless she did not live to see us begin our lives and public service, but she probably would've thought it extraordinary that two generations after she arrived in san antonio, one grandson would be the mayor and the other would be on his way.
-- to the united states congress. >> tonight on c-span, coverage of commencement beaches. -- speeches. we will start with governor bobby jindal eking to graduate at liberty university. starfended "doc dynasty" phil robertson. of you that follow pop culture, you may have taken flap betweenecent the robertson family of "duck dynasty" and anz. -- a&e. one of the most aggressive defenders was the governor of [applause]ill stop
you may think that i was defending them simply because i am the governor of their homes they. -- home state. you may have thought i was defending them because my boys are huge fans of the show. i defended them because they have rights to speak their mind. >> that was just a small torsion of the commencement address -- portion of the commencement address i governor bobby jindal. we will show that tonight at 8:00 p.m. on his van. that will be followed by an address from you while patrick, john lewis, and johnny isakson. on washington journal, we will hear from todd harrison. he will talk about the major features of the house version of the national ends authorization act.
e.g. malaria will review these mulero willugene review the state of u.s. bridges. and we will discuss hunting and fishing rights will stop we will look for your calls. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. on seas and. -- c-span. >> i focus on stopping waste and catch people who have done in the past. is 50%, 30%, 20%. we are spending a lot of money that could be better spent trying to find and identify the problem. >> if i ask, have the american people gotten their money's worth? st.o, definitely not will
there have been good things done and we have a lot of hard-working evil will stop the department as either -- hard-working people. a lot of people have devoted their lives and energy over there. have we gotten the biggest bang for our buck? no. that is what we find all the time. for planning and poor execution. >> john sopko on his role as inspector general. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span q and a. five the heritage foundation hosted an event previewing the upcoming elections in ukraine. those are set to be held on sunday. citizens will vote on a successor to replace viktor yanukovych.
she works with the institute for political journalism. she is a member of the council on foreign relations. [applause] >> we are here again to talk about ukraine. it is a subject that we have talked about quite frequently al. today we will look at the presidential elections coming up. contested.uite it is a subject that are three analyst will cover from a number of respective. one is whether they will take place at all. soonerre those who would that it did not happen. be airst speaker will senior fellow at the center for european policy analysis.
it is great to have you back. a jack of all trades. he has his own television show. it is a television show that is shown in the balkans. he has written a less than 19 books on europe, russia, and the transatlantic relationship. is a columnist for several media outlets. his most recent book was published this year. it is called "conflict zone." speaker will be aerial:. he is the senior research at a center for foreign
and international defense policies. that is here at the heritage foundation. he is also a doctor of law. there is policy toward russia and eastern and central europe -- our final speaker will be speaking from an authentic ukrainian perspective. we are very lucky to have her. she is a visiting fellow. she is at our center for international trade and economics. she was previously a consultant for the institute of economic research and policy. she holds a ma in sociology. without further ado, over two hours speakers.
>> you want me to come over here? >> i felt comfortable here. >> thank you for inviting me. it is good to be back at heritage. it has been a few years since i've been here. there is a lot to say and so little time in which to do it. i will be as brief as possible. i would like to briefly outline for things. , itow's objections solutions, and its options toward ukraine. we will cover u.s. policy options as well. we can talk about that. let me focus on what i think russia is up to. the objectives have been pretty clear for many years.
they became more transparent during boot and posh residential term. moscow's top priority is the reintegration of the former soviet republics based on tighter economic links and culminating in political security known as the eurasian union. union itself is supposed to consolidate russia's position as a major power. they believe that we are in a multipolar world. it will more effectively challenge the united states. competition in europe, as in other parts of the world. component a pivotal of these goals. as ukraine's inclusion in this would- eurasian union project russia's power into central europe. it would give the eurasian union a strong european component. without ukraine, the union
becomes more of an asian construct. kazakhstan andf armenia are on track to sign a treaty. ukraine, it will be a fairly limited structure. moscow's fears. the big fear is that ukraine will spill out of its cross. -- grass. p. they would pursue closer ties with the european union and the united dates. this would seriously damage russia's agenda. there would be this neo-imperial union. moscow is anxious about contagion from ukraine that would challenge putin's authoritarian system. they may unseat allies in other
places. in this respect, the key to success could become moscow's failure. ukraine,dly defending they see a western takeover. they believe that they are fighting to secure political survival. continue to operate under putin's system. there is a fear that contagion from ukraine could pull some regions away from the center. the third point, moscow's solution for ukraine. in order of preference, moscow has refused for different plans. say that we start with plan a.
ukraine is integrated in an international in the two should. this has clearly failed. given that the protests were made and the majority of the ukrainian population. plan b, a neutral ukraine outside western structures. the kremlin believes that this has failed because of the eu you associations. they cannot keep ukraine neutral. a divided ukraine outside the west is fully dependent on russia. advantages for moscow, but it has a significant cost. , which is still a possibility and russia will consider it, is an unstable ukraine.
it would be unable to qualify for the eu you or nato. it remains in this peripheral position on the edge of europe. given these plants, let us look at moscow's options. i think moscow's objective is clear. falls into four options. there is the political option. until western indignation subsides. they can assemble a partition of georgia. they can claim that the may elections in ukraine are illegitimate. seeks a commitment of federalization in ukraine. in effect, that means that it is a divided state. progress toward the
eu. has clearlyvernment rejected any kind of referendum or federalization and. it undermines putin's political options. the second option, territorial option. ukraine,rn and eastern it has been promoted by moscow to test division. a dispatch special forces to several regions. has been testing one of two alternatives. creating a split state, much like moldova, in which economists regions block government decision-making, or ukraine's partial sorption by russia. a military takeover and
occupation of parts of mainland ukraine would be very costly for moscow. it could deflate the euphoria that we have witnessed among large segments of the population. the annexation of crimea. the attempted separatist scenario has registered limited success. i checked where they are active and onlyone third certain areas have been affected by the separateness. opinion polls clearly indicate that only a small minority of the population supports federalization or outright secession. the third option, destabilization. in the absence of efficient mayic enthusiasm, putin
promote civil conflict. we are seeing that now. require russian peacemaking intervention. this would be an invasion. it is inconceivable that a segment of the population may favor the restoration of law and order by outside forces it's chaos is instigated and if they cannot exert authority and kiev. peacekeepersary may try cc force temporarily. this strategy is extremely risky. it provokes significant resistance by ukrainian forces outside of two regions. it will be seen as an invasion. my last option is the subversion option. it is a long-term strategy that putin may favor having failed
largely in the separatist option and the political option. of theeminiscent post-orange revolution. corrupt ukraine's new officials and make deals with local oligarchs. they would wait for the economic downturn to buy. ukraine would undertake major structural reform. they would incite social unrest against the new government. and they would disqualify kia from pursuing a western half. it would draw the country toward russia through various incentives. the same time, western sanctions against moscow would be largely lifted and food would be praised in western capitals for not pursuing a military option wealthy continues with this shadow war against russia's neighbors. imperativeon, it is
not only for ukraine to hold clean presidential elections on sunday, and parliamentary elections later in the year, but for the incoming administration to conduct effective structural and fiscal reforms with sufficient public support. they must move closer to western institutions and maintain national cohesion during this process. they must resist the temptations and pressures that are certain to come for moscow. gone into i have not the recommendations of what we should be doing. we can talk about that later. thank you. [applause] >> area, over to you. >> good morning.
outlined, a number of aspects of russian policy, and i can talk about that for hours, i would like to put the elections in ukraine in perspective. --t a challenge it is to be to european security and global security. i believe we are witnessing a of the transformation post-cold war world order. from putin's believe that europe is weak. the united states is not providing necessary leadership, and this is the time to challenge for the next two point five years, to challenge the inheritedr that was
in 1999. tos is a challenge not just order in therld alleged multipolar world, but specifically to bring down the relative power in that equilibrium. that would affect china and india and other countries that russia is involved with. what do we have? we have the sanctity of borders in europe. those borderseed by the 1975 helsinki accords.
union was interested in securing those, provided that the baltic states were recognized. not by the united states, but by others. they were recognized as a part of the soviet union. eastern european countries were also recognized. the helsinki accords said that the borders will not be changed in europe through violence. oft, the paris protocol 1990. protocolthe budapest that guarantee ukrainian upurity when ukraine gave its nuclear weapons. the legacy of nuclear weapons that it inherited from the soviet union. theseof course, when all instruments of international law are violated, there is very
little that the europeans or the united states are doing. they must recognize the change that russia is imposing through all the tools in its warm policy toolbox. this is not just a military action. the military action that pioneered the whole new type of warfare that is relying on special forces. identifiableeasily with the military of the country. guys to takese over a big swath of territory. also, the use of militias that are trained and led by special forces operatives or
intelligence officers. that is as we saw in eastern ukraine. there is a massive use of intermission -- information warfare. there is the invention of a whole new vocabulary. they are painting the ukrainian leadership, mostly liberal nationalist. like the president of ukraine, basically being liberal nationalist and painting them as iot see sympathizers -- naz sympathizers. betweendriving a wedge the european public opinion and the ukrainians. london ime back from had some conversations there.
they demonstrated to me the lack of commitment and interest in , and not justaine from germany. there is a massive business relationship because of german industry and german utilities. the relationship between the former chancellor with mr. putin in his capacity. he was the chairman of a pipe lane -- pipeline company to bring natural gas. also great britain. they are having an imperial .hantom they say, this is the russian sphere of influence. let them do in their backyard what they want.
let's not intervene when ukraine. the other camp in europe is sweden and poland. do can go back any russians say, these countries are still smarting from the defeat of the russian empire. that was in the 18th century. including the partition of poland. no wonder they are trying to fight this war and use the .krainians as a battering ram they are using ukrainian activists against russia. this is the repeat. it is the same talking points. people are repeating these talking points. for the u.s., it is more complicated. we have the first post your
presidency. i do not think mr. obama has any affinity to your. it is just one piece on the map occupiers colonial have come in the past. is occupiedtration of asia, china, but also the middle east. -- as much as the administration is trying to pivot away from the middle east, they get pulled back into it. with that, ukraine has become a tertiary priority. if not lower. it is a food of priorities that the administration is doing with. we had a couple of vice
presidential visits to ukraine. we had the assistant secretary to europe. we did not have massive involvement at the level of secretary of defense or the president. that was until now. ukraine, itvents in was six years. we try to raise the alarm. it is the former soviet area. i talked incessantly about it. it is very frustrating. seeadministration did not the former soviet union. they did not see it as any kind of priority. there was no significant discussion of what american
policy is in that part of the world. i'm being told by senior u.s. officials that they did not perceive the strategy. frameworkught in the that this would be a signal of benevolent neglect, but in fact, because of cultures being so different, it was not. it was perceived as weakness and vacuum. it informs joe policy. -- geopolicy. the u.s. is deliberating whether , theirst wave of sanctions personal sanctions, are sufficient. the fact that moscow did not invade, is somebody going to say that this is a great achievement of the u.s.?
yes, angela merkel intervened. maybe in russian, because she speaks russian. the fact that there was no invasion, that is a plus. but as i mentioned before, it will need toolbox and pattern of engagement that includes propaganda and economics and includes the price of gas for ukraine. the agreement was pronounced. $4.86.ce is it is the highest price in europe. ,hen we give money to ukraine the imf bailout, that is a good chunk of this money that will go to the treasury in moscow to pay for gas.
it is a perverse way of doing business. send a strongs we message and have a policy commitment that goes beyond the at the ukraine is only first stage in this reconfiguration of power balance in europe and in the world. of theppened in terms cold war arrangement and the coast world were arrangement, when the protection of coal s, people-- coethnic who speak the same language, is permissible reason to intervene militarily like in the crimea or in eastern ukraine. what if china decides that the
same approach can apply to taiwan? or two other places overseas chinese people live. with that allow her majesty's and to send the british navy to protect english-speaking south africans? but people spoke another language in the crimea as well. russia cann that send the russian navy to brooklyn, new york to protect russian speaking populations there? of course not. where do you draw the line? we are in uncharted waters. thateans need to recognize their commitment to ukraine and to the current quarter in europe should include a clear pathway.
it does not have to be tomorrow or the day after, but it is a pathway that brings ukraine to the european union. maybe in 10 years or 15 years. if you can bring albania or serbia to the european union, certainly, you can bring ukraine. you would expect the europeans to revisit the military budgets. i was told that only u.k., estonia, greece have a military gdp.t of 2.0% of the europeans need to wake up and understand that this military welfare they received from the united states cannot continue. ukrainian policy after the elections, a lot of folks are expressing --
expecting a particular candidate to win. there are a lot of things that he has to do. whoever the next president, he or she. was stolen by the victory" which regime. billion was extorted by the any covert -- victory" people. in a country with a gdp of $2 billion a year, it is a tremendous amount. i have been in dialogue with the
u.s. economic agency and the prescription that this is something we can talk about for 10 years or 15 years, about what ukraine needs to do, we all know that. ukraine generated 10% of the german gdp but consumed as much energy as germany. they increased salaries and fought corruption. demonstratedes that they cannot control the state. of a failingn state. could not deal with several hundreds of separatists in eastern ukraine. they were led by a few hundred
people. it is clear that there needs to be serious reform. armed services and correct people. they took money from foreign countries. finally, the central government in kiev after the election will have to find the right way to balance the language issues and culture issues with people in the east. i am not here to give prescriptions. language issues like that russia exploited in a cynical way, they need to be addressed and everybody needs to understand where people stand. finally, going back to europe, and policy, the german
intelligence has leaked a couple of reports about what the russians are doing in bulgaria. they went out and made a very alarming speech about what the russians are doing. that is just the beginning. the europeans need to work with countries as well as focus on the baltic states. some tripwiresent trips -- troops. there are 600 marines rotating in and out of that area. it is very little. it is a signal. with local separatists or people who are funded by foreign governments should be a , both for security
services in those countries and for the media who have to be andful have a filter analyze different messages. gas issue in bulgaria was killed. russia is interested in building a nuclear reactor there. there are rumors about somebody paying the environmental activists to fight against shale gas. just to finish on energy, ukraine desperately needs to diversify its energy sources. including bringing liquid natural gas into the south of ukraine. there is a global market. turkey is not allowing that.
that is something the u.s. government will address. our allies will give a hand to ukraine in a period of humanitarian crisis. creative policies to shore up a clear commitment by new leadership that will be elected to get ukraine back on its feet. you will make it modern and transparent. then we will be in a better world. thank you very much. [applause] >> over to you. >> good morning. you ald probably give picture of presidential elections in ukraine and the
people who run these elections and who they are. know, the presidential elections in ukraine occurred after a long period of protest. the date of the elections was decided to be in this time. we did not know about crimea annexations. we did not know what happens in ukraine. up in theas been set winter. were veryse events different from what happens. period of long conflict, there was a dilemma between voters. one of thehand, goals of the process was to have
new places in ukrainian politics for people who give the ukraine into european integration and into a better economic structure. on the other hand, there were two people who were most popular as likely candidates were representatives of the old politics. likely to who is most be at the top used to work back in the previous administration. the government after the orange administration vast revolution. and it makes a big difference. win.a is likely to his goals around 55%. according to ukrainian laws, and order to win, you must obtain more than 50% of the vote.
she only has 10% of votes. there is a list of possible candidates and it is quite long. about 20 people here. two of them are actually representatives of maidan activist. protesters who protested against the victory any covert costs regime. -- viktor yanukovych's regime. they received only 3% of the preliminary vote. one of them is a doctor and activist. very helpful during the process. she organized all of these makeshift hospitals. she helped people. she grew in popularity. person is the leader
of a militia. he used to fight on the streets of kiev. now they have morphed into a political party. they have tried to get political votes. the do not really have ability. during the revolution time, it is nice to have a guy in a mask was near you and can protect you. come andpeaceful times you need reforms, you need people who can leave the country . radicals from revolutionary times do not talk much. this person has only 1% of the vote. polls isfeature of the a region of ukraine as
people used to vote for viktor yanukovych. now it seems very disappointing. they don't really know who to vote for. how they should vote. reports show that more than 60% arehe voters in ukraine saying that they won't vote or they are not decided yet. they do not have any candidate who they can support. actually, if you look at the candidates, one person represents the former presidential party. one of them used to working government. theof them used to be governor of one of the regions.
the radicals could be represented by these candidates. people seem to be disappointed with the former government. and havel do not know not found anything new. they think about who could represent them. this is in the eastern region. is the most undecided. in eastern ukraine, there are mike or regions -- micro regions. not all of them will it be able to vote. they could travel to other parts of ukraine.
they have these checkpoints. it could be really dangerous. also in crimea, there is an opportunity for people who want to vote in the elections. they can travel to the nearest office. they can vote there. not from 2 million people in crimea. it will be dangerous. there is an interstate border in crimea and the rest of ukraine. these people travel outside to vote and they could be perceived as traders. -- traitors. they could be not let back into the country again. they could lose their homes. they may decide it is safer for them to stay home and not travel
to other parts of ukraine just to go. they may not come back. these are obstacles to the election. they are raised by the candidates. when it all started, the main issue was the borders. then there were economic issues. ukraine needs economic reform. and there was anticorruption. there is a political conglomerate. now the separatists in the east, the agenda has shifted.
protectingsue of ukraine and people's lives. yesterday, there was an incident in ukraine. they said that they needed to modernize the army. in effect, it was a pro-russian team. it was our biggest loss during all of this. it is for the new president to do something about the army. they must modernize it. this crisis.age also, i would like to finish by there will be
presidential elections in ukraine and elections -- may oral elections in odessa and kiev. there were also the european parliament elections in the eu. these elections are important. and itocess took place is about how people vote. in a similar way, they will vote in ukraine in the next election. kiev?mes to power in in the european elections, we will see who wins. if theyl determine stand on ukraine and there's --culation that supports
putin supports european far right parties. they are connected with him. these elections could actually leave to far right parties in european parliament. intocould change policies less support for european union. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. if i could ask him first question here to you. what do you hear from home and how stronglyily? do people feel about the importance of this election after all that has happened november? the protests and the russian taking of crimea. the people nervous, are they
determined? what is the nude -- what is then mark-- mood? >> we did expect our elections to be earlier. the turnout is expected to be the highest in 10 years. people are deciding to take part in this election. usually the younger people are not as active in elections. now, with students being one of and all the ngos that cater to young people and do anticorruption initiatives, they have the strongest candidate and they have money from the candidates to publish tax declarations. they will make their presence transparent and publicly acceptable.
people are determined to elect a new president. they will lead ukraine into the future and protect it from all this. >> thank you. let's open it up to questions from the audience. if you could please identify yourself by your name and your affiliation. we will capture this for our website. we have one in the back. >> i am from a japanese trading company. i would like to ask a question about sanctions and what we can expect. i know we have been looking at some of the obama administration
sanctions toward individuals. that is within russia. howe is a lot of talk about the next phase may cover certain industries. i wanted to see what conditions would have to be there in order to -- for the u.s. government to move into that next phase of covering entire industries under sanctions. could you give some sort of indication as to how that michael forward in the next phase? >> maybe i can kick that off. i have always been a bit worried -- not about sanctions, but the objectives we are trying to achieve. ministrationour and european governments about de-escalation. what does that mean? crimea, and not attack eastern ukraine? does that mean it can continue to disrupt clandestinely the
ukrainian state as long as it does not do directly? i do not care about the objectives. said, the sanctions that have been implemented, i would not say they have not had an effect. in some places, they have had an effect in terms of targeting individuals. there is been the development of the south stream. sanctions,es and thanking the russians are probably trying to avoid these, this is one of the calculations that is going to putin's frequent declarations that he is withdrawing troops from the ukrainian border, the sanctions that would hit presumably russian business much harder. the energy sector, banking, financial services. metallurgy and other exports. the question is, will we be able
to get our ministration involves? not gone globally, but it has turned its economic networksns, economic western energy companies, western banks, we thought we were getting by 10 years that we would civilize russia, make it less imperial. effect had the opposite that it has restricted us from imposing sanctions on russia when it behaves badly towards its neighbors because it would hurt our economies. i'm not sure how far we are .illing to go i personally think putin is trying to avoid it, but i would not take it off the table. one of the options i specify is
that it could create so much chaos through terrorism and disruption,litical infrastructure breakdown, rockette use, all things they could do in certain parts of eastern ukraine, and then cam aim they would come in in mission to restore order. he would have to consider what would be the sanctions reaction. that me turn it over to the others. >> the extent to which western does not want sanctions was demonstrated today. mrs. merkel showed up in st. told wasg, and i am the guest of big german energy
company that is a major partner with russian energy. that tells me a lot. the leader of the most powerful country in europe went to moscow, dave a speech about -- gave a speech about how business relations with russia need to be expanded and did not mention ukraine. that is, ladies and gentlemen important signal that for now the compromise looks like this -- there will be no full-scale military invasion 20th century style with tank columns into ukraine, probably because the russians into the conclusion, correctly in my book, that they the most powerful tools and leverage to influence ukrainian politics. or powerful than the west, more
powerful than europe him and assessed correctly that mr. obama and mrs. merkel, the two principal leaders of north america and europe, will confrontation and will not incurr a price from russia that russia is not willing to pay. there may be no military invasion, but at the same time i will not put it past theirrmans to repeat position back in 2008 that ukraine should not be in nato. i would not be surprised that the signals are going to moscow not fullyt will recognize, but will acquiesce to the crimea in the russian hands.
i just gave two days ago the presentation to a bunch of a military officers, and the majority in the room said clearly putin is going to keep the crimea. a bad deal.ot he did not lose any people there. he took it, he bluffed and blustered, put some troops on the border, grabbed crimea, and as i put it out before, it is a process, not an event. and if we do not do sanctions -- and i think after merkel going -- sanctioned by the u.s. alone, without europe, let alone othert china and japan, principal russian trading partners, are meaningless, are meaningless. not buy russian oil. russian oil is traded in global markets. russian gas goes to europe and &gcreasingly will be doing l
into southern china. where else we can -- if we could andupt the banking payments vis a vishe finances o iran, do not forget, this is a country which survive. ii, 74 years of horrible, horrible communist regime. sanctions? i do not think this is really serious. ok, thank you. a question here in the front row. i had a consultancy for security. my question is a very specific
one, and it goes like this -- of twos a pending sale amphibious ships, my friends, and it is likely that france will sell. 1914, wherejuly churchill arbitrarily on his own and decided not to give the already paid for -- to the ottoman empire at the time. what are your thoughts on france and the specific example and iel to sayly for ar from a u.s. standpoint what could we do, should we do to prevent that kind of a sale? probablydministration will not do much.
i think the concept of assumesip from behind that countries make their decisions. a nucleare that power, france, is an adult and can the side things on its own. i personally wrote -- i am on record -- before ukraine, for sochi, i am on record not once, not twice opposing the sale of -- because the helicopter he -carrying assault ships is a tool of aggression. pacific, and for the and it is clear that ships like that vastly increase the punch and the rapidity of deployment of expeditionary forces, that
then x commander of the russian ourk fleet said if we had choice, we would do it in two hours instead of two days. if the french want to enhance russian power pro jection, they can do that, and we won't press our concern, not anything beyond that. but what are we going to do -- not by french cheese? >> we did that once before. we're talking about, the 21st century version of lenin remarking that capitalists would sell the rope, and we will sell the rope that the capitalists can hang themselves with. this is a 21st-century version. it is indicative of not only a lack of a short term response to
what russia is doing, but a long-term strategy in terms of how to counter russian near imperial projects throughout the greater europe. theink we lost sight of target. we declared to quickly that the mission was accomplished. we did not complete the picture of bringing the greater europe, the whole europe into these transatlantic structures. we were distracted by other events. we withdrew in many respects from europe. europe itself is partly to blame, because of the fact that it has been so focused on its own internal questions, having sufficiently paid attention -- other than a few exceptions -- has not paid attention to those neighbors. and those neighbors can be
extremely destabilizing to the nato project, the central european project. following up what was said, i am we willg at what point draw a red line and stick to it. in other words, is it an attack on -- rackould german business to a subversion of latvia where s ace sizable russian speaking population. i would not discount the possibility that putin will become involved in the fact that he has not been sufficiently punished through his actions about crimea, and one other thing i would like to add about crimea, this is only the beginning. in other words, russia may have swallowed crimea, but the mood rtars inthe ta
comeea will be increasingly anti-russian. there is news about a jihadist emirate in crimea, and the possibility that russia will expand. the distance between the north caucasus and crimea is not large. youths will become militant. some have been fighting in syria. i'm sure the links with the sa in the north caucasus will increase. if you have a combination with islam and national independence -- because this is not traditional russian land. if you look far back in history, it is traditional crimea in tartar land. off somethingten that will increasingly poison its system. >> real quick.
besides the middle wahabi-funded selafis, sects, the russians may actually gain themselves something that they did not think about, and that is a relationship between andars, crimean tartars, the religious orders in turkey. orders, and they fought in the caucasus for 200 -- and plus years. movementscurrents and in the muslim world, including nearby in turkey, and because the crimea had been turkish territory only 50 years ago, there are people in turkey who seriously are thinking about that. and i think because it is a very
small population, maybe it is not such a big deal like north caucasus, but i agree, they may get on their hands some kind of resistance. i'm not sure which, i'm not sure if it is going to be very militant or not. presenting tartars alldeportation of 1944, that were shipped to central asia, and 30%, 40% of them died, they do not harbor kind thoughts about their relationships with the russians. >> that question over here on this side. excellent presentation by you your panelists, and i appreciated. i have a question in terms of semantics in all of this and the optics of all of this. ssents in the
past, the propaganda war. russia and it disinformation, whether it is from russia today, obviously any of its other correspondents, throughout the world, is this informing the truth about the situation of what is happening in ukraine, only two have, any type of separate type movements. how does the united states theace in terms of optics new ukrainian president and the new ukrainian government after these particular elections? propping upjust for the ukrainians themselves, but ino as a little hit to put and to moscow. and a follow-up question to something that was asked earlier, in terms of sanctions, if they are not enough, what is enough?
againstuld we be doing wooten and against the russian government? thank you. >> shall i start? you are absolutely right about disinformation, but also language use. this term that has not cracked in that everybody uses, pro-russian forces, what does that mean? there is a lot of russians in ukraine and russian speakers in ukraine that want to be part of united ukrainian state. not all russians in ukraine support putin. not all russians support putin. to say pro-russian is misleading. i would say pro-kremlin separatists, in that they would be aided and abetted and hooton is trying this deniability aspect. i am not responsible. they did it. it reminds me of what the loss of it did with his war criminals. yes, it creeps into language, and we have to be careful to
clean it up, not to mention the andage about ukrainian fascism, anti-semitism. fromihas been imported russia, in terms of the attacks on the muslims come anti-semitic propaganda, the use of nationalism by russia -- it is much more of a problem in ukraine. it is a factor in ukraine, but it is a ritual it only -- but it is marginal. -- maybe wert should welcome the new ukrainian president. my point about sanctions is they are insufficient, and i have a paper which i published just now in i'm gary and reviewed in which i note three areas. if we are serious in dealing project, then not
only sanctions, but we have to make what i call imperial inches this -- imperial indigestion. either countries that are certain to be partially y russia, they need to be as indigestible if russia is going to swallow them. russian agents need to be cleaned out. there is a whole range of questions and reforms that need to be conducted. we should be offering to the ukrainian government. secondly, and i think more importantly -- to follow this up, also the program of let's say properly defending all the nato members along russia's borders. baltic states, romania, so forth. we started this, but not enough. troops need to be on the ground. they cannot still believe in
lithuania, and, poland coming in, but they do not believe that the americans will become involved. lastly, it is essential, if we are serious about what russia is up to and if we do not want to see a continuous repeated what i call the shadow war that russia is engaging in against its neighbors, alternately we need to weaken the putin regime. the putin regime needs to be replaced by a democratic alternative. we have to weaken the putin structure. democratichelp alternative russia, but we also have to help independents' movements, democratic sovereignty movements, regions of russia that do not look to as the savior. far from it, they have seen the annexation of crimea as weakening federal funding for
their regions. there is a lot of the satisfaction around russia, and i believe one reason is putin hits out externally, that he is concerned about the internal situation. as part of our democratic program, democracy building, the markers he building is also -- democracy building is also building up strong democratic regions that can create a real federation in russia. russian federation is not a federation. it is a centralized authoritarian structure. there is no federation in russia. let's support the regions. that should be part of our western policy. >> that is quite an answer there. [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] maybe you can talk about what
ukrainians would like to see when they have a new president. what would be the meaningful signal from us? support, i of our would be encouraging, i would embrace the democratically elected leader, i would support with conditionality the imf bail out. ukraine will collapse economically. but we have seen that movie before, in 2004, we have seen it after that. the modularization of a state, including ukraine, for comprehensive political and economic reform is not an easy task. and so far, from maybe these somewhere, butng players in the
ukraine doorld in not strike me necessarily as great leaders of economic reform or people who can massive bureaucracies and make them transparent and not corrupt. this is a tall task, and i think ukraine would need to have a consensus that it absolutely needs to be done as a matter of national survival. if we had leaders here who understand that, they could have communicated that to their ukrainian counterparts. really are at the point where if ukrainians will not do this work, any amount of western
andwill be wasted, stolen, ms. i located -- misallocated. aspera needs to be mobilized, and i have not seen that mobilization. in recent events, there has been a little more of it. in order to implement the reforms that are necessary in the security apparatus, military, in the economic realm, this is something central europe and the baltic states 20 years ago -- ukraine wasted 20 years not doing that. yet there is a yearning to be part of europe, but there's no hard work that had been done to in ament necessary steps variety of government branches, that are necessary, and also ukraine has to push back on
propaganda and really push on the definitions of ukraine as near fascist or whatever. this is not helping the image of ukraine in europe. this is not helping the image of ukraine here. are absolutely wrong, but they are doing it. ukrainians are not really mobilized in that regard. now the work of the new president, government, is going similar to the post-revolution time, because in order to make the president less powerful, not for them to become dictator. seven now the president has limited control of the
ifernment, and it means that -- comes to power, he will be president, but he will control only the defense and mainstream to the government. and not involved with him are other special politics and other -- still controlled by the government, and they need to be approved by the powered -- in that sense we did have back in 2005 and the new president theelected to deliver power, a lead to a conflict between the president and the prime minister. reasons whyf the you see all of these much expected reforms implemented, in this-- was wasted almost personal political conflict that had nothing to do
with political -- only the balance of power, he was more powerful. -- in ukraine, we can have but on the other hand other people, civil society chooses to be more -- of its position, and has set their goal to control politicians and to make them more -- accountable, to make them actually implement these reforms that people are pushing for. it dependsis time -- note civil society to make the politicians who they elect actually to implement the goals for the the rich people who are protecting and saving for.
yes, that is it basically. >> ok. any more questions? yes. one over here. >> thank you. i would like to hear something about the coming summit. next week, and we presume the leaders may be releasing a statement which would be -- policies. since a movement pressured by these leaders would not affect president putin's policies against ukraine in the near future, and it does, if you could explain how. thank you. i am not sure i understand --
i understood exactly what you are trying to clarify in terms of behavior of the leaders. can you focus -- the pressure from the leaders -- leaders. policiesaffect putin's in the future? >> i am not sure there is currently pressure display that could affect a change of behavior -- that could effect a change of behavior. one of the things we talked about here is probably mr. putin's advisors made a financial calculation on how much it was going to cost for russia to pay for art of ukraine -- pay for parts of ukraine if y occupy them, and
they decided not to occupy because russia would not be able to pay for it. pressure short of a major disruption of asancial systems, such interbank transfers and wire s, against russian banks, russian banking system, i do not see the level of pressure that can change russian behavior in putin andthat mr. his entourage in a circle has decided this is of vital importance to russia. the problem is -- i have been in russia minute times, have listened to the narrative -- the problem i see is many in top levels of russian foreign-policy
come from the soviet system. there was no massive rejuvenation of the system. it was no leader change. strongve that nato is a crawlsation and it towards russian borders. they want to get ukraine into to engage russia in a military confrontation. arabbelieve that the spring-type of civil unrest is instigated by the west through facebook and twitter and through the internet. mr. putin is on record saying the cia has invented or runs the internet, which i do not think is the case. there is a lot of electronic one entering going on in all parts of the world, but not necessarily by that agency.
what i am saying is that you need to have a clear idea where the pressure points are and then apply decisive pressure if you want to try to change somebody's international behavior. even then there are no guarantees. the countries that were under sanctions for a long, long time, like iran, is not going to change, is going to reach a commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or become a threshold state. i do not you believe you can do it with sanctions and certainly not on the level of rather weak pro forma sanctions that we are witnessing now. take you. -- thank you. >> could you talk about the g7. the japanese prime minister raises the occupation and annexation of the northern territories by russia, because
it seems to me that there are many disputes between russia and its neighbors that have not been resolved, this being one of them. various up at the occasions. i agree with ariel in terms of sanctions, we need clear objectives. at least with iran there are clear objectives. africa, with clear objectives. i am not sure what our objectives are vis-à-vis putin. it does not make sense to me. the alternative is to weaken this regime, the system, and eventually get to help the russian people to replace it with a democratic alternative. otherwise, we are going to face problems for many years. i do not think our leaders. the state or in europe or in japan are thinking for the long term. unfortunately, we do not have statesmen now in the western
capitals as well as japan. we used to have them during the cold war, but they are a dying breed, and this is exactly what exploitnd written will -- and putin will exploit. >> we will wrap up at this point and say thank you to our three panelists for a terrific discussion. [applause] >> some other foreign-policy news today. at the state department, a spokeswoman said secretary kerry is available to testify in front of the house committee on thursday, june 12. if he appears before that committee, he will not testify for the select committee on benghazi. here is more now. you, becauseask this letter that has been sent to the hill is just puffed up.
you're asking for a different date? >> today we sent a letter to the committee say the secretary's before the committee on june 12 or june 20. they been cleared we are willing to work with the committee despite the fact that the benghazi oversight has been consolidated into the select video. we believe the secretary's appearance will eliminate any need for the secretary to appear a second time. he had a critical dramatic work that will be going on that day. we will offer other days. we've are surprised by the second subpoena when we had been engaged with the committee to try to find a date. we believe there are more appropriate witnesses, but to be corporative, we have offered some dates. two dates.
>> the 12th and the 20th -- >> june 12 or june 20. >> now, if you still believe that there are more appropriate witnesses to talk about the document production aspect of this, which is what congressman issa wants to talk about, why drop theask -- to subpoena entirely and agreed to have him testify before the select committee, which is going to be looking at them much broader -- >> we do not believe he should testify twice. in the interest of accommodation to resolve once and for all any outstanding relevant questions, we are prepared for the secretary to appear before the governmentight and reform committee. in the interest of being accommodating, we have offered several dates for the secretary
to a. >> is this an either or proposition? >> we believe if he appears before -- it will emanate any need for them to appear a second time before the select committee. >> essentially, this is a talent to congress on issa, ask for a more appropriate with this from your point of view or the secretary will not appear before the select committee. >> i would not read it that way. we're working to accommodate the house oversight committee's request. we do not think it is appropriate for him to have to testify twice on the same topic. so we have gotten a subpoena, which we have now also asked them to drop because we have offered two other dates. that will be where he appears. >> the whole point of you thinking that there was -- there are more appropriate witnesses to appear before -- suggests
document production -- right -- but i do not see that is appearing before two committees on the same thing. only- is limited to document production and the select committee is looking at the entire the of the attack -- >> that is not clear that that will be what is it is limited to when he is up there. i would left issa speak to the point of why he issued the subpoena. i would guess there are questions relating to begins nghazi that does not relate to document production. >> not something that the secretary of state is probably involved in -- >> a couple of reasons, that he is not involved in document production, and we believed there were more appropriate witnesses. also the way it was done. the second one them up when we
were working with a committee to find an accommodation, the second one was released and there was a tweet. it was the manner that we did not find appropriate. we will see if they would like him to testify on the 12th or the 20th. >> ok, but would you prefer if they decided not to have him he would all and then appear before the select committee? >> we believe there are are more appropriate witnesses to appear on that topic, but we said he will appear on the 12th of the 20th and think that takes away any need for him to appear before the select committee. thisdo not want to belabor -- >> i do not want to venture to guess what will happen is in that scenario you laid out. >> but if there are more appropriate witnesses to appear before -- do you think there are more appropriate witnesses to appear before the select
committee? >> i do not want to compare the two targ. we're responding to a specific subpoena from a different committee. we are not even there yet. >> i understand them but the letter does get into who will appear in terms of the secretary. >> he will appear once on benghazi. >> so it is either or. >> it will take away the need for him to appear before that -- >> i do not see why you think it is wrong to present the secretary of state a challenge to congressman i said to drop this, do not insist on the secretary appearing before your committee because if you do in the select committee is not going to be able to hear from him. >> as we have said, the benghazi oversight has been consolidated into the select committee. if they work it out and their caucus, how they want to do with
the issue going forward, all we are doing is responding to a subpoena. if they want to decide to withdraw the subpoena or ask them instead to go before the select committee, we would've at that request them then. that is not where we are. >> you do agree that secretary kerry would be an appropriate witness for the select committee, which is covering the whole -- or no -- >> i'm not going to say. appearsg to say if he it will take away the need for them to appear before the select committee. >> [indiscernible] >> we asked in a letter saying i have returned from the that we have asked the committee to withdraw the subpoena from may 29 because the secretary will not be able to make it on the day, which they did not ask us before they issue the subpoena. commanding him to appear. we asked them to withdraw the subpoena on that day. we offered two alternative dates. >> can you say why? >> on may 25 there are
presidential election in ukraine. there will be a lot of work on the aftermath of those. also engaged in meetings, preparing for overseas travel, including the nato and brussels in early june. the trouble in the region where we are working on issues. there is a lot on his plate. was the second subpoena issued we were working with the committee to find an appropriate date which was one of the reasons why we were surprised. >> will the secretary be in washington? onyes, but he has a lot his plate that they day. that i amm sorry laboring this. which committee is it more appropriate -- is the secretary more appropriate as a witness to bureau -- to appear before, the
oversight or the select committee? >> i do not think that is a fair comparison to make were a useful comparison to make. when the subpoena was issued on the oversight committee, document production, we thought there were more appropriate witnesses. the select committee housework is getting started. we want to cooperate with them. i do not want to get into comparison. oversight responsibility has been consulate dated -- has been consolidated under the select committee. it appears they have figured out who they want to appear under the select midi. they have to work out some of their issues as well. we're responding to an individual subpoena. >> ok, but if you do not think -- if you think -- >> it is not about which committee is worth appropriate. if he appears once, testifies on benghazi, he appears before congress. >> if you take cubesmart issa's word, he wants to ask about the
department postures as to the requests. this is all post incident. is not the most appropriate witness to talk about that. he is still willing to appear before it -- >> we are accommodating and working before the committee. it is a trickike accommodation, because of you say all right, he will go, he will testify before that committee, and then he will not testify before committee that he is a more appropriate witness that he could appear before -- >> one point his time is valuable, and it is very limited. he has a whole world of pressing diplomatic issues on his plate. so the time and energy that it takes to prepare for these kinds of areas, obviously they are important and we want him to talk about it. that is why we have our firs --e
offered to date. it cannot be a situation where he goes on forever and ever. the one i point is spoke to about, they need to figure out how they are going to do handle oversight of this issue and where they want to use the resources and how they want to call witnesses and whether oversight does what a select issuetee does, that is an their caucus has to decide. we can only respond to a request. >> why didn't you then write original issa and say to melissa willing tocretary is appear before your committee, please drop the subpoena, we have offered to bank alternative dates -- two alternative dates, but we think that he is not the most appropriate witness for your committee, why don't you so that --he caucus work with the committee, drop any requests for him to appear before oversight and suggest to
the select committee to representative county that they ask him to appear? >> we made many of those points. we did say we do not believe he is the most appropriate when this. we said it is not appropriate for him to testify before the select committee if he testifies here. we have been working with the committee throughout weeks now to determine the best witness and when and who, so we have had those conversations, but they need to make decisions and we have sent the secretary is willing, happy to testify on this issue on one of those dates, july 12 or 20, because we believe oversight is important. this cannot be the secretary gets called up by different committees -- >> it seems to me that you could have suggested to congressman i said that we will send you official x and the secretary we think is a more appropriate committeer the select midi
-- >> they proceeded with their requests, so we are responding. >> had you gotten a reply yet? but weto my knowledge, just sent the letter about an hour ago. >> we also heard today from chuck hagel delivering remarks at the u.s. naval academy graduation and commissioning ceremony in annapolis, maryland. he talks about the importance of eliminating sexual assault and harassment in the military. here's a look at the speech. youour actions will define , your actions will defined you in the eyes of everyone around you. it is not just what you do, but how you do it. actions and in actions have consequences.
you will all be counted on to lead in helping eliminate sexual harassment and sexual assault of your sisters and brothers in uniform. you have seen what these crimes due to the survivors, their families, institutions, and communities. you know how they tear people and units apart, how they destroy the aunts of confidence lie at the very core, the center, the heart of our military. take this knowledge and do whatever you can to make sure everyone is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. we are all accountable. from new recruits to four-star admirals and generals, from retaries of defense, we have to's step up and take action. >> that was some of his address
from earlier today at the naval academy. you can watch the entire event at and: 30 eastern on c-span, and you can watch it anytime online at www.c-span.org. commencementage of speeches begins with louisiana governor bobby jindal at liberty university in virginia, followed and others,rick, all starting tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. as graduation season is up on us, c-span is asking, what is your advice? jimmy posts, run as far away bigthe concept government as far as you can. lucy says research for valid opinions. and mimic fool for what you hear. >> if we do not step up the
enforcement side, the enforcement side brings the media attention. so if we are going to say the only thing we can ever rely on to make these universities and colleges do what they should be doing is for them to get a bad story, that is a lot of victims. that to me would be a depressing we have got to figure out some way to up the is short of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front pages. >> i would say less the dollar month than with the department of ed. i think is the changes i have seen institutions make is when they are under immediate investigations. i would almost rather see that investment in a bigger -- >> in all fairness, fines will
be paying for this. we have a budget issue in our government. where will it come from? they can fund their own enforcement. i think that is the justice, and every survivor will back that up. >> senator claire mccaskill and the first of several discussions on combating rape and sexual assault on college campuses, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. ney examines the political philosophy and presidential tenure of james madison, sunday morning at 11:00 on c-span2. 10:00, therning at life and work of american red cross founder sir barton. we will listen -- founder clara barton. live, ontions c-span3. some of theok at
ongoing problems at the veterans affairs department in the future of secretary eric shinseki. this is from "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. -- guest: these scandals have permeated for years now. we've had caused veterans to die by the v.a.'s own records. veterans that were applying for their own records. they die waiting for their benefits alone. and yet, we never heard anything. no scandals. no national outrage. five dead veterans who couldn't get in for colonoscopies on time. and 700 ill veterans in ohio. this is over a year ago and in a lawsuit for a man who went in for surgery. a marine who never came out because he caught a disease and died. we've got dead veterans in
augusta and in atlanta. these are all before phoenix. and now that phoenix has happened, they want to wait for the investigations to see what the results are. we've got evidence, massive evidence. host: so this has been going on for years. but why? guest: well, essentially, you know, it's a great credit to eric. he did allow agent orange illness to be recognize in 2009. ptsd and desert storm syndrome. they think it's a result of the iraq wharf it's not. a lot of vietnam veterans were suffer what we called shell-shock for years and they had these agent orange-related cancers and the v.a. decided to allow their claims to come in. that's what caused the backlog in a flood of claims but 97% of these claims are being handled manually and it wasn't even automated. so they get this huge backlog of claims. now, they get backlogs in appointment. and instead of handling it, they
try to hide that they can't service all these veterans so they can get their bonuses, the executives. they want to look like they're doing business as usual. host: this is what the "wall street journal" had to say about the v.a. management bill that he house passed this week. they passed legislation to streamline dismissal for mall feasant v.a. staff -- caller: i can't agree with that more the v.a. management and accountability act which passed h.r. 40-3 did pass. however, now, harry reid is blocking it to getting into the senate floor. what's bothering me is it's not a silver bullet but it's a start. right now, he couldn't even fire
his own executives who had been hiding and frauding all of these records. sharon hellmann runs the phoenix medical center and is in the headlines. she actually misrepresented members of veterans suicide rates in 2009 out of seattle. she said nine vets committed suicide when it was actually 22. she falsified the records. did they move her out? did they move her? no. they moved her up. and then she became a director. and now we see another culture of corruption permeating. so i think executive knows they could lose their jobs. they're going to be more accountable to do their jobs like the rest of us. host: 202 is the area code if you want to talk about the v.a. affairs controversy going on in this country right now. 585-3880 for depp cat's -- the umbers are on your screen.
you can always get through via social media as well, via witter, facebook and e-mail. sergeant jessie jane duff, or gunnery. what's the difference? >> one is a few ranks lower. marines are uptight about that. once you hit the rank of sergeant, they want to make sure you use their full rank. army tends to use saget more commonly throughout their ranks. but it's saget staff or sergeant gunnery. so gunny is like a nice -- but we're known to being very mean. >> when did you retire? caller: i retired out of the marine corps in 2004. host: how long did you serve? >> 20 years. host: and why? caller: it was probably the most extraordinary, difficult and extreme thing i could think of ever doing in my entire life. to this day, i can call myself a marine. it's the greatest honor you could ever do. you're going to have good days
and bad days but they're the most extraordinary days and you will have a great love of your country because once you've been overseas, you will grasp the freedom that this country provides for you every single day. it's a wonderful opportunity. host: where did you serve? caller: i moved nine times in 20 years. i did a lot in asia. and i served a lot at camp pendleton. i did get to be based out of hawaii. i decided that one tour but i retired in missouri where i was training marines. i was a logistics marine. i drove commercial rigs. a lot of people don't believe that but i didn't wear this dress when i was doing it. i wore camouflage. it was a tough life but it was a thrill and enjoyment. host: and what is the concerned concerned groups of america? caller: many of us is --
guest: many of us got off at the duty and we start to get with that freedom is about. our founding fathers created a structure to have freedom that no other country in this world, no other democracy could ever taste. at the v.a. a medical centers it is a good example about how government bureaucracy -- these vets who , this is their only option for health care. those that have to go to the ba are those that have no other choice. if the nation can't protect those who volunteered or who were even drafted to serve this nation during hard times, who can it protect? dismantledd the vab and put the mainstream? test combat would be a dream come true for many conservatives. the realistic role of the ba, it was service related disabilities they earned through their service.
just because you served as not mean you rate medically. the nation has to recognize that that is their sole mission. why can't they functionally do it right? they are the second largest budget next to dod. problem, it isey a management problem. i would love to get medical care away from the v.a.. who is going to pay those bills? they get a test case in phoenix where they reimbursed outside carriers. many veterans got bad credit out of these extreme medical bills that were not being paid. add another to layer of responsibility to pay the debt? i am very concerned that portability would be a great solution but it has to be functional and reimbursed on time. >> we want to get your reaction to what mitch mcconnell had to say on the senate floor this
week. >> this weekend americans will gather to remember all who have fought and parish so we may live in freedom. our chance tos honor their extraordinary sacrifices. played a vitalng role in the defense of our nation. i am honored to represent so many kentuckians in the armed forces, including those stationed in fort knox, fort campbell, the bluegrass army, and members of the reserves and kentucky national guard. one of the reasons memorial day is so important to me is because it allows americans to reflect and give thanks for all that we have, to recognize that none of this would be possible without so many americans we never have met, putting everything on the line for us. that is why the men and women deserve our full
support when they're deployed, when they are training, and when they return home. most americans certainly agree with that statement. as we recently learned that is not happening. so many americans turn on the evening news just to be stick -- just to be second of the steady drip of the growing veterans scandal. the denial of care to our veterans is a national disgrace and this scandal only seems to increase in scope by the day. host: gunnery sergeant? guest: his statements were cut -- were touching. he should be able to ensure that those that have difficulties related to their service are receiving that care and now we are seeing scandal after scandal where there is death and mismanagement. the we have scandals where there are tried to get in for and they had to
post positive three times before they could get a colonoscopy. in 2010 to save cost. in out turkey new mexico we have people with gain green, brain heart disease. you have to get an appointment within 14 days. that is why these executives were hiding these lists of veterans in the backlog of employment. they did not want people to know they couldn't service it because they get bonuses. every executive received a satisfactory performance rating. everyone but one. that tells you something, that they were gaming the system so they could be rewarded. up to put their own careers in veterans lives. -- hose, when the show you the money here. the v.a. is getting $153 million .