tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 21, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
se will off. -- well-off. i gave it a failing grade for all of these factors. the house budget does know better. we sit here as a conference committee, have the choice of choosing or fighting the mid-distance between two filling visions or engaging in a bipartisan discussion to address the significant education deficit in america infrastructure deficit in america, inequality in america. to address the shortcoming and good paying jobs in america. that is the path we should take. chairman: thank you. that concludes the presentations. i particularly want to thank the house members for their patience and participation and for staying under the five minutes. i think -- thank the senators
for staying under six minutes or the most part. [laughter] mr. chairman: statements can be submitted by the close of business tomorrow. with all of the statements conclude, this meeting of the conference committee on the 2015 fiscal budget revolution that resolution is recessed. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up, hillary clinton holds a roundtable. a debate on how the west should deal.
later, the good shares speak about their budget proposals. the senate finance committee he is from u.s. chamber of commerce president. a hearing on trade policies and congressional trade priorities. that is starting at 10 ago a.m. eastern -- starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. here are a few book vessels that we will be covering, this weekend we will be in maryland for the annapolis festival, hearing from roberta gonzales. -- alberto gonzales. as well as david axelrod.
we will be in -- expo in new york city. the first week of june, we are alive at the chicago tribune including a three-hour live in depth program. that is this spring on c-span2 book tv. >> hillary clinton, monday. spoke to whitney brothers. she sat down for a roundtable discussion with dave stabler and some employees. it included small business issues, wages and retirement savings. this is 50 minutes. [applause]
dave: i would like to welcome you to whitney brothers. this is really cool. we are a manufacturer of early childhood equipment, which you can see, but our main customer is age six months to six years. we sell all over the united states and canada. our products are in a lot of places, day care centers, jewish community centers, ski areas car dealerships, anywhere where mom and dad can leave their
child for 10 minutes or longer if they got a job or have to go shopping. you might find some whitney products. there are 40 of us employees and we are excited to have the secretary here, and i think the process will be is that briefly my coworkers will identify themselves, say one or two sentences about what they do here, how many years they have been here at whitney, where they live, and then i think we will have a discussion and the secretary will speak to us. thanks. so i will start off. i am dave stabler. i have been at whitney for 32 years, probably longer because i worked here as a boy during the summers. and i did not like it much when i was here.
so i left keene in my 20's and came back in my 30's when i realized that keene was a great place to raise a family. and that made it worthwhile, and the business was a growing business, and that made it exciting. i live in keene. i have three sons. and that is really about it. billy, do you want to start us off? bill: i live in swanzey. i have worked for whitney for years. i worked in the spray area. i have one son in the navy and three stepchildren from my wife. very nice working here, a very good place to work. ken: my name is ken cooper. i have been here for about a year and a quarter. i run a machine for the
finishing department. even though i do not have any children, this is very fulfilling and rewarding to be able to work with materials to make the furniture that i have seen in many churches over the years. pam: my name is pam livingood. i have been with whitney brothers for 11 years. i am the person in the assembly department. when we receive the raw wouldod to manufacture beautiful products around us, we put the end product of into the shipping department which goes out into our communities and daycare centers. i have lived in keene. i have three children, two daughters and a son, and three grandsons. mary: i am mary. i worked for whitney brothers for 16 years, as a supervisor. i retired two years ago and came
back to whitney two weeks ago. i have three children, grown. i live in swanzey, new hampshire. i have six grandchildren. >> jim? jim: i am jim, and i am from keene. i am in the engineering department. i take ideas that the customer will bring in or anyone will have or ourselves, providing new products for consumption out there. we do a little bit of everything. i thought i would come in here doing drafting work, and i'm doing testing, new designs. i come out and actually -- what i like about this place is i can walk around and see the thing being built, being manufactured, and to converse with my fellow employees. and personally, i have two
daughters and a stepdaughter and a stepson. they are all grown. dave: chris? chris: my name is chris swanson. i have worked at whitney brothers for 12 years. i started off as a receptionist. i do a variety of things, from human research customer service, to clothing. i still help answer the phones so i may be one of the voices you hear when you call. i live in fitzwilliam, and i have two grown children, a boy and a girl and a new granddaughter. secretary clinton: well, thank you all so much for inviting me and giving me a chance not only to learn more about this business, which is a family business, 112 years young, and
to meet some of the people who work here, as i did when i was walking through and as you just introduced yourselves. i am excited to hear from you about what it takes to get a small business up and going and keep it growing in an increasingly competitive global economy. small business is the backbone of the american economy. here in new hampshire, 96% of all businesses are considered small businesses. and they employ more than half of the workers, the employees in the state of new hampshire. so new hampshire is a perfect example of what it takes to start and grow a small business. i come from a small business family. my father had a very small business. he printed drapery fabric. he did much of the work himself, sometimes with day laborers, with my mother, my brothers, and
me, taking the squeegee, you go down, you go to the next, and you keep going. i saw now there is a machine that you just do the printing on all kinds of material, and i'm thinking back to those years at my father's plant. he made a very good living because of his hard work and his absolute willingness to do whatever it took to design, to produce, to sell the products that were at the heart of what he produced. and so from my perspective, i want to be sure that we get small businesses starting and growing in america again. we have stalled out. i was very surprised to see that when i began to dig into it, because people were telling me this as i traveled around the country the last two years, but
i did not know what they were saying. and it turns out that we are not producing as many small businesses as we used to, and a recent world study said that we are 46th in the world in the difficulty to start a small business. there are lots of issues, and we will get into some of those, i hope, dave. i want to hear from each of you, because of what i am doing in this campaign is making my own decisions about what we need to do. i want to embed what i propose as policies, not in ideology not in some philosophy, but in the real daily lives and experiences of american workers and business owners and everybody who has a stake in making sure that the economy is working again. really, we have to do more for young people because what we're finding is that with student debt -- and new hampshire has the highest student debt numbers of any state in the country --
that interferes with young people taking certain jobs buying a house, even getting married, and certainly starting a business. when i was in iowa last weekend, i met a young man, his dream had to been to own the bowling center is hometown. he graduated from college because he worked during the summers and he wanted to own that business, got a chance to do it, but with his student debt it was really a struggle because even though he was very responsible, he had done everything we expect a young person to do to try to better themselves, he was running into real credit problem. even now he has got the business, but he runs it -- he has a little grill and restaurant, he with two employees are trying to make a go of it. here is a young, ambitious guy and when i was thinking about my dad, it was a lot easier in
those days to have an idea, to get what you needed, and go to work. that piece of this, as we were walking around, as dave was telling about all the incredible machines that are used here in production, all but one are from another country. and many of them, if i am right, dave, are from europe. dave: that is correct. secretary clinton: europe has high wages, they have high costs. why are they producing these advanced machines instead of us? what is wrong with this picture? you can see that maybe lower cost places that are mastering the art of machine production would be competitive, these are high-value machines, sophisticated machines. how do we get back into more basic production again so that we can resume our lead in manufacturing? something that i can get essential. a lot of people disagree with me. they say those days are over. i do not believe it. you walk around here, you see these machines from italy or germany or wherever else they
are from -- why aren't we producing these machines? what do we need to do to jump-start manufacturing in our country? we've gone through some tough times, and i think americans have done everything they could think of to do to get through those tough times. but now it is not enough just to tread water. we need to get ahead and stay ahead, and people need to feel that their work is being rewarded, that the deck is not stacked in favor of those at the top, that they have a chance to go far with their hard work and their aspirations will take them. so in order to put together a set of policies for my campaign, i really want to make sure that they are in line with the real lives and real working experiences of the people that i would love to represent as your president.
so we're going to take on four big fights. we're going to fight to build the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday, and make the middle class mean something again in this country. we are going to fight to have strong families and strong communities, and -- whose customer market is between six months and six years. that is right where i am focused these days. i want to make sure we have a functioning political system. i am going to fight for that. i will work with anybody. i have done that. i did it as senator. i will do it again. but i will also stand my ground if i need to. part of that is getting unaccountable money out of politics, because we cannot afford that, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. and then finally, we always have to be vigilant to protect our country against the threats we know. we can see them. but then the threats we cannot see, pandemic diseases, cyber warfare, etc. so i'm excited about this campaign. i'm thrilled to be back in new hampshire. i see some of my friends out there in the audience.
the first place i ever came for any political campaign was in 1991, when i was here campaigning for my husband. in october of 1991 celebrated my birthday here in keene, and i have a lot of wonderful memories. so with that, dave, i'm going to turn it back to you and we can start hearing from some of the folks. dave: i will ask the initial question, and you guys can chime in. early childhood is our interest, but we are fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters. i would like you to elaborate on exactly what you think you might do for childcare in the future if you are elected. secretary clinton: that is a question near and dear to my heart because i think every society starts with our youngest citizens.
and when i got out of law school, i went to work with the children's defense fund. so my whole adult life, both professionally and my volunteer work, has been around children and families, and it is to me the most important commitment we can make. and now it is not only that we want to take care of our children, our grandchildren, but we now know that the way brains develop, thanks to all the great research that is being done by a -- our scientists, that those early years really are critical to the success that a child will have in school and what that child can learn and then what that child can choose to do, what kind of opportunities will be available. so i think we have to start in the family. and i have been working on a project to convince parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, to read, talk, and sing to their
babies, and that is equally important in any childcare setting. so when you are producing furniture that give kids a chance to be part of a circle, to work on a table, all of that, it is safety and stimulation are the two most important needs that little, tiny babies have. and i think we need a much more broadly based universal pre-kindergarten program so that kids have a chance to get ready for school, and i really applaud states -- and they are not all the states that you might think of. oklahoma has a universal pre-k program because their state decided they would invest in the early years to get their kids better for school. and i think that childcare problem -- i was looking at a statistic that it can cost as much as $12,000 a year in new hampshire for quality childcare. that is more than the community college costs, as i understand
it. and what are we going to do about that? how can you expect most families to afford that kind of cost? so we have got to do more to support quality child care and universal pre-kindergarten because by the time a child enters kindergarten, a lot of their brain development has taken place, their vocabulary has been developed. so if we want them to do well in school, and i know there are a couple of retired teachers out there, you want our kids to do well in school, it has to start in the first five years, and that is where you come in. and you were telling me about a light table and other things that you prepared for settings where little kids are -- that is all to stimulate them and give them a chance to develop that brain and learn more so they are better prepared for school. dave: thank you. guys, you want to start off? anybody? pam: my grandson goes to the
head start across the way over there. it is filled with whitney brothers' products -- coat lockers, and in there are our little tables and chairs. it made me feel proud that i worked here that these people were buying -- also, the growing drug problem in the area. my grandson's mother cannot be so responsible. we also need to see more for in our area. there are limited resources. we would like to see something in that respect. do you have any further ideas? secretary clinton: i do, actually.
i am really concerned because, pam, what you just told me, i'm hearing from a lot of different people. there is a hidden epidemic. the drug abuse problem, whether pills or meth or heroin, it is not as visible as it was 30 years ago when there were all kinds of gangs and violence. this is a quiet epidemic. it is striking in small towns and rural areas as much as it is in any big city. we see steady cutbacks in drug abuse programs, treatment programs, mental health programs. i see senator kelly here and know the senator here is trying to get resources. we have a perfect storm. we have an increasing problem that it is only beginning to break through the surface so that people -- i think a lot of people are thinking that it is someone else's problem, not my
problem, and indeed it is all our problem. and we do not have enough resources, so that if someone decides that they want to get help, where do you send them? what of opportunities do they have for treatment? i'm convinced that the mental health issues -- because i consider substance abuse part of mental health issues -- it is going to be a big part of my campaign because increasingly it is a big issue that people raise with me. and when i was in iowa last week, i literally heard from one end of the state, from davenport to council bluffs, about this problem and how the state was shutting all their in-patient facilities and there was nowhere for people to be sent. so we've got to do more. we have treatment in the affordable care act, which is a good thing, and we have it, at least on paper. it's called is mental health parity, where insurance companies have to care for mental health like physical problems. but we are just at the beginning
of trying to figure out what this is, and the whole substance abuse issues do not end with this. you read about a small county in southern indiana where there was an epidemic of hiv among the people living in the community because they were sharing needles and shooting up some kind of pill that was turned to powder. so now they have not only the drug abuse problem, they have people who have contracted hiv. this is not something that we can just brush under the rug and wish it would go away. we need a concerted policy national, state, local, public private, and we need to help young people like the mother of your grandson. pam: thank you. >> the drug issue is not really a no-issue either. as a kid myself, as the son of a minister, a preacher, the little town i grew up in, i was the
only one my age who was not involved in drugs of some sort. the dealer lived across the street, the kids used drugs in front of the house next door. and there was really no recourse in upstate new york at that time because this little town was 300,000 acres, a lot of territory to cover. one town cop. two local sheriffs. it was an ongoing issue. secretary clinton: that is exactly right. it is not a new issue, but it has taken kind of a new turn, if you will. and i think more young people -- maybe because we stopped the messaging about how dangerous drugs were, because i can remember the same kind of messages advertising that we would all the time, you do not see that anymore. i think for a lot of young people, especially if it is pills, i think they believe, what is wrong with that?
it is a prescription pill, so it must be ok. they do not know that taking it and mixing it and the rest will be dangerous for them. that is a good point. dave: bill? bill: in the line with the drug and things, you made a point of educating kids at an early age it might be advantageous to maybe push the drug issue there at head start, just in a way that they will all understand that it is not a good thing to do, even though your friends might do it, you do not need to do this. you do not have to. there are other ways. secretary clinton: so starting early. so you hire a lot of people. >> whitney does drug testing, so we want a drug-free workplace.
secretary clinton: that sends a strong message, and a lot of employers are doing that or thinking about that going back to doing that. is that we you hear from your human resource contacts as well? >> yes. workmen's comp likes having it too, because we have a machine -- if someone is running them and is high someone is going to get hurt. coordination and everything goes down. secretary clinton: jim, what are some of the other issues? jim, what are the economic issues? jim: my kids are all grown and they are in their late 20's, so they have established themselves, so i do not have to worry about them anymore the way i used to with young kids. for myself, i'm getting up in
age -- and i have worked for a small company all my life. and most of them have just enough money to give you minimal health care, retirement. i have very little saved for retirement because of trying to make ends meet with kids and -- [indiscernible] resources. the company i just left before i came here a year ago closed their doors because the economy. they were making super insulated panels for the building, which i thought was the way to go. so when they closed the doors, that was 27 years working for them. it left me looking for a new job, and thankfully whitney brothers were looking for my skills to help them with their products, and i'm very thankful for being here. but i look at your ideas on
health care and social security. and where are those heading? i'm in my late 50's right now, 10 years from now i'm going to hopefully work less. in regards to our company here what can be done to bolster our company to help us live a better life? secretary clinton: in your 27 years, was there any kind of retirement account, 401k anything? jim: there was initially, that lasted until the economy went belly up back in 2008. and our company went right down the tubes. people were not going to spend extra little bit of money to get a better product.
the same what happens here. we are struggling to try to fight with the chinese and other people who are making similar items to us and are cutting costs, and we look at every penny that we put into our products here and try to get everything out of it as we can with fancy machines, with processes that we use. so, yeah, the company i worked for i thought was the way to go. secretary clinton: you raise an important issue because one of the really big problems we face is that american worker productivity has continued to go up. american workers work longer and harder and more productively than the vast majority of workers anywhere in the world. but it has been very difficult
to turn that increased productivity into increased wages. and in some cases where you have small companies, the margin is too thin. it is really hard to do that. in some places where you have big companies, they choose not to. they would rather do stock buybacks than increase wages and salaries. so i think there has to be a look at a range of different kinds of companies because some companies have the cash and make decisions that leave out their workers, and some people are trying to keep the doors open and the work coming and be successful and stay afloat. so what we need to figure out is how we incentivize companies that have the cash to do more with it and how we support smaller businesses to be more competitive to get more market especially export market.
dave and i were talking about how important it is for small business is to have access to market openings. how do you get the best support you need for a website or for telling other potential customers about your product? how do you compete with, as you say, somebody doing the same thing in china? so i think we have to look at this from kind of the top and the middle and try to figure out what is the best way to do it. on social security, though there is a lot of loose talk about social security. and i do not know how people can make some of the arguments they make, because if you look at how dependent so many people are on their social security, they worked hard for it, they retire, they postpone retirement as long as possible because they want to keep working, but they also want to get the maximum amount of payout from social security. the social security trust fund
according to the trustees, will be solvent until 2035. so what do we do to make sure it is there and we do not mess with it and we do not pretend that it is a luxury? because it is not a luxury. it is a necessity for the majority of people who draw from social security. so i think there will be some big political arguments about social security. and my only question to everybody who thinks we can privatize social security or undermine it in some way -- and what is going to happen to all these people who worked 27 years at this other company? what is going to happen? it is just wrong. so part of what we have to do is say, everybody, take a deep breath and figure out what works, and how we build on what works. and let's not get into arguments, as i say, about ideology and rhetorical attacks and claims.
let's just kind of take a deep breath here as a country and say, ok, we're going to have retirement issues and people who have worked hard deserve to have enough security when they retire so that they can have a good quality of life. so i am 100% committed to that. dave: that dovetails to what mary's situation -- i do not know your whole circumstance but mary worked here for a number years, quit, then came back. can you talk about your decision? was it a financial decision. mary: it was a financial situation. as a homeowner, there are always repairs that have to be done those things that have to be done, that you have to keep up that you do not count on when you're not working. so coming back to work, and i said, why not come back to whitney brothers? it is a place that i know, i am familiar with it. i like it. i like the product. so financially.
secretary clinton: did you think, mary, when you retired the first time that you had enough resources to be able to take care of your needs and then something unexpected happened? mary: yeah. i thought i could live like comfortable. not above, but comfortable. secretary clinton: did you start drawing social security? mary: yes. secretary clinton: what amount did you get? mary: i also have a retirement too, but i got $1400 a month. secretary clinton: so i think if you look just realistic, especially if you still own your home, you're still obviously independent and able to take care of yourself, you are going
to have a lot of expenses, both predicted and unpredictable. so when you came back, did you believe that you were here for a period of years, or are you going to take it year by year? mary: part-time. going to catch up on those -- [indiscernible] [laughter] secretary clinton: i can tell. they were calling you every day, saying, why don't you come back? dave: the experience being here so many years, it is truly priceless. that brings up something i would like you to have -- i would like you to address, and that is one of the biggest problems we have, madame secretary, is getting good cnc adults that are trained in math and computers -- we
compete against a lot of local companies that -- you look at our ads in the local newspapers, internet, i mean, it is cnc folks, people that have math skills. our machines are metric and the architects and dealers are asking why are we are switching. you need intelligent employees. you have the college and high school do technical services but it just does not seem to work. we are always struggling to find people like that. would you agree? >> yes, i would agree. dave: i mean -- secretary clinton: i met a young man who went to the keene state college program to learn these skills, and that is what we need more of. we need at the high school and the college level, community four-year college, work programs that are related to the skills that employers actually need.
what are the job skills that you are trying -- dave: it's technical skills. i think there is a place for the humanities, but technical skills, electricians, plumbers those are the guys we're looking for, those people. secretary clinton: we have to get back to encouraging more young people to see these as careers, and then we have to have both more education-based skills programs and employer-based skills programs the kind of apprenticeship programs and other training programs that are both public and private and try to get young people the opportunities. it is really important that we do more to publicize why these skills are going to get you a good job. i think we have kind of lost the thread here. too many young people do not know -- nobody told them -- that you can get a really good job, as you just named, an
electrician, welder, you name it -- and the computerized numeric control system, that takes a year or two of training to really understand, because that is a level beyond what we typically think of as technical education. so i would love to hear from you and maybe start with you, chris, because when people come for a job interview, where have they gotten their skills, or do they even know that those skills would enhance their chance to get hired? chris: i think the majority of the people come here is on-the-job training. there is not really any school training. there is a career center at the high school, but it is more metal than wood. it can go hand in hand, but with us, we look more for wood and it is more on-the-job training the people --
dave: so we are having to train relatively green people to run the machines. and it has worked out, but again, in the local marketplace, we are competing against a lot of different companies that need cnc operators. we might train someone for a year or two and they might go somewhere else for a couple of dollars more. that is life, that is tough, but we would like to think that there could be a greater pool of technically skilled people. >> we are doing with manufacturing and we are going against the overseas people, so we need to give our costs low, and we can only pay so much.
secretary clinton: you've got have cost pressures plus skills pressures. you need to have more programs. we've kind of backed off from what used to be called technical education, and i think that we made a mistake as we backed off thinking that it was going to be picked up by either businesses or community colleges, technical schools, and that didn't happen fast enough. it is starting to happen now. there are more places where you can get these kind of technical skills, we need to create a bigger pool of people in order to meet the needs that you are talking about. i visited a community college in iowa last year that takes high school students and trains them on cnc. and then they are able to really be job prepared when they leave high school. which is amazing. they might graduate 30 or 40 a year, when the demand is much greater than that. i really approve of the president's proposal to try to make community college as free as possible.
that would be a big help here in new hampshire, where it is so costly. the amount of tuition is so high, both in the two-year and the four-year schools, but that still will not help unless we provide more incentives for these people to go in trade. jim: if i had to switch jobs can -- switch jobs again for some reason, thank god i still have decent skills. as a drafter and designer, i learned how to use the computer on my own without any education. if i had more education, i might be able to do more. but to afford to go back to school, timewise as far as cost, it is always hard. with health care and all that, taking the little bits out of my pay, that there is not enough money for me to go back to school for me to get other new skills, either to enhance what i am doing here or to think about if i ever decided to move
somewhere else. >> before i came to whitney brothers i had a chance to look into a cnc program that is offered by the local community college, but it was only going to be in claremont that next session, and that was the middle of winter. bit of a hike up there. fortunately, i found this place and it worked out very well. secretary clinton: what are your hours of operation? dave: 7:00 to 3:30, but it goes until 4:30, or 5:00, so eight or nine hours. sometimes in the summer we have second shift, because the nature of our business, the busy months are june, july, august, before school starts. secretary clinton: you have this equipment here, so if you get some kind of grant or other support from either local
governments, state government, even the community college or the colleges, and you could have a program at night. somebody ought to come in and basically say we are going to designate whitney brothers as one of our training facilities and your expert employees would get some kind of wage bump because you would be the instructors. i just think we got to be imagining outside the old box about what we're going to do to get our skills up, how we are going to get more people of all ages to have the opportunity to improve those skills. very hard to do it if you are already working during the workday, but maybe there could be some cooperative approach that would make a difference. i hear we do not have enough skilled workers, with technical skills. we do not have enough r.n.'s and cna's.
we have a whole missing group of employees that could be employed in our industries, so how do we fix that? if we do not fix that, we will not competitive. we will always be behind the curve in trying to succeed. >> going back to changing the mindset. when i was in school and growing up, there was nothing wrong with being an electrician or plumber or carpenter. these were really good jobs and you could make good money doing that. and it seemed to fall off the table. everybody wants to go right to the top. no, you got to be at the bottom before you can work your way in there. and i think if we work in the high schools, even in the grammar schools, at some point get these kids -- a lot of kids just do not want to go to school. they do not want to go to college. fine, you do not have to go to college to make a good living.
but you have to get it out there, that it is ok not to go to college if you do not want to, but these are good positions. you can get a good job, you can make a good living, support your family by doing these other things. that kind of got off track. secretary clinton: i agree with you. does anybody else feel that way? >> when i was in high school, we had a semester of shop classes. pam: everything got computerized and everybody wants to design computer games, that is what i am good at. it is true, you need a nurse. you are going to get sick sometimes. we all want to live some way. we got to have people building our houses. we want to be here working at whitney brothers.
somebody has got to be making -- >> [indiscernible] pam: we are not all computer geeks. i do not think i could be one if i tried. you have to find your fit, you know. but i think the generation coming up needs that push to say, well, here are some of these other things to do besides sit in front the computer your entire life. secretary clinton: one of the kids they told me about at this community college, advanced manufacturing program, graduated from high school and got a $40,000 job as a welder, because there was such a shortage. there was a two-year program passed a national certification. here he is, 18 years old, and starting off on a really good track. yeah.
dave: you probably know more about it than i do, but i heard there are several high schools in chicago that are affiliated with ibm is one of them, and it is an eight-year program, not four years, and these kids are trained through high school and into this extended high school as it were, being mentored by ibm. and when they get done, they are guaranteed a job at $40,000 a year in the company. and so, you do not have to go to the university of illinois. you're going to get your training right here. and i think five out of the eight schools in the country are in chicago. secretary clinton: that is exactly the kind of model that we need to look at and try do see where we could implement that.
we have to try all kinds of approaches and figure out what is already working and do more of that. and then i think you make a strong point, we have to persuade, particularly young people, that this is an opportunity, that this is part of the economy that really needs them. and, yeah, some might want to be computer programmers and some might want to be the best welder or the best plumber. but we need to make it attractive for young people to feel like that is a good route for them. dave, we will give you the last word because you have been here -- how long have you worked here? dave: 32 years. a long time. it has been great. it is a wonderful industry. i get to do r&d work by going to childcare centers. you get the four-year-olds running around. it is really quite -- i have an enviable job.
but i am still a small business owner and as such i have the worries also. it is not all peach and cream. in 2006, we had a flood. and actually there was about two feet of water where we were sitting. and the sba was great to give us a low-interest loan. kudos to the sba. i guess one final question i would ask, capital improvements. we like keeping our machines up to date, and the last years we have been writing off the capital improvement in the year they were installed. and now in 2015, they're talking about reducing that to $25,000. i know that is congress, but i am curious as to your feeling. i mean, if you are president what can you do to help small
businesses like ours to improve the equipment that we have and not make it so onerous so that we can spread it out and still do right by the irs? secretary clinton: that is a good question, and i can assure you that i do not want to make your life any more onerous. i want you to be able to invest in both maintenance and upgrading of existing equipment, and, like that new printing machine that you should become a new equipment, if that is going to make you competitive. we have to look at the whole tax system and try to figure out what is an economic investment as opposed to one without economic purpose, because there is are a lot of those, where people are basically playing games and -- capital gains was supposed to be for, example, a
way to reward people who made risky investments, investing in someone else's business, and now it is just being churned. you have to take a look at the whole tax system. but i can assure you, i would not support anything that makes your business more difficult to run, because you have real economic imperatives. you are in the production goods, and i want to do everything i can to support goods and real services and take a hard look at what is now being done in the trading world, which is just trading for the sake of trading. it's just wrong that a hedge fund manager pays lower tax rate than a nurse or trucker or an assembly worker here at whitney brothers. so i think we have to say, look, if you're doing something which is enhancing the economic productivity of your business and the larger economy, we will be open to that.
but if it's just playing back and forth in the global marketplace to get .1% advantage, maybe we should not let that go on. because that is unfortunately at the root of some of the economic problems that we all remember painfully from 2008. so i think that from your perspective, i would want to be a president who made it as easy as possible for you to be as productive and profitable as possible because you have got 40-plus people whose lives and families depend on that. dave: i thank you all for coming. i know the secretary has a busy schedule, so i'm not quite sure how this works. secretary clinton: i think what we would like to do is a picture with everyone who was in the
roundtable, and then i want to say hello to some of my friends who are here. if you could come stand behind me and get a picture. can you get us all in, barb? we will give everyone up closer. [laughter] this is great. don't get lost. ok. this is great. thank you. good luck with that five-year-old. >> can i get a picture of you? secretary clinton: sure. good to see you. where are you from? >> upstate new york. >> one of my cousins is there now. he is in our age group. secretary clinton: you're
kidding. >> they are in our age group. secretary clinton: young people. >> i am from hyde park new york, so when you did that wedding for chelsea. >> you were in my neighborhood. secretary clinton: so beautiful. i love the hudson valley. thank you for being part of this. i am going to say hello to some people. [no audio] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> coming up on the next washington journal. linda dempsey of the national association of manufacturers joins us. legislation that would give the president authority and negotiating the trends -- the tren talks about his role in bolstering for the lgbt community. white young americans are turned on to politics -- why young americans are turned on to politics. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter.
inspector general steve clinic will testify tuesday about operations at the state department. part of the senate foreign relations subcommittee. he is expected to look at hillary clinton's use of personal e-mail. on c-span three. >> and this month, c-span is leased to present the winning entries in this year's student document tree competition. it encourages middle and high school students to write critically about issues that affect the nation. students were asked to base their documentary on the three branches and you. how they have affected them or their community. dustin bixby -- destin bigsby is one of our winners. his entry focuses on back ground
checks. >> i hate guns. >> i find them writing. >> you should not be allowed to have a gun. law enforcement is minutes away. >> if i could snap my fingers and all guns would be gone, i do not see why not. >> we have to have that conversation, when is it appropriate? ♪ destin: i was born in the age of suicide, street justice, all because of the second amendment.
i am destin bigsby, a voice for america's youth. lee 20,000 people commit suicide with a gun every year. once that trigger is like so many others, my cousin committed suicide with a gun. putting my family into shock and disarray. still, to this day, a void has been left that can never be filled. >> do i think that any depressed kid that walks into a gun shop should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun? probably not. >> he threatened suicide. we were able to intercept him,
prevent the suicide, take the gun away from him, get rid of the gun, get him in therapy, but that only lasted so long. and then he got another gun. >> we tried to get him a lot of help and he ended up walking into a pawn shop and buying a gun. >> he did not have any trouble even though he was already in the database, as we say, as a mentally ill person quite believe should not be allowed to buy a gun. destin bigsby: i live in los angeles county. three cities wracked with gun violence. i am here in compton california, one of the most dangerous cities in the united states to speak with people about gun violence. >> there are easy ways to get around that. >> killing innocent people is
totally wrong. it is not about that. >> you kill someone, that is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. >> i was playing with my friends, it was a drive-by shooting. bullets flying everywhere. it was very scary. i could have lost my life and i did not want anyone losing their life as well. >> they call it street justice. there is no ultimate justice. it is someone losing their life to something that was really stupid and trivial from the start. >> that is what drive-bys is. cowards in a car, basically. destin bigsby: more than 230,000 guns are stolen from those who legally purchased them. >> we ended up arming obviously criminals. that was not the intent.
destin: the rap community is changing its view on guns and snoop dogg is leading the charge. snoop dogg: when we speak as one, as a whole community, it should not be until it hits someone in your family that you do something about it. destin bigsby: i am here in newtown, connecticut to his big with the people and make sure that a tragedy like the one at sandy hook elementary never happens again. on december 14, 2012, 6 teachers and 20 elementary school students lost their lives at sandy hook elementary. i sat down with the people of newtown to hear their story. >> i am walking around looking for this little brown head and i do not see it. i am sure -- that is not a thought in your mind that anything can happen to your child. destin bigsby: she never did find his little brown head.
her son lost his life on that day. >> i felt numb. i felt like ok, it is survival mode at this point. two years later, and it is still -- it will always been currently difficult. >> as we proliferate our society with weapons there are opportunities to get powerful weapons, we may see the body count go up. destin bigsby: the weapons that were in adam lanza's hands should never have reached his hands and hopefully will never reach the hands of anyone in his mental state ever again. >> it did make a difference. when he stopped to reload at one time, a group of children were able to run out of the room and escape. >> his final action in the
classroom which was instrumental in saving nine of his classmates' lives. as the gunman ran out of bullets, he called for his friends to run. he told them to run that they did. and then he reloaded and murdered jesse. destin bigsby: it is a shame that the world lost jesse. he cannot die in vain. something must be done to be sure something like this never happens again. >> this is an absolute epidemic. when there is no response in congress, not a single legislative act to pass to try to do something about this, it sends a message, a message of quiet endorsement. destin bigsby: it is time for the legislative branch to pass stricter gun laws. my future and others' depends on it. how many have to die, how many
mothers cry until something is done? >> to learn more, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam. tell us what you think on facebook and twitter. >> how should the west deal with russia? next analysts consider whether the west should engage with russia, are going for more engagement is vladimir posner and russian studies professor stephen cohen. arguing against is garry and anne applebaum. this is one hour and 35 minutes. to debate current issues. this is an hour and a half.
♪ >> we created colonialism. we created fascism. we created communism. >> your arguments will be totally destroyed. >> is it possible to actually complete a sentence? >> you come back and you are rattled. >> it saves the bleeding heart from somebody else. >> they don't know what the hell to say but you have to say something. >> it makes us object in a cruel experiment and over us is a celestial dictatorship. the kind of divine north korea. >> the question is are men obsolete? the answer to this question is no i want you -- what you
believe this. we are going 50/50 on this. >> we are in house of commons. so what, who cares. >> show me the word pretext. >> you can keep screaming that and it doesn't change the point. >> barack obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world of the security security council and other situations. >> you must not talk to any of our allies in order to believe that. >> we are all in this of the united states can pull itself out by running a trade surplus unless we can find another planet to sell to. >> are we really prepared to say if you are successful enough we should rip you off? how dare you be so successful. >> that's a hypocritical argument that if i were chinese i would find quite annoying. [applause]
ladies and gentlemen welcome. [applause] my name is rudyard griffiths and it's my privilege to organize this debate series and to once again serve as your moderator. i want to start tonight's proceedings by welcoming the north american wide television and radio audience into this debate. everywhere from cbc radio ideas to cpac canada's public affairs channel to c-span across the continental united states. a warm hello also to our on line audience watching right now on munk debates.com. it's terrific to have you as virtual participants in tonight's proceedings. and hello to you the upper 3000 people that is filled for a thompson hall to capacity for yet another munk debate. bravo.
[applause] tonight represents a milestone of sorts for the munk debates. this is our 15th semiannual event. we have been out this for seven and a half years now and our ability to bring the brightest minds, the sharpest thinkers here to toronto to debate the big issues facing the world and canada would not be possible without the foresight, the generosity and the commitment of our host tonight. ladies and gentlemen please join me in appreciation for the cofounders the aurea foundation. thank you guys. [applause] let's get this debate underway and our debaters out here on this center stage. arguing for the resolution, the
west should engage not isolate russia. it's a emmy award-winning journalist top rated russian tv broadcaster and best-selling author vladimir posner. his teammate tonight is a celebrated scholar of soviet and post-soviet russia. he is a country beating editor of the "nation magazine" and he's here from new york city please welcome stephen f. cohen. [applause] one team of great debaters deserves another and arguing against the resolution be it resolved the west should engage not isolate russia is the warsaw-based pulitzer prize-winning author, and "washington post" columnist anne
applebaum. [applause] anne's debating partner is a prominent russian dissident. he's the chair of the new york-based international human rights foundation and he is best known as the world's greatest living chess player. ladies and gentlemen kerry kasparov. garry kasparov. [applause] a little predebate business to take care of. for quick items. number one power off your smartphones. we have a hashtag going tonight munk debates. you can input on what you are hearing on stage give your analysis and commentary on the debates. also we have an on line poll going that's available to people
here in the audience and those of you watching on line. that url is www.munk debates.com/vote. that's going to take us through the next hour and a half with instantaneous audience reaction to the proceedings here on stage. and counting down already, the clock. this is going to keep our debate on time in our debaters on their toes. we see this clock approaching zero. i want you to join me in a round of applause and that will move us through the evening quickly and keep us on time. let's now review how this audience here in the room voted on tonight's resolution coming into this debate. you were asked agree or disagree, should the west engaged or isolate russia? we will have those results now up on the screen.
there we go. 57 agree with the motion and 43% disagree. quite close. this debate could go either way. to get a sense of how much of this room, how much public is in play right now we asked a second question. depending on what you here tonight are you open to changing your vote? let's have those. that's a simple yes/no. 86%. this is an indecisive audience. what's going on here? 86% could go either way so debaters in this debate is very much in play. as we agreed beforehand the order of opening statements mr. vladimir pozner your six minutes starts now. >> thank you. i haven't yet started in the clock is moving. could you go back to six, please? thank you. [laughter]
ladies and gentlemen i have not come here to argue russia's case. i have come here to argue the case that isolating any country is not only counterproductive but dangerous. especially when the country is as big as well become as powerful and unpredictable as russia. allow me to share with all of you it's history. when the russian empire crumbled in 1917 and the osha vicks came to power the west refuse to recognize. first soviet russia and the soviet union. isolation and non-engagement was the word of the day and so for a decade or so of the country was cast by western media as an evil power and left to stew in its own juices. the prediction was it was inevitably fall apart that it was economically dead in the water that its people would rise up and destroy the regime. as we all know none of this happened. in 1929 the west was hit by the
worst economic crisis in its history. meanwhile in 1929 the ussr announced its first five-year of economic development. over those years of isolation the soviet leadership had headed by stalin about two conduct a mass of lead bath in the country physically wiping out all political opposition and destroyed millions and millions of peasants who had refused to adhere to the foreign system and to starve to death. millions of ukrainian farmers who would not bow to the draconian demands for week -- it was in the process of annihilating russia's most precious human resource the intelligentsia. it was in the process of creating a new human entity or so-called homeless -- the great terror of 1937 and in 1938 lay just ahead but no recognition know and engagement no interference if you will on the west part the absence of any
united outcry played knows no small role in allowing the soviet system to evolve the way it did. it would be remiss of me on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the defeat of nazi germany not to mention the fact that by the end of the 1930s the west in particular great britain and france refused to engage with the ussr in an alliance against hitler the consequence being the infamous ribbentrop packed of august 1939 were by the independent baltic states estonia latvia and lithuania were sold off to the soviet union as was part of poland. while it is true that ultimately it was the soviet union that broke the nazis back that is justified too by the likes of winston churchill and franklin delano roosevelt. it's also true the soviet union went on to occupy all the countries of eastern europe as
well as some of several year. it's also true became a military superpower and we should thank our lucky stars that world war iii never happened thanks to mutually-assured destruction. the ussr fell apart not because it was isolated not because of non-engagement on the part of the west which in fact actually made us stronger. it fell apart because the system ceased to function. it was simply not viable. and when it fell apart when gorbachev and yeltsin came to power what was the west's response? to engage in the new russia? if we dig a little bit deeper than the good old barbie, the good old arras pr pack that was put out for popular consumption of policy with this, he lost the cold war you will pay for it. just shut up and go back into your cage.
you are a second rate country and we don't care about you anymore. have the west the united states first and foremost decided to engage gorbachev soviet union and yeltsin's russia engage with the same names that it engaged post-war germany and post-war italy to help create and support democratic development and institutions russia today and would be a very different country. so in conclusion let me say this. the russia that exist today is to a large measure the results of non-engagement by the west of a policy aimed at humbling what is a nation of proud people people. i vote for engagement because i want to see change in russia change positive, both for russia and for the west. thank you. [applause]
>> and apple by muir next. >> thank you very much record and thanks to this fantastic sellout audience and no thanks to who wrote the resolution that garry kasparov and i must oppose. i like the rest of you believe that engagement is a positive thing. peace and prosperity are linked. isolation by contrast sounds negative and confrontational. myself i have long promoted engagement of eastern europe and advocated integration of eastern europe with the west and initially i believe the engagement which will work brilliantly in poland could work for russia too. alas i have now concluded after very long experience that for the moment he can. for this current russian regime as it now exists cannot be engaged. putin's russia is not just another of talk or or traditional russian dictatorship
by stephen cohen will probably tell you. russia's current leaders are not simply the political rulers of the nation. they are literally the country's owners. they control all of its major companies all of its media all of its mashed -- natural wealth. during the 90s they took over the russian state using fast craft and money laundering. as a result versus one of the most unequal countries in the world 110 russians controlling 35% of the nations wealth. many those people also work in or with the kremlin. whatever you want to call the system a mafia state, feudal empire is a disaster for ordinary russians but it's also extremely dangerous for everybody else. in order to stay in power and keep this tiny group of people enriched, putin and his cronies have long needed not only to spread the system to their media neighbors but to undermine rule of law and democracy in the west as well. how does this work was putin and his henchmen badly need to keep the international financial system safe for corrupt money.
to do so they bought western politicians for example the former german chancellor. when in empowered he stopped an investigation into a financial scam closely connected to putin. schroeder now works for gazprom. but his cronies have invested heavily in strategically important european companies hoping by doing so it will acquire the political influence they need to protect their dishonest schemes. they make ample use of tax havens, thereby enriching the providers of these corruption services and depriving legitimate governments of revenue. how to stop this? only by disengaging and isolating the problem. let's get russian money out of the western financial system. a second example. the putin and his henchmen are often frustrated by multilateral institutions such as the e.u. and nato. a united e.u. energy policy would make it much more difficult for russia to use its gas pipelines as it does now to
blackmail and bully its neighbors. if weren't for nato russia would find it much easier for example to take the landed of badly wants in the art. so the russian regime is invested heavily in anti-european anti-transatlantic and even fascist political movements across europe to a russian bank has lent 9 million euros to the leader of the far right in france. russia also maintained strong political and financial links to the anti-semitic far right party and hungry and far right groups in germany italy and many other countries. what to do about this problem. we need to disengage and we need to isolate. let's get russian money out of european politics. thirdly the russian regime has invested massively in an enormous system of disinformation. television stations in multiple languages, web sites fake think tanks and a vast army of internet trolls whose work is well-documented whose efforts are designed to create chaos and confusion.
this is isn't traditional propaganda. it's not about saying that rush is a great country. no when a malaysian plane was shot down by russian missile over western ukraine last summer the russian media responded with multiple absurd conspiracy theories. for example that the plane was full of dead people when it took off. but even on an ordinary day russia today the russian english-language channel is capable of reporting on the cia's invention of ebola. the point of these stories is to create a fog of disinformation so no one knows anymore what is true and what is not. how can we break through this fog and shore up our traditions of objective reporting? yes we have to disengage and isolate. let's work harder to identify russian lies and get them out of our media. you will note i haven't mentioned ukraine. that's because you can understand the recent crisis there much must understand the true nature of the russian regime i just described. for two decades now russia's maintain control of ukraine by investing in politicians
companies and disinformation. put up to grade in ukraine at copycat colonial version of the political system he invented in russia and he almost succeeded. the young pro-european pro-democracy ukrainians who went out on the streets were not fighting russia as a nation. they were fighting oligarchs corruption and buddhism. how can we assist these young ukrainians? we need to disengage, to isolate putin is russia. and to maintain sanctions on putin's cronies almost 110 people around him who control the country. we need to make putin pay a high price for invading a neighbor so he doesn't invade another one and the best way to do this is through disengagement in isolation in the sense isolate russian money isolate russian maligned russian political influence and propaganda. prevent russian violence and corruption from distorting the politics of eastern europe western europe and north america are.
putinism is a danger to americans and all of us. thank you very much. [applause] >> 10 seconds on the clock and go, that was impressive. you are up next. >> unlike ms. applebaum i come here on my first trip to canada as a patriot of american and canadian national security on the half of my family and yours. to achieve that kind of security in the world, we need a partner in the kremlin. not a frat but a partner who shares our fundamental security interests and to achieve that we must not merely engage russia we must pursue full cooperation on security and other matters with russia.
that is our real reality today that national security ours and yours, mine and yours, still runs through moscow. this is an existential truth. why? in this debate i have a favor to ask of you. remember what the former united states senator daniel patrick moynihan once said. it's profound. i quote everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions but not to his or her own facts. please keep this in mind because you are the facts. the world today is much more dangerous and less stable, less ordered than it was 25 years ago when the soviet union existed. they are more nuclear states but less control over nuclear weapons over nuclear know-how, over nuclear materials. they're more regional conflicts, more open religious hatreds more political extremism and intolerance. as a result there is more
terrorism and more places. i'm making all this worse -- and making all this work the worst there is more resentment and as we know there are more environmental dangers and foreseeable shortages of the resources. here is the other fact and is not an opinion, the fact. not one of these existential dangers can be dealt with effectively without russia's cooperation. no matter who sits in the kremlin. even after the soviet union russia remains the world's largest territorial country and one that straddles the fateful frontline between western and islamic civilization. russia still has proportionately more of the world's natural resources from energy to freshwater than any other nation and of course russia has its stockpiles of every conceivable weapon of mass distraction. whether we like it or not russia
still has sympathizers partners and allies around the world even in europe and even in the western hemisphere. these are facts, not opinions. what is the alternative? our opponents say it is to isolate russia. they need to weaken, destabilize and carry out regime change, as if they could in russia. they relied not on facts but on free fundamental fallacies based on their opinions for which there are very little if any facts. fallacy number one. in this localized world it is impossible to isolate russia. russia is too big too rich, too interconnected in today's world. russia has many options apart from the west and in the west. one example ever since several months ago president obama said it was american policy to isolate russia. the russian state under putin has signed more agreements
financial political economic and military with foreign states that has russian. russia is connected. russia has other places to go. if we push them out of the west. fallacy number two isolating russia from the west will not make moscow more cooperative or compliant. instead we know what russia will do. it's doing it today. it will turn elsewhere above all to the east, above all to china and to many other, dozens of regions and regimes that harbor resentments against the west america europe and canada and what will russia do if we isolate them? it will solve the nuclear reactors. it will sell weapons. it will give them credit. it will protect them politically with its veto. fallacy number three, when we can destabilize russia we make every danger worse and create
new ones. consider for example if this policy of isolation with its sub policy of weakening moscow were to succeed what would become of russia's weapons of mass distraction if moscow's control over them diminished? think about that. think about your children. think about this kind of madness. is that what we really want? finally what arguments do our opponents make in favor of trying to isolate russia. now that i can see. the example and inevitably ms. applebaum would mention his ukraine. it's entirely pudas ball. the west is not responsible. the first time in modern history that one side is entirely made no mistakes. leave ukraine to another debate if you wish. i want to end up by pointing out what word ukraine has cost us in terms of national security. it's losing us a security
partner in the kremlin. not just putin but perhaps generations or years to come. it is splitting europe against american leadership and possibly undermining the transatlantic alliance and having plunged us into a new cold war is bring us closer to an actual war with nuclear russia than we have been since the cuban missile crisis. these are the facts. [applause] >> garry kasparov your six minutes please. >> thank you very much. i am here in this audience not as just a neighbor of mr. cohen because we both live on the west side of new york which was not my first choice but a patriot of my country russia. i don't feel very comfortable arguing against the resolution
because my dream from the early days when i was a kid traveling the road playing under the russian flag was to engage my country to make it a real factor in the promise of humanity. i knew that despite the regime that i hated russia the soviet union at that time had a huge potential. it's intellectual cultural and national resources. and it seemed for many others for millions of my country elsewhere in the world that in 1991 our dream came true so the regime collapsed and we all remember celebrating crowds pulled down the statue and talk about purification. it was not an easy time because as you remember in yugoslavia is also collapsed and ended in a
terrible civil war. russia escaped that and boris yeltsin to his wisdom and his ability to understand we needed an agreement with the former soviet republic to make sure we could move into the future. russia was i wouldn't say rewarded but it was engaged from the very beginning. what about the billions and billions of western money as aid to support the russian economy? in 1998 during the financial collapse the loan help to russia to escape and by the end of yeltsin's rule russia was on the verge of recovery. actually the highest rise of gdp in russia was in the year 2000. and then putin comes in. that was the greatest mistake yeltsin made and where the kgb returned nine years after the
collapse of the soviet union. the first thing he did was replace his long-term agenda. during these years we saw the total collapse of this people markers and are yeltsin. it was turned into a one-party dictatorship and ended up with the most unstable and dangerous form of government. the whole legacy of the regime based on his charisma and his ability to help the propaganda machine work toward his greatness. we know from history that after running out of enemies inside the country he turns elsewhere. in 2005 i stopped playing chess and i turn to what some people would mistakenly called russian politics. you think about debates and russia has no public live debates. you think about fund-raising and elections. so i knew it was an uphill
battle. in chess we have fixed rules and unpredictable results. putin's russia is exactly the opposite. [applause] and it has all happened with -- i remember with horror i looked at the pictures on russian television in 2006 was putin was hosting g7. i never called the g8. it was always called g7 plus one. that was given to yeltsin as in the dance like a preliminary report. russia was not democracy and a great industrial power. china never made the g8 and russia did. how could we attack putin and his democratic values that we could see him being embraced and hugs by sharad. the russian propaganda machine worked to our damage and of
course talking about foreign aggression i can't escape ukraine. of course ukraine undermines the authority of nato and the united states and again he was the only way for putin to go because the economy no longer offers him an excuse to stay in power forever. he is now ruler for life and everyone understands it. in georgia in 2008 and now ukraine and let's not forget ukraine has been disarmed by the united states and the united kingdom in 1994 i forcing to -- being forced to sign a memorandum. ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world more than u.k. france and china combined. if some of those warheads were aiming at moscow today -- it would have never crossed the border. [applause] it was a signature of bill clinton which ended up either way with disarming small nuclear
arms in belarus. it created an a nuclear-free fall of the soviet union but territorial integrity. if we think the crimea is locally are wrong because the message is being sent to every country of the world if you want to protect your sovereignty gets nukes. that's why you hold the ukraine tragedy it's an issue that affects everybody on this planet. i hope eventually we will recognize it's not about isolating russia. it's about isolating putin's regime. we don't engage the virus. it needs to be contained. thank you. [applause] ..
you can say anything. billions and billions, you've got to be kidding. it is not true. billions and billions were not invested. what was invested was invested to make money. putin's cronies. why are they cronies? why are they not his comrades? this is all about the wording. this is not about the facts. if indeed the ukraine had nuclear missiles, can you imagine what we would have? there would be nobody left to play it. thank heavens they do not have
missiles in that country. and the fewer missiles that there are in the world the better it will be. so, i am not going to get into this, you said this wrong, nitpicking kind of stuff. to me, the really basic thing is do we want a russia that is pushed out of everything doing whatever it is doing, in no way answering for what it does, not under any pressure from outside because it is not engaged, or do we want engagement? is it good for the west or is it bad? is it good for russia or is it bad? it is not about putin. russia has always been in the crosshairs of the west for a long, long time.
that is for good reason. and if you take that to putin it is a big mistake. this is not about putin but a much more basic relationship. [applause] >> i didn't know that mr. kasparov was stalking me. and i am hope that can it will end up in the coffee house for a talk. this becomes in this debate a discussion of putin. henry kissinger, who is 91, not thought to be soft on anybody, wrote in ms. applebaum's own newspaper, the demonization of
putin is not a policy. it is an alibi for not having a policy. i would say that dr. kissinger could have gone further and said the demonization of putin is an excuse to abandon analysis. to obscure facts with faces and to make statements about an evil in moscow, a mafia state, a hitler, it is not true. and alongside of it comes inevitably this romance with the yeltsin 1990's. maybe it was great for mr. kasparov. maybe it was great for poland. i don't know. but when mr. yeltsin was forced from office, as he was and as garry well knows, 70% of russians lived in poverty. and billions and billions of american and western dollars
that he romantically thinks were sent to moscow would be collected by yeltsin's friends and sent back to the bank of new york where they were laundered and a criminal case was brought against the bank for that. so russia was on its knees ruled by a week ruler and pillaged by the mafia. let's think about the real problems in the world and about our security. please. [applause] anne: to be clear, the russia we have today, the current regime as it exists now, is a result of our failed policy of engagement. have we isolated and humiliated russia since 1991? no.
not only was post-soviet russia not humiliated, russia was given de facto great power status. russia received a soviet unc embassies, and nuclear weapons transferred to ukraine under the budapest memorandum. from the beginning, a series of american presidents have sought to build russia's international status. presidents clinton and bush invited russia to joined the g-8. russia was invited to join the council of europe. russia has been invited to join the world trade organization whose roles it systematically violates. during that same period, while we were engaging russia, inviting russia into our institutions, attempting to create a russia, what was russia doing? putin invaded chechnya twice. he invaded georgia. he invaded ukraine. he built up his military system.
he held a military exercise in the arctic involving 220 aircraft and 40 ships. this year, he conducted an exercise in the baltics. in 2009 and 2013, he conducted military exercises which concluded with a practice run of the nuclear bombardment of warsaw. this is a country, while engaging with the west incidentally, you can't have it both ways. you can't say that putin was laundering his money in western banks and we were isolating him. why we let them use our banking system, while we enriched them you can't say he was wandering his money in western banks and we were isolating him. while we let them use our banking system and while we enriched them, what were they doing? they were re-creating a soviet style nuclear arsenal that they want to use against us.
for the first time that is the debate i heard that they could prevent terror. i always believed that it was a criminal regime founded by stalin and others and what they did in the west was irrelevant. i look here to look at the regime and it was not a perfect democracy. they had great opportunities to turn into a democratic state with normal checks and balance systems. it didn't happen.
we avoided the war which could have happened if someone like putin was there. i agree there was massive corruption under boris yeltsin. they were stealing these funds and convinced yelton that they needed putin to protect them. when we talk about putin's friends, if you're so lucky to share the school or be in a class you are now in the fourth fleet. the country is owned by very few families. ironically it's all these people that are so close to mr. putin. they are fighting for power and mrs. how they fight for
survival. he will do every crime to stay in power. [applause]. >> the debate is set in the table is set so to speak. we speak. we want to get into an exchange with these debaters on a variety of topics with this subject. since you spoke first i want to start with you and pick up on something and set in her comments. a lot of people are wondering about obama's a reset. the degree to which this administration previously attempted to roll back the policies of the bush administration that were seen as exclusionary russia. it led to crime area and the ukraine. >> first of all it did not. secondly the knowledge of russia
was so poor that they didn't know how to say the word reset in russia. this did not lead to crimea at all. when were talking about whether or not russia was humiliated this is a perfect example when russia begged not to do it. that was importance yelton's time. in boris yeltsin's time. they said just shut up. since the un would not condone it, nato did it. they were allowed to leave serbia. why was that possible? why were the russians ignored? that is the kind of humiliation that has led to the greatest anti- american sentiment in russia that i have known. the average russian today is absolutely anti- american and that wasn't the case before.
were they anti- bush, anti- reagan, yes but not anti- american. there's a lot of propaganda. >> she said she never heard such a concentrated message of hatred. >> why are you yelling? >> i am russian so i know -- >> russians yell, they drink vodka and dance. they are regular normal people. what people. what i'm saying is this. your mother had her experience. i think i'm older than your mother and i lived in the soviet union. >> i lived on different side of the fence. >> you don't know anything about me. >> the propaganda in russia's very difficult different because it was totally isolated.
today it's much more sophisticated and much more dangerous so i'm not saying it isn't, but what i'm saying is -- please don't interrupt, the average russia individual is anti- america. >> what he's saying is the policy of what you want containments, isolation is stoking the anti- american sediments. >> we created him. our banking systems laundered the money and are tax systems created. stop acting like this is a reaction to our isolation. we created it kept putin on board. we invited him to the meetings and we wanted him to be part of the west. we had this idea that russia is a candidate western country and
if for just nice enough, they'll join. what we what we have discovered is it has involved into something quite different. it's not the soviet union. it's not nazi germany either. these are bad analogies. it's a very new kind of sophisticated propaganda run state. this state. this is a country in which every single television channel and every single newspaper, and every single internet website, with a few tiny exceptions, are controlled by the state in such a way that they appear to be all slightly different. this is not one thing saying something every
day, this is a wide spectrum of different media and they all say the same thing in a tabloid, sophisticated, tabloid or news way. they're telling the same stories that putin wants them to hear. the story they been telling is bitterly anti- american and bitterly anti- european. the hatred toward ukraine and americans the use of semi-fascist symbolism and people marching with angered faces. this is something new and different. no wonder people are anti- american. >> there isn't a partner on the other side to reach across to. >> i'm having a hard time because i thought we agreed i tried to sign a contract with the audience that we would deal
with some facts. i read ten russian newspapers a day across the spectrum, and it's true what ms. applebaum said, in at least three of those ten you hear what you want to hear. but there are at least seven that are pro- american and pro- european. what's astonishing to me is that i can learn that these states launder money offshore. i had no idea such things happened. we know what's going on in the united states because our justice department are bringing suits against corporations for doing this. what i can see is that's a bigger a bigger pressure problem in russia. the way this economic system was formed in the 1990 that system has to be reformed, absolutely. do i think ms. applebaum is right absolutely not. the
result will be worse. this is for russians to decide, not for us. what's for us to decide is whether we need a partner in russia, whether it's putin or his successor. i would end with this point i do not ever recall and i've been around a long time, ever hearing people whom ms. applebaum represent speaking like this personally of a soviet communist leader. in fact when i listen to them i have to say, there is a nostalgia for the soviet union and a vendetta against putin's russia. with whom we cooperated for our security. >> when you were given your first introduction i wrote down opec oppressed soviet union
nostalgia. you talked about when it was there and it could help regulate the world. i have no nostalgia for the cold war. half war. half of europe was in slave during the cold war. totalitarian ruled hundreds of millions of people. you have you have this idea that once again if only the u.s. and russia could work together we could create some stability. this russia is not a country that want stability. they are interested in chaos. they created chaos in ukraine. in fact, who are russia's friends? >> somewhat .2 the recent iran deal. they were agreeing to help iranian. over chemical weapons, how do
you respond to those examples of russian cooperation? >> operation means you can make concessions. you do something in your interest to boast the corporation. you can see why those interests, a had been supplying them and it enhances putin's position in the arena. let's not forget that putin's interest was to keep the pressure and push up the oil prices. as for syria, putin's priority from day one and he succeeded. there are many other reasons for him doing that. one is some form of brotherhood
and one is washed away by public anger and arab wealth. it always had a negative effect for people in russia because they could see what was happening. let's not forget putin is always watching the map of the pipeline. that's very important. potentially syria. [inaudible] he was great beneficiary. >> beneficiary. >> how do you react to that? >> if he is saying that putin stands up for russians interest then i guess he does from a certain viewpoint and his popularity, i read your interview opposite mine in the
you newspaper where you kind of laugh at his popularity. you popularity. you know as well as i do the people who did the pole are honest people. these are not government sponsored, it sponsored, it is very respectable organization. it showed that 80% of the russian people support putin. there has to be a reason for that. these are not stupid people. they are people who have lived a long time and know what propaganda is. what they see in putin is a man who has brought russia back. no longer do russians feel they are in second place, that they're not a great nation, but they been told by others to get out of our face and now were back and if you don't like us we don't care because were back thanks to putin. that's the feeling they have. that's something that has to be understood, good or bad, that is
a fact. there's a reason for it and it's not just because it's an autocratic state. when my colleague talks about russian media, he's right there's a lot of media that say things not at all what ms. applebaum was saying. you know very well it says those things. you have all these media sources that say different things. it is about as different as abc, nbc, and cbs. name one television station. it's exactly the same thing. it's propaganda on both sides.