what is morally acceptable in terms of a program is essential a question of how do you structure the program and who finances the program? for example, i get the fact, and i'm critical of government run active programs who try to change a political religious worldview, for example, in prison. that are programs who are more or less courses in prison, you are free to participate but if you don't, don't expect to be out. don't expect to get a special or beneficial trade become anything like that. so then on the other hand, that are non-governmental programs that can of close cooperation that should have with the government but they haven't owned political philosophy. they say we are part of the civil society, part of the society at large. we'll pass it. so people come to us when they want help.
we say most of the ngo say we have our own version of how democracy goes. we have her own version of what pluralism is can what democracy is that if you come to scrap this is what we expect in turn. so in these instances deradicalization can be morally completely acceptable in a democratic political society because many ngos, people are free to choose, leave, go to another ngo. i think it should be somewhat in the middle. i have just a couple months ago i have worked with the new dutch program, and they are currently building a new deradicalization program they have set out a very interesting framework, they have a very specifically set up the framework where they work and how they work come in close cooperation with ngos, specially trained experts. they are very firm and strong on their own political philosophy. they have recognize intervening when people end up in prison are done something or so before doing something is far too
ineffective and too expensive. we need to figure out especially in north america what actually is the point where we figure out that it's not acceptable. this kind of ideology, this embrace but, this propaganda spreading is really trying to destroy that society you're actually living in that protect you. i think deradicalization programs when they are public partnerships they can benefit from both sides of the. they can say you're protected in a certain area but what they are doing out the trick with amy at abolishing these central principles, these constitutional rights. just ask yourself the question, if this is an you are propagating would be realized 100% right now in the u.s., would any person who is not part of your group, racial group or religious group, have different are the same rights, or how would you treat them?
would you finally try to force them to leave the country? would you put them in camps? would you grant them like much less rights of speech? what they have to pay an extra tax? would they be killed right away? these indicators are essential to figure out where you're going. >> thank you, daniel. i hear daniel, and you know, i can feel the response in the audience from americans, that it's a very european perspecti perspective. and in this country we let an awful lot of stuff fly. and so i wonder, again were shot, how does the united states which has barely put its toes in the water of this intervention how does a find outlined? >> i think actually i was going to comment, the uk is a voluntary process.
so there cannot be any coercive approach towards individuals. they either choose to engage or they don't. if they choose to engage in it to voluntary process of them dealing with the whole deradicalization or prevention strategy put in that sense it is something that the state supports them lends its support to speak but if they are radicalized why would they engage? >> this is a very different question. why do radicals engage? i don't know if i can make any comment that wouldn't be inappropriate. the thing is why do people put themselves forward? because they fundamentally they have somethin something to offeo matter how utterly ridiculous it may be. they believe they have something alternative offer for the betterment of humanity or society or their people.
they want to engage because they want to share their radical worldview. actually that's one reason that one to present their point of view. secondly, with a lot of individuals they have doubts about whether doing as well. so human beings are not black and white. they generally have a set of complexities that is pushing them towards engage with other people. the reasoning of leakage is because people also want an intervention. it's the same reason why people who talk about suicide, because they are feeling and when they do we know we should take us seriously but actually they are reaching out for help as well. those factors, i mean in almost all cases, you have a high rate of people who want to engage with you. i don't think that is a problem because we get similar early intervention. the problem is here, it seems
like we are controlling the political persuasion of people for the religious proclivity of people. that is really where we have a problem because we do believe in free speech. in that sense i think there's some reasonable criticisms to be made. i think it's impossible in the u.s. they are talking about disruption or so people that have extreme views which are legal, people are not inciting violence but are antidemocratic and anti-liberal. that is something that is impossible to use context, thankfully. there are lots of people from the right and the left wing political spectrum in the uk who are outside of it because it is a horrific conservative progressive i did get on the
other side of that, i think there is a moral imperative in a civil society as a whole to stand up and do something about this. and so what really you have is a partnership between governments. you mentioned earlier, between government and between civil societies. they actually, we asked civil society can engage in the deradicalization process in countering these arguments. and government's role maybe to support or facilitate that. actually the argument on an economic basis alone is sound so we should do something. on a social and moral perspective we can't sit back and do nothing about it. if we've had a huge number of migrants come out of syria and iraq. europe is taking the 2 million people. people talk about retaking
extremist into your? well, from europe with export and whole bloody brigade of 5000 extremists to go and joint basis. so on the one hand we have a moral responsibility to not send terrorists abroad, which is essentially what we've been doing. and hence my point earlier that we have contained in a debate and created these things. we have a responsibility to do something in a policy space as well. >> angela, i'm still trying to find this line, this balance between public and private. you are deputy director of a private ngo. if you can come and you can talk about in the abstract the july, but what's the right relationship between an inch of that does these early interventions and the government? or should not be one at all?
>> or you try to get me in trouble? >> not at all. >> well, from our perspective, we all can play a part in intervention and disengagement, but we have to define the roles, and what's needed and who is best suited for each different aspect. so for instance, be used example i can give is when i was an adolescent and i was becoming radicalized, i was getting involved. i was headed toward violence. i'm always asked what could have stopped you? what could've been done? what kind of person could have approached you? what would you of heard that would change your mind? and i've thought about this for years, and i know with the kind of teenager that i was, it would've taken someone with real life experience that actually
understood what i felt, what i was going through, the obstacles that i faced, the issues that i dealt with. so i think when we go out and look at these relationships, it has to be support. there has to be people can go out and act. there has to be all these different aspects of it. this may be unpopular, and i apologize if it is, i do not believe that a relationship between ngos like mine and say law enforcement should in any way be intelligence. it should not be telling on people, giving up information. if we are to truly go in there and do this work, we have to create communities of trust. another example i can give, when we get feedback, for instance, we recently produced for psa
messages. we targeted individuals currently involved in the violent far right in the u.s. we expected a negative response, but in essence what we are doing out there is saying, number one, we have been there, we've had the experience, we know what it's like. so behind closed doors when you're feeling like this really isn't what you thought it was going to be, you know, there are things that you just didn't understand, there's feelings of guilt or shame about are creeping in. we get a response from some individuals that is so intense, so filled with rage, and we'll hear things like, you are the worst traders of all because you knew the truth and she walked away. and those other kind of responses that are telling us, we are striking nurse, we are doing a good job. because those individuals that
are voicing that are probably the ones that are having those doubts. they're the ones entertained them and they feel ashamed. they think they're going to get caught. they don't know what to do. so when we look at things like that and start to build these relationships between government, between ngos and people on the ground, we need to keep this in mind. i'm going to be a lot more successful going out and doing some intervention work, some cve because i'm a credible voice because i've been there. and especially with the far right and the u.s. we are dealing with people who cling to conspiracy theories, paranoia. they already don't trust the government or law enforcement. so we need to be very clear about those lines in the relationship. so there's always room for collaboration. we all have a part to play. we just need to define those rules very carefully. >> and no, you had to put? >> i wanted to point on very
problematic or highly debated question of the relationship between an intervention program, the clients come at the authorities, the security agencies. i know there are programs run by intelligence agencies who just use that are hard intelligence gathering, names, addresses, group structures, anything like that which actually hurts the idea of intervention but also hurts the families that it puts the families at risk of a social environment at risk and is accepting the risk to burn them by simply getting a couple of things. but i absolutely i'm very positive about counterterrorism programs. so many people think especially, i expect the u.s., that deradicalization is seen as a we've become soft approach to something that should be handled by the pros, by agents from fbi, intelligence. so if you look at how deradicalization programs
operate in many and include former police officers, former intelligence officials were experts on military, they know what they are doing. baby risk assessment and counter deradicalization in an area that overlaps. so you can identify concrete aspects of effects like reduce the number of a terrorist group. you pull out human skills and knowledge, the group needs to we fill that gap companies to invest resources and recruitment and train other people within the hierarchy. and it's proven that his organizational cost that you put on to these groups by getting people out and even cause a complete collapse of a terrorist group already itself. plus what i would call soft intelligence gathering. i'm not target individual names and addresses but for exactly what they wear any recruiter is active or a new group is active or a new topic or a new style of jihadism has emerged.
that is something you can pass on to the authorities. you gain a lot a special not about radicalization process, about connections they can use in training and skill building for police, for teachers. that is very, very influential, very important. and judnick the work of law enforcement much easier, much more effective by providing additional angle. working with families or people who want to get out themselves, closes the gap of that network of counterterrorism network and it helps to remove the blindfold off the area, that social area where radicalization is of course and you can help the police to become much more effective. >> thank you. i want to open it up for questions, or before i don't ask lorenzo opined one. -- i want to ask lorenzo a final
one. we have to think in our tanks about what kind of policies come out of this stuff. you and i've been thinking a lot about why it is we don't have intervention programs in the united states for political radicalism. even angelos program you are telling me is unique in this country. i know working on jihadism there's a word organization, in d.c. and some others that work on it, but it still it is very nascent stage and hasn't been a lot of support from the u.s. government for this kind of efforts. i've got my own ideas as to why but i'm curious as to why you think there has been a groundswell in the government for these kinds of programs speak with that's a very good question. i think there's a combination of reasons, overlapping reasons. first of all there's not even a debate in building some kind of
intervention what comes to right wing extremism or other forms of extremism. the debate is just on the jihadists. again, we can discuss that. but even on that side of the threat of extremism we've seen a lot of talk. and randall the very little resources, or a little action. there's a variety of reasons. at the end of the day the threat has not been as big on the domestic side of it at least, not in some european countries. we have never seen this is the urgency that exist and a lot of european countries. if you look at the end of the which european countries have been most active, they been touched by some sort of attack spent is it worth doing? >> i would argue yes, but i'm saying that the summer prevented the initial trigger. the dutch have been very active after the caucus assassination. the british were very active
after seven-seven. the bosnia american bombings -- for one reason or the other, some of it is justified, the numbers are are so much smaller than in most european country. there's a sense of urgency. after the fact the tools to law enforcement has here are so much more powerful. at the end of the day the fbi can get its nice sting operations which no european law enforcement agency can do. it's a safe space. we can talk about the problems, ethical problems, the community engagement issues that go with it. but if you are the fbi, it's a very nice tool to have. it's very effective from that point of view. a lot of it has to do come and accounting somebody who's written a lot about this, which is jerry. the fbi is an organization that is very much based on numbers,
on effectiveness. if you run an fbi field office somewhere, you make a good name for yourself, make it to reduce the number of people you prosecute, not the number of people you prevented from radicalizing. the fbi have such a big role of the fbi has this sort of mentality. i'm not necessarily saying in a negative way, prevent a lot of discourse to go forward in the states. >> would you also say it is political culture as well works weeding the channel document, it's a very sober document. they talk about risk, what happened to some of those to the programminprogramming carries o, who gets the blame, what happens. my sincere in addition to everything you say is that politically also no one wants to put their name on this kind of program because they are terrified that one person goes through the program, carries out an attack, the program is done, a person's career is done.
>> i think that's the reality in which we are now which is more problematic because we're seeing that the fbi, and more in general that counterterrorism committee can understand they need to use these kinds of tools. they are occasionally sporadically doing it, but without clear guidelines. we see cases when it comes to minors where we see cases like people with mental issues, good case in denver, where the fbi or other ages but most of the fbi does this kind of intervention. but they do not really have guidelines i had to do that. the legal park is one of the big ones. one of the things we've been advocating at the center can do it but do it right. do it with the right thing to come with the right knowledge, the right partners and do it with the right legal guidelines. that goes for the fbi but also gaza people in the community that want to know. it's a concern we the people in the community. if you want about but without
clear guidelines they are afraid engaging with somebody come within extremist that might potentially become a terrorist they will be charged with material support for terrorist. so to work in the space that everybody recognizes the next step for u.s. counter terrorism policy domestically needs to happen but it needs to happen with some clear guidelines coming from the top. >> at the top means department of justice? >> that's one of the other problems we see, there's a lot of entities that are somewhat fighting on who should be running that space. the whole alphabet soup of agencies of there. everybody sort of claiming one part of the portfolio. dhs, fbi. people to have a leading agency, although some things are moving there. then you have a federal, state and local level. all those should come together
and really nobody has taken charge of this. >> let me open it up to the audience now. let's see. down front here, please. >> thanks very much, thus setting a discussion the on garrett mitchell. e "the mitchell report" i want to focus african specifically on the jihadi and isis sort of cluster and pose two questions that i can. one is, as opposed to far right radicals or neo-nazis, et cetera. one is, some of us have attended sessions in this very room on the role of messaging and counter narratives, and i would be interested to know,
particularly as a listen to what angela had to say about how you do this successfully. i'm interested to know whether and to what extent you think messaging and counter narratives can have some success in this process of keeping people from stepping over the edge. and then second, if it's appropriate or if there's time, i'm interested to know how you evaluate the considerable work that the saudis do on this issue, and how you evaluate that. >> okay. so we have a question about the efficacy of counter messaging, and in a more particular question about the salaries. who wants to take that? >> obviously the is a long
tradition of deradicalization programs in the middle east and in south asia. saudi arabia is leading that. i think they would classify it as an active government highly ideological program. so what they try to do this with a lot of money, a lot of effort to replace jihadism with wahhabism, which is not that far away -- [laughter] so nothing of this, nothing of what they do good work in a western country, to be clear. what they do is they have a very strong sense of what is necessary and the practical dimension of deradicalization. the getting financial support to marry, getting financial support to move out. but even by these people their own car. they financed the families to come in and meet them in prison. so the practical dimension is very good and i think there's a western country that would put so much resources into that kind of work. in terms of evaluating it, there
is no deradicalization program on the planet that would not claim one of% success rate or at least high success rate. the saudi program is different they say they have a 95% success rate. if i remember correctly it was a year or two years ago where they arrested an 88 person al-qaeda cell in saudi arabia. i think about 50 were graduates of the program. there were a number of terrorist plots led by graduate from the program. there has been no evaluation of the program whatsoever. the only information that comes from people who run it, finance it, 95% success rate. they all go out and do their wahhabists or whatever you want to go to this touches the issue of evaluation of deradicalization program and for a critical and skeptical. i am convinced that deradicalization can be evaluated, should be evaluated and can be effective. the are a lot of questions like
data access to the relationship of the research and the program, finance it, who wasn't interested in positive or negative. i think the saudi program is popular in the muslim majority world because it's very outspoken in terms of, we teach them the right form of islam. we sit down and debate than out of it. western countries, to be honest i've never seen that work in practice when his jihadi kids are in prison and to in an imam who sits down and set your listen, this is the islam, should be. they have no reason to listen. first of all they say you are not a real muslim. they say why should i listen to you? you are government paid westernized muslim or government muslim so i do not listen. they simply said because they want to get out of prison early. i think it's an interesting program. it should be taken into account what can be done practically
come in terms of art classes, in terms of financial support and sustainability. the ideological component i'm very critical about that. i just know what has been written in the media, what has been written in some very rare studies about the program. so there needs to be a real evaluation. >> rashad, on the question of counter messaging, i mean, is it worthwhile to do given the isis has gone out of its way to anger most muslims in the world? you don't like a fellow sunni muslim on fire and listen to them to put your finger in the eye of every muslim. we don't message as the government against neo-nazism. it's just mainstream culture has already signed is a pretty vile ideology. should we be doing counter messaging speak with i think it fits into the last question as well. the saudi program is essentially
saying, you should only really engage in acts of terrorism when we going to do so. otherwise it's just wrong. and that's the substance of that kind of theology is what it boils down to. so that is going to be set with all sorts of issues. there's the credibility and you mentioned that when you gauge with someone in prison an act of theft of state, you are starting on a negative already. having said that, i actually, my experience has been very different in the uk. we've had come with over 100 cases over the last six or seven years. actually in that space the overriding majority we looked at where there have been a theological or ideological component into deradicalization, it has taken place in discontinuous engagement since. so in my experience it can be done. i just don't believe that the
religious specific perspective of you saudis as a way to do. across the world, all have very different takes on it. in tunisia you do the wraparound thing with digital ideological dimension, the theology and taking care of the individual and their families, et cetera. on the cases with a convict terrorists as an example. coming down to this, this is what i think messaging is calibrated operably and has the right messenger, they can be effective and influential. that are different groupings the people if you like. so you've got the bloodthirsty neo soul shall pass want to go and join this is because they banned this jordanian -- they burnt the stored in a pilot a lot of.
that is an objective, academic, has no interest in the politics just pointing out, your religion is not bloodthirsty in that sense. that has a lot of resonance with a lot of people. i'm saying at that exponentially because i engage with a lot of young individuals. calibrated appropriately from different messengers. yes, the u.s. state may not be the most, you know, credible messenger to a jihabi, fairly reasonable to say, but academic voices, young muslim voices and theological voices then people with various levels of persuasion. some of them bind to the politics. where actually their religion tells them no matter how much you dislike a particular government, never justify as
terrorist act. that messaging may have that impact. it depends really. that is not a great answer, but calibrating, getting the right messenger will determine how effective the messaging is. i really believe it can be effective. >> gentleman in the brown jacket here. >> thank you. my name is stefan leader. a retired analyst but worked for among other places a unit in the state department called the counterterrorism communications center. as an eight, nine. the strategy that we, we worked on at that time was to mobilize voices in the islamic community to do the countermessaging that we've been talking about. not from the u.s. government but to mobilize people in islamic community which would be perhaps
more acceptable voices to the target audience that we're talking about and i think that's still a valid approach. i'd be interested in further comments on that. >> yeah, if i could put a wrinkle on that as well, and angela, jump in, what happens when the communities don't radicalize? we're talking about far-right extremism. there's not been a big movement to push back against that. i mean you were saying that yours is one of the first in the united states to push back to it. does the government need to fill that space? does it need to quietly encourage non-governmental organizations to do it? or should it be more last is a a -- laissez-faire about it and sit back to see what happens? >> from my perspective, i know the numbers aren't great but i don't think we can afford to
wait to see what happens and i'll give an example for that. it could be something as simple as a community being empowered with knowledgewhat we do if we see x, y and z? and for that example i will use the charleston shooting. that individual publicly stated to several people that he was going to go out and commit acts of violence. if that community was empowered, if they weren't afraid or think, i don't want to call the police, who do i go to? i don't know if it's a credible threat. and with that example, i will say that, we can't afford not to do something. we can't afford to say, well the numbers aren't that big, so we can just let it bo. the numbers are getting bigger. certainly not on the scale, you
know with other things what we've seen but there's a problem. >> when you say we, you mean private citizens need to mobilize more ngos like yours? >> i'm in all kinds of stuff. i toe the academic field. i do different stuff. we in the community, all of us engaged in this kind of work. whether it's on the academic side or whether on intervention, cve, counternarratives, policy that's what i mean. >> take extremism more seriously. >> absolutely, yes. >> let me get another question from the audience. >> can i? >> sure. >> i think it is something you can avoid that happened in britain and to a large extent across different european countries. the failure in britain was civil society didn't stand up against phenomena of radical islamism. that is just why the government
now is reacting with a fairly aggressive counterextremism policies in terms of trying to disrupt extremist activity, ban organizations, give asbos. that is antisocial behavior order, we stop people speaking in public because they have extreme views. i think that reaction is terrible. but the reaction is because civil society failed to challenge the ideas. what do i mean by that? we have an as an example leader of the labour party, literally the leader of the opposition in the u.k., the main opposition in the u.k., who is someone invited by saleh to come into meant in the u.k. -- come into parliament. describes -- these are blood thirsty terrorist organizations which do a lot of good social work. essentially but they have terrorist fringes and terrorist
groups as part and parcel of their makeup. yet, civil society allowed them to be incubated into parts of mainstream society, so this is one area where we can benefit and heeds the words of jonathan, look, don't embrace your values and historic traditions. bridge the gap. why you fought for the separation of powers. why you decided there should be no religious test in your constitution. there is reason and rationale when you decided that when you formed the constitution. same reason why it is amazing thinking from your presidential candidates we see. but essentially the values underpin the intellectually, you have to stand up for them. we fail to do that. this is why we're seeing a lot of regressive measures. i think that comes in both from muslim communities and everybody, muslim or not, must share that stake in standing up for what is american dream,
whether your particular aspirations and values are life, liberty and fruit of the loom. >> of the fruit of the loom. what can i say? what rashad is saying very fitting to the u.k. dynamic but doesn't really apply to the u.s. and i think a lot of what we discuss is very counterspecific. works in saudi but -- here in the u.s. we do not have a problem with communities radicalizing. we have a problem of scattered individuals. occasionally more clusters of four or five individuals, in online community but it is completely different dynamic. so the countermessaging, the working with communities, great stuff. can't hurt although in some cases if not done properly it can actually hurt. but for the most part we're talking about individuals here and there who are radicalizing. we're communities but are generally rejecting some of the
more radical messages unlike some important part of the british muslim community that have different take. very different dynamic here. so some of the big role of the state, some of the, again, some social engineering, some of the needs for the communities to really speak out, i'm not saying that it would hurt in the u.s. but not necessarily needed. it is not a matter of communities. maybe there is something to be said about the parts of somali community in minneapolis, but generally speaking few individuals who are not part of the community. shameful pitching all this stuff but a study we did on isis in america, we looked at 70 individuals who have been indicted in the u.s. for links to isis since 2014. 40% of them are converts. don't really belong to communities. most of them are actually very new converts, people who for variety of reasons, most cases belong to the fourth category rashad was saying, with weird
personal issues, radicalized. outreach to communities doesn't really do much in that cases but a lot of this stuff doesn't really apply to the u.s. that is really counterspecific. >> let me gather a few questions. gentleman in the baseball cap in the back. >> yeah. thank you very much for an interesting discussion. my name is ken dante. my work was with addicts. i work with recovering people as a therapist. i just wanted to see if there was some comparison to addiction treatment? people need information basically to be able to self-diagnose. if you can diagnose them forever, but if they don't have a self-diagnosis they really don't take steps. part of that is a measure i call it soul sickness. i've seen that in guys who were in combat who were working with radical organizations. even people in the idf got
disgusted what they were doing and had to make a journey. but they also needed to have charismatic individuals around them who served as elders and that would be almost like a sponsor in aa or sponsor in recovery. perhaps this would be something who really had charisma having gone through this difficulty journey back. i wonder if you want to talk about that comparison, if that holds out. >> thank you. let me gather a few more questions. there was one in the book? nope, her hand is not going up. there it is. >> hello. my name is clara o'connor. i love to hear the panel's view on some of our quote, unquote allies approach to countering violent terrorists. for example, egypt and turkey and israel. >> thank you. take another. down here in front please.
>> thank you very much for a fascinating discussion. alexander kravitz from insight. i'm, i'm curious if any of your groups or you know of other groups that might actually have become a target for some of these violent, you know, extremists? i mean when you think of the example that you were saying that you essentially, just end up dismembering a cell, it is just a very, it is soft way of destroying it, right? ultimately you are an enemy. i'm curious if that is something of concern? >> thank you very much. let's take those questions. just to remind you, we have a question about similarities with addicts and what do you do with people that have a problem but aren't willing to take the next steps? we have another question about the way that some states in the middle east handle radicalization, namely egypt,
turkey and israel. and then the final question, about whether any of you or, if you have heard of anyone being a target as a consequence of doing this deradicalization work. >> gosh, i think that the last question, yeah, lots of people who do get involved end up becoming targets at least in the u.k. or have threats put against them if they are not targets. so there is that, there is that risk for people that get involved. with regard, the essentially the psychology of a individual in deradicalization i'm loathe to try to apologize it. there is danger apologizing radicalization and that that is phenomenon we don't understand. i think it is fairly normal. we live in liberal bubbles but rest of the world really isn't
like that. which comes to mind the last question, yes, some of the horrific practices of the egyptian government is something we should stay very far away from in terms of suppressing, suppressing through violent means, not even terrorists but actually just political radicals, people who we may not see eye-to-eye in our values and may think their ideas are horrific but we shouldn't support horrific and suppression of muslim brotherhood. whether we think it is effective or not is irrelevant. it is just wrong. israel, really how long have you got? i will avoid israel. but turkey as well has become more and more authoritarian and that is a problem. >> daniel. >> i have anecdote to that, at conference i met colleagues from turkey from the police and this conference was about deradicalization so i talk a lot about intervention,
deradicalization talks and ideology all that stuff. turkey colleagues do radicalization. what we do kick in the door at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, we have big stick we hit testimony on the head and put them in jail and they're deradicallized. at that point was their understanding of deradicalization, neutralizing a threat. i know they have changed a little bit in community outreach project. so they have a lot stronger community policing aspects where police officers would go uninvited to marriage, hand out gifts and be present and be nice, be open, but to nye knowledge they don't have individual deradicalization programs. there was a question of the threat against people who are engaging in that work. i think you have to differentiate who formers themselves because they get attacked and threatened by because they're threat to the groups and those who are not
professionals and come from another background. it is the way you counternarratives. frame intervention. give you another example of countier narrative intervention i'm leading a group which is called mothers for life. this is currently mothers from nine countries across the globe who all have lost their sons and daughters in syria. most have been killed in syria and iraq. somewhere these mothers wrote an open letter to the islamic state and posted on various social media sites. you can find everything about that online. the idea was next to father, mothers are in the essential position to challenge beliefs and ideologies because there is fame must saying of the prophet, paradise lies at the feet of your mother. the mother irregardless of face or ethnic background language, she is still the mother and still has something to say about that we wrote that letter, used, deliberately used certain jihadi
terms. described how these mothers felt after their sons and daughters have been killed, without the mothers having a chance to intervene against that would you guess how long it took for islamic state to officially respond to that? 3 1/2 hours. after 3 1/2 hours, a official from the twitter account tried to scorn and ridicule the message. after a couple of days when the letter was translated into eight, nine, 10 languages. they shifted their response in posting jihadi recruitment video in comment section about the letter, well, you might have have a point there, jihad is really something different. you misunderstood what we actually do here and here are videos we just work out and training and it is nice. so the response, shifted from ridiculing and rejecting it to acknowledging parts of the message and trying to turn it around. so we were able to engage in a message. none of these mothers were actually directly threatened after that.
even me as the family counselor or expert in that i was never actually threatened, directly threatened. what you said, of course it is dismembering these groups. of course it is dismembering the ideology and empowering those who are really dangerous to these groups by their simple biography and their simple natural being. i think this can be done in a way these cells don't even recognize, these groups don't recognize what is happening. it is simply getting more difficult to recruit and holding members in the cell. suddenly you are engaged in a internal controversy or argument with your own members, why the person left, why the comrade left. why are these mothers saying we shouldn't go to syria and we've been told the mothers are so important. so you create much more noise and furor within these groups that potentially create doubt and fallout from all of the
other sites which you can use again and all that stuff. >> we have time for two more very quick questions if anyone has a burning question? good. all right. we answered everyone's questions. lorenzo, final one for you. and that is, if you had one recommendation to make to the u.s. government, thinking through this stuff, you looked at this issue in europe, you've looked at it in the united states, what would that one suggestion be? >> this is a great question, daniel, appreciate that. just couple things. appreciate it. one is resources. there is about using american resources. at the same time we do not need a massive, large-scale program or saudis or some european -- the problems are very limited numberwise. so i think what we're arguing at center, targeted interventions
accompanied by engagement which is useful not just from cve, securitizing the relationship with communities is problematic per se. so keep the engagement but at the same time start with intervention programs with partnerships with community. open up the space for, for civil society, for ngos to be partner obviously with clear guidelines for everybody. i think something that can be done relatively on the cheap, based on preexisting structures. think would allow law enforcement on programmatic cases not spend resources on 15-year-old on facebook, googling benghazi and shias because it's a face, would allow fbi to zero in. a matter of resources put in the right way. not a matter of creating massive, massive structures. >> thank you very much. join me in thanking our panel today.
[applause] [inaudible conversations]. >> about 90 minutes from now the federalist society will host a discussion reviewing the supreme court the last 10 years under chief justice john roberts that willing live 12:15 p.m. eastern here live on c-span2. c-span's road to the white house coverage continues friday, live from orlando at the republican party of florida's sunshine summit. the two-day event brings presidential candidates, along with florida's state and federal elected officials. friday morning, at 10:30 eastern, the lineup includes florida senator marco rubio, texas snort ted cruz, south carolina senator lindsey graham, former arkansas governor mike huckabee, former
florida governor jeb bush, donald trump and ben carson. live on saturday morning, starting at 10:00 eastern, more from the republican sunshine summit with former pennsylvania senator rick santorum, louisiana governor bobby jindal, kentucky senator rand paul, new jersey governor chris christie, ohio governor john kasich, and carly fiorina. stay with c-span for campaign 2016. taking you on the road to the white house on tv, on the radio, and c-span.org. >> congress is on break for the veterans day holiday. congressman jason chaffetz is chair of the house oversight committee and he is not in the country. he is doing some foreign affairs work from asia during his time off. he tweeted this note from indonesia. spent the day at our embassy in jakarta, indonesia. good meetings. more on that later. coming up next military leaders talk about the best ways
for kids to be feeling disconnected with schoolmates when military parent are constantly redeployed to other locations. talking about keeping kids busy with activities and sports. military child education coalition hosted this conference in july. [applause] >> well, good morning. hey, look, don't you love those defining moments? i mean they are really, really awesome. well, welcome to the family program town hall. i would like to introduce our panelists that we have up here. first we have lt. general david halverson who is commander of the u.s. army installation management command and the army's assistant chief of staff for installation management. general? >> thanks. [applause] >> next we have lt. general samuel d. cox, air force deputy chief of staff for manpower and personnel and services. sir? [applause]
vice admiral dixon r. smith, commander, naval installations command. [applause] and the honorable danny g. i. pummill, assistant veterans administration and also a nmsc advisor. [applause] what we're going to do. we collected questions from y'all in past couple days. i will start off with some of those questions. i understand there is a mic out there though. if you have a question from the floor, please don't hesitate to go ahead and walk over there. somehow signal me or have someone signal me. throw a wad of paper at me to get my attention so i can call upon you. i would like this to be spontaneous and conversation in the very few minutes that we have. first question to sort of get things going a little bit, given two days ago.
in light of the current fiscal environment with respect to the budget cuts in the military in general, how do you see funding of family programs being affected in the short and long term? are there, from your perspectives any nonnegotiables? >> i will jump in, from navy perspective the budget is impacting us. i can tell you, child and youth programs, cno, chief of naval operations says we're not touching that. child development centers and youth programs, those are fenced and we're protecting those. they are funded well because we understand taking care of children and family. that is very important to our sailors when they go forward-deployed. we have that fenced. we're not really impinging our child youth programs with this budget. >> it's a great question, because it is reality, right? we have to do it, most important thing i think that fine balance
between mission, family in our community. and what it army strong and other things. this is must fund thing we are doing. big discussion with the senior staff and secretary of the army, just like what dixon said, non-negotiable how we have to do it. how we adjust certain things and deal with certain contractual aspects what realities are, partner with other things to bring same service and capabilities those are things we want to discuss and have discussions on. to communicate that with families, they are part of readiness from our perspective. that is important we commit to family readiness. >> piggyback on one piece i talked about, that partnership piece is really important. the budget is kind of tight. partnerships with local
communities and school boards. that is what this organization helps us with. we'll do funding best way we can, whether in year of execution or long-term planning but we have to have that partnership as well. >> from a va perspective we don't get funding for dependents and spouses and families. it is for veterans. support between 22, 23 million veterans in this country but we strongly support the funding for dod because we know from experience that the the better off family of a service member to include the children are when they transition from military to civilian life, the better they make the transition, less ptsd, more chance getting involved, more jobs in the communities. >> great, thank you. this next one you may have some personal experiences with this as well you would like to share. what do you as senior military leaders is biggest challenge facing military and
veteran-connected children? >> for myself, personally, it is always, every time you move or anytime you do, how do you integrate back into, how do you get your kids integrated into the community and into your areas or stuff? >> the biggest challenge as you know is, the reality is, we are not the norm in society anymore in the military. it is harder to get in, harder to do this and really how do we integrate with our society in the communities and how do we leverage that capability? i think in the out years, just like anything, it is becoming our responsibilities to make sure that people know that as a military child you're really maybe, you are an enabler to that education experience. you're an enabler to do that. you may be a minority because the other folks in the society may not know, what does your father do? oh, he is in the army. a lot of kids, that means he
goes to war? what's war about? all these conversations kids have to deal with at times are very, very important. i think that conversation will be, we have to reach out, things like msec and our school liaisons have to do is education principles -- principals counselors, what this child gone through. probably moved multiple times. their fathers or spouses have been, their parent have been deployed. all these types of things. maybe multiple just like my kids. 12 different schools. how they had to deal with these things. all these types of things will be maybe not as normal as it used to be. as these shrink and we get smaller what we have to do, that experience may not be there. so i think that will be something that we'll have to continue to foster in the future. i mean, even when we go on the hill there is less and less people that served on military. our ability to communicate and dialogue with them will be very
important for us and our kids. >> going forward, you think about what happened since 9/11. incredible support that we have across the united states for support for the military and our children. so going forward, is that support going to wane a little bit? will they be less receptive to do accommodation that needs to take place. continued collaboration through school boards or through mcec or other organizations to make sure we have continued support with our local communities. it is hard to grow up as military child as you go from school to school. my kids, 20-year-old, 22-year-old, my daughter, nine different schools, three different high schools. that's challenging but that is not unique. >> so i, there are two things that i think, there is a lot of things but i think two main ones that i think impact our kids, one, is transition from school
to school, coming into new environment. not knowing anybody in the integration. that is where student to student, that msac does. connect rooms many, enables kids integrated quickly and focus on academics. the other side, when you transfer credit from one state to another what can you use, what do you have to redo? interstate compacts and efforts from organizations and get all 50 states, finally on board with that. military student identifier. right now only 17 of our states have the military identifier on enrollment forms, to push that need. when you do that you can track the students and get through school easier. not have to repeat classes just to be able to meet that state's graduation credentials. to me those are two biggest things this organization and
many organizations working on that. i personally thank you what you're doing on that. we have to keep on pushing because the job's not done. [applause] >> so continuing on that a little bit goes with the next question. after over a decade of continuous wartime deployments what can leadership do to reinvigorate relationships between schools and districts? >> new commanders coming in, squad commanders, group or wing commanders one of the things we highlight to them, make sure they're intigrated with the school board and local community. that was important for us to do that. emphasizing that point is something important we need to do. every time we go out as senior leaders, visit with local community and visit with school boards to make sure there is understanding what it is and challenges that our folks are facing. >> really important just like you said. our garrison leaders and stuff, senior commanders they are on the school boards. they're advisors.
they work very closely with them. that is the connection activity to us in the -- connectivity with us and that is very important. we put school liaisons into all of the schools in the area there. that is facilitate the communication that what we need to do. try to balance between mission, community and phamly. we've done a lot of things like adopt a school. all these type programs puts soldiers to assist. things like stem and robotics teams and taking intellectual capital, to know you have to give back to the community and share this dialogue with our children is very, very important. these are initiatives we have to continue to foster. this is our lower, next mustard seed we have to grow from a leader perspective to make sure our commanders and stuff know this is part of readiness. this gives you the balance you can see. just like everything weave seen you will reap benefits from anything you do, from your civil
input because education is so important. i mean, when you talk to soldiers and their families, education is a huge readiness issue. what we want to do is create the environments that family unit stays together and they don't make decisions because it is an education. war's hard enough to push us and separate us but to stay together is very, very important and focused. the work we're doing here to allow that to insure they don't have to make these other tough choice. >> i think they might have seen questions in advance because the next one deals with stem, stem being science technology, engineering and math. this could be answered in yes or no but i know none of you will answer this question in yes or no fashion. do you believe stem is field adults should encourage our kids to explore? >> yes. >> i knew someone would do that. >> my two girls are one's mechanical, one's electrical engineering. it's important, right? my wife was english background. but it is really important.
but she did go to the naval academy. really ran into that one. i think it is important for stem because i think the future is, it's gap that we need to deal with and it's exciting. so my kids used to enjoy the robotics competition in oklahoma and all other places. what i found out about stem, doesn't matter where you are, there are a lot of opportunities for us. they're in college. they went to -- i mean they were in high school and went to college classes to facilitate some exploitation of stem. i have seen school districts work very closely with them to insure they do have the environment to learn and to prosper and to understand that it's okay to, with girls, being engineer is good thing to do even though not the normal before, so. >> the navy pushes stem like all the services very hard. we've got partnerships with 2100
schools out there across the country and where we can, we leverage the navy's expertise in in those partnerships down at the nav air or hawaii with the shipyard or be it in san diego. when we can bring those in, the stem pieces to that, the engineers, to help facilitate what our sailors are doing out there, whether running stem competitions. we consider it very important as dave said. we have to work the stem piece, more we get it into the elementary schools, middle schools, high schools better off we'll be not only as navy, as a service but we will as a country down the road. >> okay. this next one, and the numbers may be wrong, we were just given a card, but numbers may be wrong. the idea is important here. there is 35% suicide depression rate of children and military personnel and 37% higher for
siblings of military personnel. are you seeking programs to address this? so the bottom line issue are you seeking programs to address suicide depression rates of children? >> that's a great question. i think it is the biggest fear of all parent, right? as kids, grow up and their hormones change and their development we learned a lot more as we study it, but we are in the aspect of the army institute ad lot of resiliency training for our soldiers is being offered to family members and children at our cyss and we've done that internally in our acs. teaching master resiliency pushed all the way down the thing to give them resilience to understand these are normal and they can get help. that is very, very important. i don't know statistics are like you but troubling if you have one. there is so much of life to go
through, not turning out a computer, it is life experience and life is about these ups and downs and how do you go through them as team or together as a unit and that you're not alone. >> same with the air force. piggyback on master recivilian sy trainers to have one at least in every squadron in the air force. that is the path we're on to piggyback on that. that will be also for airmen and families as well. >> answer is yes also for that. but it is, when we do the same thing to our fleet and family service centers. >> from a va perspective, we deal a lot with suicide. our figures are the best we have right now, 18 veterans a day commit suicide in the united states. one of the things i personally worry about is the transition period for military children when they're leaving that active duty guard or reserve status and going into the civilian sector. i remember back when i was in high school my dad retired from the air force, i was a junior in high school. that was a nightmare for me.
never fit into the new school. it probably delayed my college for four years. i was a mess, but we had a strong family. so that got me through. i don't know if there is figures out there. i heard your figures. i'm concerned that the figures for the people that leave the military and are now civilians -- >> we will leave the last few minutes of this program. you can watch the rest of it on our website, c-span.org. up next, a medal of honor ceremony for retired army captain florent groberg, who survived attacks moments apart, badly wounded as he saved soldiers in afghanistan in 2012. ♪ >> almighty god, we hear your
words in the psalmist, how do we repay the lord in his goodness to me. today we remember your goodness and sacrifice of all our soldiers. heal our hearts from the tears of their grieving families. be with us as we honor the actions of our heroes. we give thanks for their sacred calling to serve, to protect, to defend our nation and our way of life without counting the costs. may this heroic and virtuous soldier be an example for future generations. may his life serve as a beacon for our young men and women who run to the sound of the guns, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of the nation they have come to love. in your holy name we pray, amen. >> amen. please be seated.
good morning and welcome to the white house. a little more than three years ago as captain florent groberg was recovering from his wounds as a consequence of the actions we honor today, he woke up on a hospital bed in a little bit of a haze. he wasn't sure but he thought he was in germany. and someone was at his bedside talking to him. and, he thought it was the lead singer from the heavy metal band korn. [laughing] flo thought, what's going on? am i hallucinating? but he wasn't. it was all real. and so today, flo, i want to
assure you are not lal -- hallucinating. you are actually in the white house. those cameras are on. i am not the lead singer from korn. [laughing] we are here to award you our nation's highest military honor, the distinction, the medal of honor. now, flo and i actually met before. three years ago i was on one of my regular visit to walter reed to spend some time with our wounded warriors flo was one of them. we talked. turned out he liked the chicago bears, so i liked him right away. [laughing] and i had to chance to meet his parents who could not be more gracious and charming. you get a sense of where flo gets his character from. wonderful to see both of you again. i also want to welcome flo's
girlfriend, carson, who apparently, flo tells me had to help paint an apartment just the other day. so there is some honey-do lists going on. his many friends, fellow soldiers, and family, all of our distinguished guests. a day after veterans day we honor this american veteran whose story like some of our vets and wounded warriors speaks not only of gallantry on the battlefield but resilience here at home. as a teenager just up the road in bethesda, flo discovered he had an incredible gift. he could run. fast. half mile, mile, two mile, he would leave his competition in the dust. he was among the best in the state and he went on to run track and cross-country at the university of maryland.
flo's college coach called him, the consummate teammate. as good as he was in individual events, somehow he always found a little extra something when he was running on a relay with a team. distance run something really all about guts and as one teammate said, flo could suffer a little more than everyone else could. so day after day, month after month, he pushed himself to his limit. he knew that every long run, every sprint, every interval could help shave a second or two off of his times. and as he would find out later a few seconds can make all the difference. training, guts, team work, what made flo a great runner also made him a great soldier n the army flo again took his training seriously, hitting the books in the class room, paying attention to every detail, in field exercises because he knew that he had to be prepared for any
scenario. he deployed to afghanistan twice. first as a platoon leader, and then a couple of years later when he was hand-picked to head up a security detail. so it was an an august day three years ago, that flo found himself leading a group of american and afghan soldiers as they escorted their commanders to a meeting with local afghans. it was a journey that the team had done many times before, a short walk on foot, including passage over a narrow bridge. at first they passed pedestrians, a few cars and buys buys -- bicycles, even some children but then they began to approach the bridge and a pair of motorcycles sped toward them from the other side. the afghan troops shouted at the bikers to stop, and they did, ditching their bikes in the middle of the bridge and running away. that's when flo noticed something to his left.
a man dressed in dark clothing walking backwards just some 10 feet away. the man spun around and turned toward them and that's when flo sprinted toward him. he pushed him away from the formation and as he did, he noticed an object under the man's clothing, a bomb. the motorcycles had been a diversion. and at that moment, flo did something extraordinary. he grabbed the bomber by his vest and kept pushing him away. all those years of training on the track and in the classroom, out in the field, all of it came together in those few seconds. he had the instincts and the courage to do what was needed. one of flo's comrades, sergeant and drew mahony, had joined in together they shoved bomber again and again. they pushed him so hard fell on the ground to his chest and the bomb detonated. ball bearings, debris, dust
exploded everywhere. flo was thrown some 15 or 20 feet and was knocked unconscious. moments later he woke up in the middle of the road in shock. his ear drum was blown out, his leg was broken and bleeding badly. he realized if the enemy launched a secondary attack he would be sitting duck. when the comrade found him in the smoke, flo had his pistol out dragging his wounded body from the blow. that blast by the bridge claimed four american heroes. four heroes flo wants us to remember today. one of his mentors, a 24-year army vet who always found time for flo and any other soldier who wanted to talk. command sergeant major, kevin griffin. a west pointer, who loved hockey and became a role model to cadets and troops because he always cared more about other people than himself. major tom kennedy, a popular air
force leader known for smiling with his whole face, someone who always seemed to run into a friend wherever he went, major david gray. and finally usaid foreign service officer who volunteered for second tour in afghanistan, a man who moved to the united states from egypt and reveled in everything american, whether it was disneyland or chain restaurant or roadside pie, regai adelfata. these four men believed in america. they dedicated their lives to our country. they died serving it. their families, loving wives, and children, parents an siblings, bear that sacrifice most of all. so while regai's family could the not be with us today, i would ask three gold star families to please stand and accept our deepest thanks.
[applause] today, we honor flo because his actions prevented an even greater catastrophe. you see by pushing the bomber away from the formation, the explosion occurred farther from our forces and on the ground, instead of in the open-air. while flow didn't know it at the time, that explosion also caused a second, unseen bomb to detonate before it was in place.
had both bombs gone off as planned, who knows how many could have been killed. those are the lives flo helped to save, and we are honored many of them are here today. brigadier general james mingus, sergeant andrew mahoney who was awarded silver star for joining flo in confronting the attacker, sergeant first class brian brink, awarded a bronze star with valor for pulling flo from the road. specialist daniel valderama, the medic who helped to save from's leg. private first class benjamin secor, and sergeant eric ochart who also served with distinction on that day. gentlemen, i ask you to please stand and accept the thanks of a grateful nation as well. [applause]
at walter reed flo began his next mission, the mission to recover. he suffered significant nerve damage and almost half africa muscle in his -- half of a calf must little in his leg had been blown off of the leg that powered him around the track, the leg that moved so swiftly to counter the bomber, that leg had been through hell and back. thanks to 33 surgeries, and some of the finest medical treatment a person can ask for, flo kept that leg. he is not running but he is doing a lot of cross fit.
i would not challenge him to cross fit. he is putting some hurt on some rowing machines and some stair climbers. i think it is fair to say he is fit. today flo is medically retired but like some of his fellow veterans of our 9/11 generations flo continues to serve. as i said yesterday at arlington , that is what our veterans do. they are incredibly, highly-skilled, dynamic leaders, always looking to write that next chapter of service to america. for flo that means civilian job with the department of defense to help take care of our troops and keep our military strong. every day that he is serving, he will be wearing a bracelet on his wrist as he is today, a bracelet that bears names of his brothers in arms who gave their lives that day. the truth is flo says that day was the worst day of his life and that is the stark reality
behind these medal of honor ceremonies. for all the valor we celebrate, all the courage that inspires us, these actions were demanded amid some of the most dreadful moments of war. that's precisely why we honor heros like flo. because on his very worst day, he managed to summon his very best. that's the nature of courage. not being unafraid but confronting fear and daigher and performing in a selfless fashion. showed his guts, showed his training, how he put it all on the line for his teammates. that's an american we all can be
grateful for. that is why we honor captain florent groberg today. may god bless all you who serve and all who have given their lives to our country. we are free because of them. may god bless their families, and may god continue to bless the united states of america with heroes such as these. >> the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress, march 3rd, 1863, awarded in name of congress the medal of honor to floor rent a. groberg, united states army.
captain florent groberg distinguished himself of act of gallantry above the call of duty serving personal deattachment commander fourth infantry brigade combat team, fourth infantry decision against an armed enemy in afghanistan on august 8th, 2012. on that day captain bro berg leading dismounted movement consisting of several leaders including two brigade commanders, two battalion commanderss two sergeants major and afghan national army brigade commander. as they proe approached provincial governor's compound captain groberg observed individual walking close to the formation. the individual made abrupt turn towards the formation. he noticed abnormal bulge. selflessly putting himself in unwith of the front of brigade commanders. he pushed suspects away from the formation. simultaneously ordered another moment per of the security detail to assist with removing suspect. at this time captain groberg
confirmed the bulge was suicide vest, with complete disregard for his vest, captain groberg with other member of the security detail physically pushed suicide bomber away from formation. upon falling the suicide bomber exploded his vest outside of the formation, killing four members of the formation and wounding numerous others. place from the first suicide bomb cause ad suicide vest previously unnoticed suicide bomber to debt it that prematurely withinimum impact on formation. captain groberg's immediate actions to push the first suicide bomber away from the formation significantly minimized coordinated suicide's attack on the formation saving the lives of his comrades and several senior leaders. captain groberg's ex ord extrordinary heroism above the call and duty at risk of his life are keeping highest traditions of military service, reflect credit on himself fourth infantry brigade combat team and
>> let us pray. may the example of all the soldiers we remembered today serve to inspire us to defeat all the enemies we face. may the acts of virtue we remember give us the courage to hold on to what guyed. strengthen the faint-hearted, support the weak, and help those who suffer. may we the living bring honor to those who have perished, so that others may live in peace. grant your blessing, remain upon us and be with us always, amen. >> amen. that concludes the formal portion of this ceremony. i need to take some pictures with the outstanding team
members as well as the gold star families who are here today. as flo reminds us, this medal, in his words, honors them as much as any honors that are bestowed upon him. and on veterans day week that is particularly appropriate. i want to thank all of our servicemembers who are here today, all who could not attend, and i hope you enjoy an outstanding reception. i hear the food is pretty good here. [laughter] thank you very much, everybody. [applause] give captain groberg a big round of applause again. thank you. [applause]
♪ >> captain groberg becomes the 10th living medal of honor recipient for actions in afghanistan. if you missed any of this you can watch it fenn in its entirety on our website. go to c-span.org. coming up in the next hour the federalist society host as discussion reviewing supreme court the past 10 years under chief justice john roberts. live coverage starts at 12:15 eastern here on c-span2. . .
>> politico reports house republicans are moving towards booty committee chairs from a powerful title that makes committee assignments. in what would be speaker paul ryan's biggest restructuring of internal policy so far. according to multiple sources involved in thos those talks. sure that the winning the speakership he promised he would
rework house republican student committee before thanksgiving. he and penalty lawmakers to hash out those changes. this week the lawmakers have discussed a two-part overall to the committee that would change its membership. you can read the rest of that story in politico today. >> last month the supreme court heard the oral argument for hurst v. florida tuesday october 13. the justices will decide whether florida's deficit things keep is unconstitutional. timothy muris was since timothy muris was since to death for the killing of a coworker back in 1990. the jury recommended death in a 7-5 vote. the judge will put the trees recommendations. his lawyers argued intellectual disabilities qualify same as the judge should not have made the final ruling on the death penalty. >> we were argument next in case 14-7505, hurst v. florida. mr. waxman stephen mr. chief justice and may it please the court. under florida law, timothy first
will go to his death despite the fact that a judge, not a jury, made the factual finding that rendered him eligible for death. that violates the sixth amendment under ring. in florida and florida alone, what authorizes imposition of the death penalty is a finding of fact by the court of an aggravating factor, finding that the trial judge makes independently and, quote, notwithstanding the jury's recommendation as to sentence. the state. intends that capital sentencing juries make implicit findings that satisfy the sixth amendment under ring which the trial judge then silver ratifies. that is wrong. whatever the jury's recommendation might imply about the specified aggravating
factors, the florida supreme court has repeatedly rejected the notion that the jury's verdict is anything other than advisory. florida law and trusts the factual findings of aggregators to the judge alone, who may do so on the basis of evidence that the jury never heard, and aggregators of the jury was never presented with. >> is there ever a case in which the jury found aggregators and recommend a death sentence, and the judge reversed that finding? >> there may well be. this is principally a case about appointing of death eligibility, not since election. >> the third way is the case in which the jury did not find an aggravating circumstance but the judge did? >> we don't ever know what the jury found about any of the specified aggravating circumstances. the only thing that the jury tells the judge is, we recommend
life or death by a vote of speed right but they can't recommend that unless defined the aggregator, right? >> no. as a matter of state law that's not correct. they can't recommend that unless seven up and each believe that some aggregator is satisfied. the florida supreme court, and this is another ring problem. the florida supreme court has recognized that were to aggregators are presented, it is impossible to know even if a simple majority agreed on a single aggregator. >> that's a common feature the of jury deliberations. let's say an aggregator is whether the murder is particularly heinous. it can be for a number of factors. one, the victim is the juvenile, so maybe three jurors find that. or an office was also killed, or it was in the course of another felony. in a typical case a finding that
the murder was heinous, you have no idea whether the jury as a whole made that determination or if there were 12 different reasons. >> mr. chief justice, florida is the only state, the only death penalty state and, therefore, the only state that does not require or permit the jury to be told that it has to agree. will add in all other is unanimous, but even, cannot even be told that a majority have to agree as to the existence of one of the specified aggravating factors. >> taking it out of the death penalty context, that's true with every jury determination. you could have the jury determining a person didn't commit the offense because his alibi was good, or because somebody else did it or any number of 12 different reasons that they think he was not guilty. it doesn't have to be agreement
by the jury on the particular basis for their verdict. >> we are talking here, mr. chief justice, about elements of the crime. and as this court explained in ring, the existence of a statutory aggravating factor is an element of a death-eligible crime. and can anybody imagine a world, which would be analog in florida, if the jury at the killed/innocence phase of the trial, a shoplifting trial, were told look, i'm going to decide whether decide whether the fed is or isn't guilty as a matter of law and eligible for punishment. but i'd like your input on whether you think each of the specified element is or isn't satisfied. i mean, nobody would stand for an argument like that or a system like that. >> are you sure that if you have
a prime that can be satisfied by various elements, the jury has to agree upon a specific element that satisfies it? >> the jury, if they are distinct elements, in this implies the point that the state is racing, if the state, consistent with long historical tradition and a finding of equal culpability, chooses to permit a particular element in schad, it was premeditation, or the mental state to be satisfied either pride premeditation or by felony murder, that's fine. but that is not the florida system. florida requires as a matter of law, the florida supreme court has said this over and over again, that a defendant is eligible for death only if the trial judge finds as fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a particular statutory aggravating exist.
and i submit even if that were not the case, extending schad, which held that in light of a 150 year history of states, including in the mental element for first degree murder, either felony murder or premeditation, that combining those two elements didn't satisfy the death penalty. none of that is here. this is a question of the sixth amendment and eighth amendment. no state has ever said that the jury can just decide some model of aggravation. they don't agree on the specific element, and that would violate i think it's six in eighth amendment precedents. >> i would think that, i would think is the opposite, that the necessity of finding the elements of the crime goes all the way back into the mist of history. this necessity of finding an aggravating factor, we made it
up, right? i mean, that's just recent cyprian court law. so if either one of them should be satisfy all by simply finding the generic conclusion rather than agreeing upon a particular species at issue, i would think it's the latter, rather than the former. >> justice scalia, i'm reminded of your separate opinion, i think it was in walton versus arizona, where you're choosing between two things that you didn't particularly like, and one of them was the fact that the court had made, recently or not, have made a finding beyond a reasonable doubt a factual finding of a specified aggravating factor, an element of the crime. and whether its recent, whether the court should or shouldn't have done it, it has. and under ring, it is just like
any other element of the crime. and on the schad point i think the other thing i would've said is, the florida supreme court, and i will refer court to the double case, the florida supreme court said that the 60 aggravating factors the city will make one eligible for death or fastly incommensurate in terms of relative levels of moral ability, opposite of the predicate of schad. >> i wasn't on the court at the time of ring, so could you tell me if ring is entitled to greater weight as a precedent that let's say gregg v. georgia and other court cases upholding because to shot of death penalty? >> i wouldn't bury prepared to say, to assign way to either of them. i think ring is predicated on greg, to justice scalia's point if greg hadn't decided that there has to be a determinate specific up pallet reviewable
narrowing of autosensing juries discretion. ring wouldn't com come up becaun activating factor wouldn't be an element. >> do you think this scheme, assuming we agree with justice scalia, that you don't really need unanimity, would there still be good law under apodaca? >> wealth -- >> the case that said we needed a unanimous jury but, you know, nine out of 12 is okay? do you think seven out of five is okay? >> i hope it was clear from our brief that we think nine out of five is not okay. it does require the court to overrule apodaca which -- >> we are not required to do anything. we could just say it's not the functional equivalent. but is it still good law? should we overrule the? >> we think for the reasons
stated in our brief should overrule it. antiquity and the eighth amendment context where the question is deaf, the jury should be unanimous. there is no other state that permits anyone to be sentenced for death other than a unanimous determination by the jury. and the state of florida requires unanimity for shoplifting, just not for death. it requires unanimity on all the other elements of the crime. apodaca is an unusual decision as -- >> wait a minute. they require unanimity for a conviction, right speak with y yes. >> just they don't require unanimity on the sense. that's quite different from whether the person committed the crime or not. >> exactly. and leaving aside our eighth amendment point in our brief that followed on justice breyer's concurrence in ring, this is all about the
eligibility, not the determination of what sense of place. and you have held that the existence of a specified statutory aggravating factor is a condition. it is an element of capital murder, and it is, i statute and florida supreme court decision, an element of capital murder in florida. indian apodaca itself, which as justice thomas pointed out in mcdonald, is an extraordinarily unusual case, even there, six justice indicated that a simple majority rule would not pass muster. i mean, we need, when an assignment is made to a jury in a case to decide beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of an element, however the state defines the element, we need
substantial reliability that the jury actually perform those functions. and in this case, again, in this case, if it were true that the sentencing jury was actually determining death eligibility, which it is plainly not, as we point out, the eighth amendment would certainly be violated under caldwell, because florida juries are told that they did not determine death eligibility. and the state simply can't have it both ways. either the jury is correctly told that its role is merely advisory, in which case there is a ring violation, or the instruction that is given violates the eighth amendment under caldwell because, as in caldwell, it misleadingly, quote, minimizes the jury sense of responsibility for determining the appropriateness of death to mr. waxman, do we just treat as the relevant what was involved in this case, that is, that your aggregators that were alleged, the brutality of
the murder and that it occurred during a robbery? there were obvious that existed. is that not so? >> i think it's not so. is probably a reason why company, the heinous, atrocious and cruel aggregator can never be obvious. the state isn't in arguing heartlessness with respect to that. the state made a choice. they didn't even indict timothy hurst for robbery. the sentencing jury was not even instructed on the elements of robbery. this argument of harmlessness was never raised in these proceedings from the sentencing proceeding onward, including in the brief in opposition in this case until the red brief, givend even there the red brief dissent arguing that there was a fatal concession. but in any event there is evidence in the record for which a jury could certainly find that timothy hurst, although in some
guilty of first degree murder, did not, in fact, actually commit the robbery. the jury was told that defined the existence of a felony murder aggravator, it had to find, add up when this is on page 211 of the joint appendix, that it had defined that the murder was committed while in the course of him committing a robbery. all of the physical evidence in this case that relates to the robbery, the bank deposit slip, the money, the bank deposit envelope, and a piece of paper in lee-lee smith's handwriting totally of the procedure all found in lee-lee smith's possession. so although it is not discourse ordinary function to determine whether something was or wasn't harmless, as in ring it was remanded for that purpose, i
think in this case it manifestly was not harmless. if there were any question by this court on that count it out to be remanded to the state court not only to determine constitutional harmlessness but whether there was a waiver by the state in its delegate choice never to mention this isn't a the second sentencing jury or thereafter. >> am i understanding the case properly? the informant, who had all of the physical evidence, was the main identifier of the defendant, correct? >> correct. because there was an eyewitness from across the street who testified that he saw somebody go into the popeye's, and he positively identified the defendant. >> no, did -- >> i believe there was another cooperator about a lee-lee smith's testimony.
spin so the defendant claimed, however, that this informant was the one who did the crime. could the jury under the evidence that existed concluded that they both did it? >> certainly. >> and that's what it's debatable whether it's harmless? >> yes. and, in fact, -- >> because what makes it an activator is if he's the one who actually did the killing. >> that's correct or that's what the jury was instructed. the jury was instructed that in order to find a felony murder aggravated and find that the murder was committed in the course of him committing the robbery. >> personally speak with yes. the statute, the actual aggravated is different but that's what this jury was told. >> mr. waxman, could i give you a hypothetical statement? this is a two-part question. you tell me. if it's consistent with the sixth amendment and if that is what makes this case different,
okay? my system is that a jury, whether in the penalty phase or in the guilt phase, has to make a determination of an aggravating factor, okay? but once that's done, once the jury decides on an aggravating factor, the judge can do whatever she wants. the judge can add aggravating factors. the judge can we wait the aggravating factors as compared with the mitigating evidence. the judge can do any of that stuff. at the judge has to leave alone the aggravating factor that the jury found. so in other words, the judge can't give death when the jury finds life, and the judge can throw out the juris doctorate. but as long as that jury makes that aggravating factor determination, the judge can do anything. is that consistent with the sixth amendment?
>> okay. you're asking only that the sixth amendment and not the eighth amendment point. so just be sure that i'm specifically answer your question, if the jury is told, you must find, for the defendant to be eligible for death, you must find it on a reasonable doubt the existence of the least what the statutory aggravating factors. i would also say for six and purposes, you must either be unanimous or the vote must be at least tended to. and then the jury does the finder and then you have -- tend to do. then you have the sort of belt and suspenders legal system that florida has here with the judge can say okay, i'm going to does the sentence, so i can wave this. it is eligible for death because the jury found beyond a regional doubt that a statutory aggravated exist. but the judge can say, nonetheless, i'm giving life.
if the jury says it's a death and the judge says well, i disagree, mullah going to send him to live, there's no constitutional violation. >> i don't understand the limits of your argument that what is done under the 40 statute diminishes the jurist sense of responsibility or it would be diminished to some degree if they know that their verdict is not necessarily the final word. would that be the case? isn't that the case whether they are told you make a recommendation and the judge decide, or you impose a sense that the judge can impose a different sense, a lesser sentence? they still will have to bear the responsibility of making the absolutely final decision. decision. >> justice alito, let me separate out what i'm calling
this election decision, that is, life or death and eligibility decision which is all of the elements of capital murder have been found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury with the unanimous or a sufficient majority and, therefore, when the sentencing jury is done, you are eligible for the death penalty. leaving aside the eighth amendment question whether the constitution then requires the jury to make the intensely moral judgment about whether the penalty should be life without parole or death, assuming that a judge can do that, so long as the jury is not told that its input, which is how the florida supreme court has put it, so long as they are not told that its advisory, so long as they're told that you as the finders of fact have to find that beyond a reasonable doubt that this
capital crime was committed, which includes the following elements, including one of the two specifying aggravators, the constitution is satisfied. are called will probably is a eighth amendment problem. caldwell wasn't eighth amendment case. what the jury is told here, if the system exists as the state posits it, with the jury is told here is far more misleading than what was told in caldwell. in caldwell, the jury with silva told that closing argument that your decision is going to be reviewable by the mississippi supreme court. a majority of this court held that that unconstitutionally diminished the jurist responsibility. hear the jury was told over and over and over again, and consistent with florida law, that your judgment is merely advisory. i will be the one to make this determination. that does not appear to be the system, that violates ring.
if it isn't the system and if somehow it can be argued that the jury is making implicit findings of aggravation at large, that renders somebody eligible for death, then there is a plain caldwell problem. that's our position. me i reserve the balance of my time? >> you may. >> thank you. >> mr. winsor. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. florida's capital sentencing system was constitutional before rain versus arizona and remains constitutional in light of the ring versus arizona. woodwind record was a jury determination on those facts to which the state legislature condition the position of the death penalty. in this instance mr. hurst got that. the legislature has determined that the elements nested to make him eligible the death penalty existed of a murder and whatcom were aggravating circumstances.
what the other side calls the advisory sentence included within it a finding as this court recognized in the united states versus just that the jury determined there was want a more aggravating circumstances. >> i'm sorry, how is that when florida law says that the judge testified and aggravating to make some eligible for the death penalty? >> it is a difference between the sense of selection and eligibility or once the defendant is eligible because they jury has found all the necessary elements, then what happens after that does not implicate ring at all. >> could you somehow this is different than arizona? entrance of the system, just like in the arizona case, there had been precedent by this court that arizona law had been constitutional. unlike arizona, every court that has looked, every judge who's looked at it, not one of them
has said that they believe personally its constitutional. even the courts affirm on the basis of a prior precedent, and you have a less than half the court directly saying it violates ring. so what's the jury finding when it says 7-5? >> if i could backup -- >> even when it says a murder has committed, felony murder wasn't. felony murder was charged but we don't know if they found the robbery, right? >> at the guilt phase the convicted of first degree murder which have either been felony murder with a predicate underlying felony being robert bork premeditated murder. budget answer -- >> how do we know which one they picked? which makes them eligible for the death penalty? >> our position is he became eligible at the sensing face when the jury made its advisory decision. the jury was instructed that if you determine the aggravating
circumstances are found to exist, you must recommend life. >> but you do agree that it doesn't require a unanimous jury? >> it does not require a unanimous jury spent a simple majority is all you need? >> that's right. that's a jury finding. >> even a functionally equivalent unanimous jury, finding those aggravators. >> i'm sorry? >> we don't have unanimous or functionally unanimous jury finding those aggravators. >> or reliance for the final eligibility determination is that 7-5. ..
can the judge? >> no. >> what if we have a page in their opinion, page 20 sites about six cases which suggests to me that they thought the answer to the question is a matter of florida law is just the judge can sentence to death; is that so or not? >> it is permitted we acknowledge that it would not be permitted in the circumstance where the state is relying on
the recommendation to satisfy the eligibility. now if you could have a situation -- >> the jury comes back and says life. and we know through mental telepathy the judge doesn't that the reason they did that is no one found an aggregator. my simple question is as a matter of florida law, can the judge imposed the death sentence yes or no? >> as a matter of law yes. >> so then you say the answer is now no. you agree this case is like brain to veto co the rain that would recommend life. >> not any case. >> i would like to know your cathy caviar.
>> they could be eligible for death one in this case if it is determined at the sentencing phase because of the finding in the recommendation. in other instances it can be a person can become eligible before the sentencing phase either because they have a prior violent felony conviction or a contemporaneous conviction. for example if someone murdered two people and were convicted of double murder, that person at theft person at the guilt phase by virtue of that guilt jury verdict has been eligible for the death penalty. and so at this stage come and your hypothetical is that sentencing phase recommended lifetime of the to judge could override without violating terri i will tell you as a matter of the florida state law the judge in the circumstance would say the exact standard as a matter of fact no judge has overwritten the jury's life recommendation since before. so come as a matter of function it's not something that happens
in florida but to answer the question, we do beneath it would be constitutional in the situation i described. >> if the jury -- if the jury came in hung instead of being 7-5 it was hung. could the judge then imposed a death penalty? >> not in this situation, your honor because that would result a life recommendation. a 6-6 vote is not a recommendation and the judge couldn't override that if you were relying on the jury sentencing findings. and even if he weren't, he or she weren't, like i said it's an exact in the florida standard that judge would be reversed for overturning that unless he or she determined or the appellate court determined no reasonable jury in the circumstance could have imposed a recommended sentence and as i indicated it's been since 1,999 cents any judge overrode a life recommendation.
>> just so i understand, you're saying that it is possible under the florida law the jury would not find the existence of an aggravating factor, and different ways that this would come out for the hypothetical is a hung jury to judge could then proceed to find an aggravating factor and impose the death penalty. you say that would probably be reversed. theoretically this could happen. >> that could not have been consistent unless there were some other jury findings were admission that establish death eligibility. >> you're saying it couldn't have been consistent meaning that there are certain applications of the florida law that would be unconstitutional even in your view. >> that hypothetical again with the absence of another aggravating circumstance proven outside them of and that happens in most cases. >> but we don't sit in judgment
of theoretical scheme that florida has sent us to. and don't we have to judge that there has been unconstitutionality in this case? >> that's correct. in this case there was a jury recommendation actually. can i give you another notwithstanding that we don't have the judge of the hypothetical schemes. suppose that the jury find as an aggravating factor but then the judge has this whole separate hearing in which other things are presented to him and the judge says i don't actually agree with the fact of the jury found that i have my own aggravating facts and now i'm doing all the way in waiting and i come out in favor i assume you would say that also would be an unconstitutional application. >> that would be consistent because again once the eligibility come and there's a substantial difference that is recognized over the years between the determination of who is eligible and then of the universe of people eligible for
death for whom is it appropriate? and >> to hypothesize an occasion in which the jury finds that eligibility marker but the judge throws out and substitute his own, do you think that would be constitutional? >> they wouldn't be throwing it out. >> he just says i don't agree with that. i'm substituting my own. would that be all right? and >> eligibility would have been determined just like in my example is the judge believed he were sitting on the jury maybe he would have acquitted of that person of the double murder. and of course he can't just override the verdict based on a disagreement. in that instance, death eligibility was determined notwithstanding he had been the decision-maker he would have decided differently and then the -- >> that answer surprises me because the death sentence is not at all a function of the jury's eligibility.
the judge tossed out the eligibility finding and substituted his own which then leads to the death sentence. so how can we say that's possibly unconstitutional? it was to make sure no person was subject to a greater penalty than they bargained for and they did decline without finding and in your hypothetical the jury finds there's an aggregator so there is a finding that that person is entitled to the punishments now facing the crime he or she committed. >> is utterly irrelevant on the decision whether to impose death. he is imposing death based on something the jury hasn't found. >> ... the determination is separate from the selection point. the judges exercising the discretion to sentence a person who is determined by the jury to be eligible for the death penalty. >> it didn't happen to you, david? you can't tell whether that happens in a wide variety of cases and this is actually covered this goes to the
question of the jury doesn't have to find a specific things only the judge has to find specific things. you often are not going to be able to tell whether the judges sentence is based on the same aggravating facts that jury has found. >> once they determined there is an aggravating factor or if it's been admitted and a person is eligible and completely finished. there's nothing more to do. >> now whenever you say its advisory, it's not finding. so you have made a finding of an aggregator the jury is told whatever they say is advisory. doesn't that make a difference? >> the jury told us the ultimate recommendation isn't binding on the court and that's true. that's one of the great benefits. the florida system was developed in response to the decision.
the court has said of the system provides additional benefits to the defense. so you have a judicial backstop. >> that was before. and we are not contesting that they would require the jury finding or initiative of those elements but once the jury makes the recommendations come even if it recommends death, the judge can override that for any reason just based on disagreement alone, which makes it unlike in the usual capital or excuse me, the usual criminal proceeding where the judge could not have -- >> is it clear to the jury that they are the last word with her and aggregator exists or not. >> with the jury is told is they cannot return a death recommendation without finding an aggravating circumstance. >> and then they are also also told the judge is ultimately going to decide whether your recommendation stands or not. >> the judge is going to impose
the sentence and that is both true under caldwell. >> shouldn't it be clear that the determination of whether an aggregator exists or not is final? shouldn't be clear? spinnaker don't think so because the determination of the aggregator doesn't yield unless the judge in his or her own opinion believes -- >> i'm talking about what responsibility the jury feels. if the jury knows if we don't find it an aggregator it can't be found or if we do find an aggregator it must be accepted. that is a lot more responsibility than just well, you know, if you find an aggregator you weigh it out and provide for the death penalty. the judge is going to review it anyway. expect i'm not sure that's an accurate rectory vision of what goes on because they must accept the determination has no purpose
or no point other than determining eligibility in the waiting end of the judge determines that the death sentence is not appropriate for whatever reason, then the fact that the jury found an aggravating circumstance exhibit friend. >> i was in the earlier hypothetical the jury finds the aggregator course and therefore there is death a budget of the indigo's through the judge. and they say there is simply no evidence to support that aggravating factor. but i think another factor. under your view of the judge can go ahead and impose a death penalty. stack that's a little bit different than i understand injustice is hypothetical. first the recommendation doesn't specify what -- >> but this is my hypothetical. [laughter] >> so to make sure i understand -- i think the difference respectfully has included a
finding that the judge finds no evidence to support. >> and what would happen tax >> if you had a situation can and again this would be limited to, let me make sure i'm limiting the situation where the state is depending on the death recommendation, which is the minority of cases. if the jury made a specific finding binding to a specific aggregator and again, it wouldn't be instructed on the aggregator unless there was sufficient evidence at the threshold stage but if the judge concluded there was insufficient evidence, he never would have submitted to the jury that probably would not be permissible. >> they are are two good allergies and other areas the one that supports you, force or threat of force. whether six members of the jury thought there was a threat or seven-member spots that there was no threat. fred or threat of force.
i don't think so. on the other hand, imagine a normal sentencing case. the statute says you get aggravated punishment if you have 50 grams of cocaine. the jury finds he had 50 grams of cocaine. sorry, statute says aggravated sentence if 50 grams of cocaine or meth. i don't think the judge could say i'm going to give you the aggravated sentence because i don't believe there was any cocaine but i do believe there was meth. >> that's one of the reasons the jury is not asked to find specific aggravating -- >> but we do know the judge here still having conceded where the jury says no aggravating factor we know the jury can't if the
jury finds aggravating factor x. have to death on a completely different aggravating factor but the jury never thought of. namely why blacks we -- we know that and then we have a plan b. which i still disagree with. >> i think in the cocaine and meth example, i think that a court would look at this and say if the legislature is setting this up as defensive or are they setting up as one of things that could be satisfied either by the position of cocaine were meth, and if it were the latter, then the jury would be instructed to find one or the other without any specific -- >> reducing the recommendation is finding an element of the crime that makes you eligible for the death penalty by unanimous or functionally
equivalent unanimous jury. >> we do, your honor. >> then what do you do with a statement in our case law that says a simple majority is not a unanimous jury backs the >> let me step back and say that with 7-5 vote is not necessarily five votes with what there was no aggravated circumstance. there's two things that go on in the jury room. they decide whether there were aggravated circumstances and -- >> and we don't agree with which one? we don't know if it do with it is premeditation or robbery committed could be for her-5. >> 7-5 could mean all jurors found a -- >> what does it that tell us the jury found? >> at a minimum come a majority found beyond a reasonable doubt that the state has proven the
existence of one or more aggravating circumstance. and getting back -- >> not the same one. >> and again getting back to justice breyer's point about cocaine and meth. the courts look at what the legislature's definition is and we know it's a matter of florida state law that the element at issue here to take someone and is not a gerbil for the death penalty and make him or her eligible in the existence of one or more circumstances. not a specific one so it is like arizona where you can't say whether the jury agree agreed that there was premeditation or felony murder. in fact that was the case back in 1998 he was convicted of first-degree murder and instructed they could return the verdict either by finding premeditation or by finding felony murder and there was no finding as to which one it was.
so to answer the question about whether they all need to be the same or not, it would depend how the state legislature -- >> to you believe that a simple majority is unanimously or functionally unanimously finding that element? the >> they are finding it beyond a reasonable doubt but also -- >> that tended to automatically mean 7-5. >> not automatically but i think if you look what they were rejecting is the same argument that the petitioner is asking the court to accept which is the long history of the unanimity means it is brought into the system but i will say this, the 7-5 is not the same kind of jury verdicts that you have any guilt phase because of this judicial fact, because of the other protections florida has put in place, so even if it is a 7-5
vote you still have the judge behind the jury where he must accept the findings unless they are not supported by evidence he or she can disagree for any number of reasons and give mercy for any reason and that happens a lot and so we find some cases and a brief where a man was convicted of murder, a horrible sexual assault and by virtue of the two convictions was eligible for the penalty. the jury heard all the evidence, made a recommendation that he received the death penalty and the judge said no i'm going to sentence him to life. so this court had some real benefits associated with judicial sentencing if you go back to when the court first upheld florida capital sentencing system that recognized these judicial sentencing because you are not going to have someone's life or death determined exclusively perhaps on the emotions of a jury. >> can i go back to the
hypotheticals when we were proposing so let's say that there is a jury and it's been presented with evidence that the murder had one of the aggravating factors and the jury comes out with a recommendation of death and that is the only thing that was presented to it, so you know the jury has made a death eligibility determination on. then it goes to the judge and the judge says you know what, i don't think there is enough evidence that i've had this whole hearing and i find that the crime was amos and whatnot and now i'm going to sentence the person to death. you say that's fine is that rice? -- find blacks are to -- there wasn't enough sufficient
evidence to find that so the hypothetical were not to find out. >> well, no. he heard more evidence because there is a whole new hearing that he has. and now he is considered it more thoroughly that he thinks no i don't agree with it anymore but i think it was heinous so that would be fine. >> that's not this case because there was no additional. but if the judge found that there was no evidence of any -- >> i'm coming up the aggravating factor and substituting my own. i thought that's what you told me that that's what was constitutional. >> i think it depends why you're throwing it out. with everything the jury is finding if they find the guilt phase that there's insufficient evidence to find any element he wouldn't rely on the jury determination. >> i think you answered this one
already the appeal that's taken is focusing now only on what the judges found isn't that right under florida law backs if the person came in and said it is insufficient evidence of the appeal will only be as to the judge's findings and not at all to the jury's. there's not enough evidence so that would only be to the judge's aggravating factors that could possibly be the bigger challenge the jury's. the factors would be detailed in the right order. the whole appeals process suggests the determination is being made by the judge because that is the only eligibility determination that the court is
ever going to review. >> that is another benefit that there've been some suggestions. >> if the judges to review and not the juries and that is the sixth amendment problem. >> i don't think that it is any more than here at the guilt phase and there was the examination of the evidence and they didn't know whether the jury found the predicate or of first-degree murder they are reviewing the conviction and the evidence that sustained it. there was an argument of him and ago about the evidence suggesting someone else may have committed the crime. we cited in the brief the
initial brief in the florida supreme court where they said without any contention this is the aggregator case. or is doesn't challenge that the murder was committed during the course of the robbery. his focus instead acknowledging all of that that is a proportionality review which is not an issue here but which by the way is another benefit of the system that the florida supreme court review reviews for proportionality. >> when ever have we said that a jury is based on the lack of a challenge by a defense attorney? don't we require them to be explicit by the defendant? >> this goes to more the element of the court held in washington
david -- >> where have we ever said not challenging something is an admission of something? have plenty of appeals where people are saying assuming the state of facts i am entitled to x and then they argue that assumption is wrong. >> we cited other courses where they had acknowledged that be low back in the first go around but whether there is an existence of the doubt the supreme court found that they existed at the postconviction opinion which led to the resentencing. they send it back not because of anything having to do with the death eligibility or the establishment of aggregators they send it back because there was insufficient efforts. >> the appeal in florida where an advisory jury was not given a
proper instruction and a resentencing was ordered for the mission? the >> has there been reversing a death sentence for -- >> and proper instruction to the advisory committee. >> i would be surprised if i but i don't know. i will look at that. getting back the evidence is clear there is no question there was a robbery and that this was a heinous atrocious and cruel. >> thank you, counsel. mr. waxman, six minutes. >> notwithstanding not to use the six minutes.
i would be happy to answer hypotheticals. are they told that the eligibility element of the crime of capital murder that it makes the decision to answer is it does have to be told that it is certainly can't be told the opposite and it absolutely was not told that. it was told over and over again consistent with the statute that its decision was purely advisory and i want to refer to court to the florida supreme court decision in state versus steel which is at 921 southern the florida supreme court said first of all nothing in the statute the standard jury instructions or the standard verdict form
requires a majority of the jury to agree on which aggravating circumstances exist under the current law the jury may wreck in a sentence of death where they believe only that one aggregator applies while three others beliefs that only another aggregator applies because seven jurors believed at least one aggregator applies. florida goes beyond that if it is unlawful the supreme court of florida said the two required to ask the sentencing jury to provide a special verdict that in any way indicates what their input is on the sentencing factor again page 546 the specific findings on aggregators without guidance about their effective the sentence could
unduly influence the trial judge's own determination of how to sentence the defendant. the trial court alone must make detailed findings about the existence and weight. >> what is the data? >> this is also held that it didn't apply. it has no jury findings on which to rely. and in fact the court also explained later in the decision decision the same decision and also in its decision in franklin that florida bar specifically because requiring the findings on aggregators without guidance about their effects would harm the juries independent determination. now, the council, my colleague on the other side here says that
>> but this court in this court's dopper decision, that's exactly what happened. the jury said we want life. the judge said i'm hearing independent evidence, and you're getting death. now, as to the supposed concessions in this case, i think i'll rely largely on our brief. but the notion that somebody, that the lawyer said this is a two-aggravator case is certainly true. there were two aggravators charged. and maybe the jury -- we mow that the trial judge -- we know that the trial judge found that two aggravators were satisfied. this defendant has been making the ring argument since before ring was decided. he raised this as an apprendi issue at the very first trial. he asked for a bill of particulars for the state to indicate which aggravators it was going to rely on, and he was denied on the grounds that an
apprendi doesn't apply. even, again, the central ring problem in this case, the central sixth amendment problem in this case -- leaving aside the indetermine nasty of 7-5 and maybe 3-4 for the other, is that when a florida sentencing jury finishes its work, there is simply no question, the defendant is not eligible for the death penalty. only the trial judge can do that. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> we had planned to bring you live coverage of a federal society forum reviewing the supreme court over the last ten years under chief justice john roberts. we're having some problems, though, with our live signal right now, so for now be, a portion of today's "washington journal" on national security threats.
>> host: let's begin with tuesday night's gop debates. the the papers this morning are talking about the fissures in the republican party on foreign policy. there was an argument between rand paul and marco rubio that really showed it, that you've got one part of the party that doesn't want to get involved in a fight against isis, for example, and then the part, the other part of the party, the other side of the party that says united states has to be a leader. >> guest: i lean on the side about leadership. both our friends and our enemies would tell you that there's been an b absence of leadership, really a vacuum over the past couple of years, and i really think it it's important that the primary responsibility of the government, that they should do domestic policies to provide for the common defense. isil is a legitimate threat. it's not a counterinsurgency. they control territory.
and while our interest in preserving iraq are somewhat -- we do have an interest in preserving iraq. our bigger interest is destroying isil, and i think the focus of this administration has been somewhat misplaced. there's been no leadership and, frankly, this drip, drip of 12, 15 or 20 air sorties a day is just not going to get the job done. >> host: why is isis, isil a threat to the homeland? >> guest: well, i think it's primarily because of instability in a very important region. we also know that they are developing capabilities that are exportable, and i think as a leader, i mean, our responsibility is, again i think as a leader of the free world, to take a look at what has happened in that region. let's face be it, the ideology of these, all of these people leaving that region is isil-based. it's creating problems for our friends and allies in western europe, in that region, and i'm
not saying we need to go it alone. but as the world's leader, and i'm not necessarily saying we put more boots on the ground, but i do think the president has failed to lead a stronger coalition, failed to direct more aggressive airstrikes, really failed to develop an overall strategy and policy to deal with threat of isil. >> host: he recently announced less than 50 special forces will be going to that area. new york times reporting this morning that early today that with u.s. air force power backing them, the kurds are leading a fight against a strategic highway in northern iraq, trying to cut off the weapons, the soldiers that are trying to go from syria into iraq. >> guest: well, you know, it's really interesting. i applaud the pentagon talking about some of these little, i think, modest military efforts, but i want to put something in comparison for your audience. i think we're probably 20 or 25 sorties a day using the air
force and the capabilities we have, that's 20-25 a day. you know, in operation desert storm it was 1200 a day. you're either -- it's like water dripping on a stone. nothing's going to happen. if we want to use america's air power -- and, by the way, if we had stronger leadership in the white house, i think we wouldn't see the reduction in support from our allies in the region. i did a quick study of the military capability of our friends in the region. they have 5 or 6,000 aircraft, 5 or 6,000 tanks, a million people in uniform. and while they may not want to commit their troops -- fortunately, we've got the kurds and some of the people we've trained are pretty effective -- but the fact that we have failed to use air power in support of the locals, not just to cut off a road, but to destroy their command and control systems, we know where they preposition supplies, i mean, an all-out effort. we did 1200 a day in operation desert storm. the president wants to degrade
their capability, we're not going to do it with a few planes and announcing what you're doing to the rest of the world. you do it with total immersion of air power and convincing our allies to be much more supportive, including their air force and their capabilities along with us. >> host: what about the risk of fostering more hay treld toward -- hatred toward the west when you go in, you go in with that force, and then the young men that are there, that that hatred towards the west builds and multiplies across those countries, in the arab countries. >> guest: i just don't think -- that doesn't equate for me. the people in the arab countries, the people who lived in syria, the people in iraq who have been scrub jewish gated and oppressed, murdered, raped by isil understand full well what the united states, excuse me, our allies and, frankly, some of the arab countries are trying to
do. this is, this group is evil. they're barbarian. they're medieval. and i don't think we have to be worried about creating more recruits for them. they've done a pretty good job because for whatever reason their ideology, their mindset has appealed to people from around the globe. fortunately, not that many, but i don't think we should be worried about our collective international response to this scourge generating more support for evil. evil exists, they've attracted people, but i would not be deferred, i would not hesitate for one moment to be much more aggressive particularly with air power, ours and our allies in that region, to destroy this group. >> host: washington gets more involved with their air power recently, and you've to got a bomb that's put on the russian airliner. what they're thinking at this point, isis or an affiliate of it, takes credit. >> guest: it's interesting. there are a couple of thoughts i have about that, if you don't mind. >> host: absolutely. >> guest: you know, the world is just really upset, and
legitimately so, about the potential implications for commercial air traffic, isil or somebody else puppets a time-detonated explosive device perhaps in the cargo area. but everybody forgot about the russian missile that took down the malaysian airliner. the passengers in both were innocent, whether russian or many other people on the airliner. but i think we need to understand that there's a certain contradiction here. and we've never held russia accountable and, frankly, their involvement in syria's been somewhat problematic for us because the group that is really the anti-assad group has been the subject of as much of their military action as isil because historically they, and iran, have been supporting assad. one of the interesting things about russia, and you can say what you want about putin, but he can machiavellian, he is clever, he is resolute, he is tough. think about this for a moment. he invaded -- the russians not only shot the airliner down, but
they invaded a sovereign country and acquired territory. now he's inserted himself into the negotiations to try to resolve the problem that he created. that's -- we've been opposed toes assad, though we haven't done anything to remove him. he sends his troops in. he has been supporting assad against americans and western-allied interests, supporting assad against the interests of our allies in that region, and he's now inserted himself as part of the negotiating team. it's interesting, it's like you set the house on fire, and then you rush to the scene to try to put it out. pretty clever on his part, very putin-like. >> host: the g20 will be meeting monday in turkey, russian president vladimir putin will be there. is he a threat to our homeland? >> guest: he's a threat to the instability in the region, i don't think there's any question about it. he's certainly demonstrated, i think, that the atlantic alliance of ours that used to be so strong, the u.s./nato
alliance, is, appears to be at this point rather weak. there is no leadership. i mean, i can't imagine, i can't imagine a nato under previous presidents, republican or democrat, sitting idly by when russia invades a sovereign country. and the response from the united states is ready-to-eat meals and night vision goggles. i had occasion to be with a couple of state department officials many, many months ago, and i said we don't want to send, we don't want to put our boots on the ground which is an interesting expression everybody's using these days. we don't want to send our military in, but can't we at least send them extensive weapons capability, antitank, antiair craft, those kinds of things, and both state department officials said we don't want to be provocative. we don't want to support an independent country that's been
invaded by russia? so, again, it just contributes to that sense, i think, globally at how weak we are and how limited our foreign policy is. >> host: before we get to calls, the risk of a bomb being put on a u.s. airliner -- >> guest: right. >> host: -- what is, where do you rate that? what's the vulnerability there? >> guest: well, i think commercial aviation since the day that i walked in the white house has been and will always be part of the threat stream that the united states, tsa, our intelligence and military communities are dealing with. our protocols in this country are, i think, a lot more stringent, and i noticed that jeh johnson based on this recent experience convened a group of individuals within not only the department, will make some adjustments -- some probably visible and some invisible -- dealing with the security on international flights coming into the united states. i think clearly, the two countries that have the most rigorous standards -- doesn't necessarily mean they're perfect, but i think the most
rigorous safety standards are the united states and israel. >> host: we're talking with the former and the first homelandç security secretary, tom ridge. he's now president and ceo of ridge global llc which is founded, of course, by him and helps organizations decrease security risks. we'll go to katherine in missouri, a democrat. you're up first for the secretary. >> guest: good morning dub. >> caller: good morning and thank you for this opportunity. i have always addç -- admired your work. as a man of principle which during that time you made us safe, regarding more laws the fair appeasement policy towards iran. as a result is what we see happening in the middle east because of the iranian regime supporting terrorists. my question is about latest attack on iranian dissident. about 2500 ran january dis-- ran january dissidents are -- [inaudible]
united states has made a commitment to each and we have one of -- every one of them in 2004. on october 29th this were missile attacks on camp liberty in iraq against the iranian dissident member. 24 of camp residents, including one woman, were killed over 200 injured. the -- [inaudible] the iranian regime's -- [inaudible] meaning the iraqi government are responsible for the latest assault. my question is, secretary, despite the condemnation by secretary of state, secretary kerry, why united states does not do anything else like to give them an air power, air cover to protect them? i would like to get your opinion on this and what would be your advice to our administration. thank you very much for your time. >> guest: you're welcome, sir, thank you. and if you don't mind a little background based on the question this gentleman posed. back in 2003 and '4, there was a
group of almost 3,000 iranian citizens who had found shelter and protection in iraq. and they had weapons to defend themselves, and there was some controversy around them that they would be put on a terrorist watch list,ç and they were takn off because they were put on the list for political reasons. i remind everybody that when i was in homeland security, i used to get a threat matrix every day. terrorist threats directed to u.s. every day, and i never saw this group could the mek -- called the mek. so let's understand that. when they venderred -- surrendered their weapons at the united states' request, they were all given a letter from a united states general pledging that we would provide for their safety and security because they were considered by us to be protected persons under the geneva convention. when we had a change of status agreement with the maliki government, the iraqi government said we will stand in the place of the united states, and we'll provide for your safety and
security, and we'll protect you. i will tell you that i'm not the only one that's been involved in this. this is the most incredible combination of political, military, diplomatic leaders who have been trying to support and getting this administration to move to try to sport these people. -- support these people. here we have these 3,000 individuals. they have been moved from one place to another at our request, and we intervened, some of us intervened on behalf of this administration and this state department to move to a place from called camp ashraf to camp liberty. and during that time we were made very specific promises, very specific promises by united nations and the united states government in addition to the promises that the general made that we'd provide for their security and protection. i think they've been subjected to phi attacks -- five attacks, the most recent one was on the 29th. there have been previous attacks where they've invaded the camp, tied people'sç hands behind thr back and shot them directly.
they were actually murdered. this recent attack involved munitions that were iranian in nature. we know that -- the mullahs can't stand these people, this mek group has had 20 or 30,000 people killed over the past 15 or 20 years because of their pledge to a democrat, non-nuclear end. they are a force to be reckoned with. but the primary purpose of all of us is to try to get them out of iraq because the united states -- the reason i got involved is i think our word should be our bond. the united states of america promised these people -- now-defenseless people -- if you do these things, we will provide for your safety and security. and we have failed to do it. well, i frankly think it shows that this administration was doing everything they could to curry favor with the mullahs and to curry favor with iran in order to get this iranian nuclear deal done which i think may go down in history is as one
of the worst-negotiated settlements of any kind in the history of geopolitics. and i hope in a couple years you can invite me back and i have to say i was wrong, but i don't think so. i think the sad thing for all of us here -- and not only former members of -- >> host: but just to be clear, are you accusing the administration -- >> guest: they made promises they didn't keep. >> host: because, to curry favor with the iranians? >> guest: oh, i don't think there's any question about it. >> host: so they left people vulnerable -- >> guest: absolutely. >> host: -- intentionally. >> guest: there's no doubt in my mind. you've got people on the hill who have talked about that. these are defenseless people. we asked them to move from point a to point b, don't get into details. and on five different occasions, they have been subjected to dramatic murder rouse action. when they're speaking farsi when they're coming across a perimeter, and all of a sudden you take a look at the weapons they're using are iranian, and it has to be somewhat complicit t with the iraqi government, it just demonstrates iran has more
influence in iraq than we do. from a general who signed a paper and gave it to every one of these individuals that this administration -- and i'm not going to name the people in the state department. but on the phone as we were negotiating, you would find some very interesting people on the democrat side, you had such interested and committed people as howard dean, ed rendell, louis freeh. former attorney general mukasey, rudy giuliani and yours truly. we made promises to these people. we promised we would relocate them, get them out of there as quickly as possible. and five assaults later, dozens and dozens murdered, hundreds wounded, we still haven't kept our promise. and that is of great concern. it goes to our credibility. america is its word, it ought to keep it. that's not a republican or democrat ideal, i think that's america's ideal. this administration hasn't kept its word. >> host: but you think that the
administration said we will let you attack them -- >> guest: they've had a lot of -- no, i don't think they let them attack them. i don't think -- they have not be, it shows you how limited influence we have in iraq which shows you a failed policy over not aggressive enough. i mean, iraqis are still looking to us for financial support, they're looking to us for a lot of different reasons, and we have not used that as leverage to provide the protection for these individuals. until such time as the u.n. and the united states that had promised to relocate them would keep their promises. whether or not they would end up having, being involved in the political promise in iran, that is down the road. that is for others to determine, particularly the iranian people. but our promise was to move these people out as quickly as possible, and we have failed to deliver. and whenever the engagement, whenever we've -- there's been plenty of excuses. well f there -- we were told that the united states would have a permanent presence with these people to monitor that
activity. they show up every once in a while for an hour or two and then they leave. if you distill it down to the least common denominator, simple. for a guy like me when our country gives its word to a group of people and we do not deliver on that promise, shame on us. >> host: okay. we'll move on to david in los angeles, independent. hi, david, you're on the air. >> caller: thank you. and i hope you don't cut me off here because, you know, it's like an insult to the intelligence of the american people that we keep bringing these people on from homeland security from the bush administration. talking about honorable principles of truth and be what not. i think one of the biggest mistakes that president obama will be judged on is not bringing these people up on war crimes. that whole bush administration, they lied us into war. the mess that we're dealing with
right now is of their own making, and then they come on the air, him, like him and cheney, like i'm not responsible for these lies that they sold to us and these lies that they have -- >> host: all right, david, we'll have the secretary respond to his point. >> guest: there's no way i can convince him that president bush and everybody around him based on intelligence they had at the time thought they were doing the right thing. this man, obviously, has never -- there's nothing i could say to change this gentleman's mind, and i do disagree with him. i think given everything else that's going on in this country right now, respectful disagreement ought to be part of the political dialogue. so, sir, i respect your point of air, i respectfully disagree with it, plain and simple. >> host: we're talking about threats to the u.s. national security with tom ridge, first homeland security secretary. >> caller: good morning.
the gentleman that just spoke, he told you something that was real true but, sir, are you familiar with operation northwood? and then i've got a comment afterwards. are you familiar with the operation that the united states military was trying to do to cuba? >> guest: no, sir, i'm not. >> caller: okay. well, you can go on the internet, you can google it. there were top secret papers that have been released now by the united states. the general that planned on killing united states citizens and blaming it on cuba. and what you did when you went -- when you got in office in 2000, president bush wanted to find some way to get into iraq. and what you did, you picked up that plan, that operation northwood. you dusted it off. and then i believe that our government had something to do with those buildings coming down. and you got those people so mad, we went to war in iraq on a lie. and that gentleman was telling you the truth. google it. go to the internet. operation northwood. there are some top secret papers
in there. and anybody, any citizens of the united states can read that information. they are top secret papers been declassified where we -- our government planned to kill united states citizens and blame it on cuba. the world does not trust us, because those people have looked at the internet and read those papers. now, you go ahead and read it for yourself, operation northwood. >> host: okay, we heard you, kenneth. >> guest: i appreciate that. i will definitely, based on your suggestion, look it up. i would tell you that i think there's a lot of reasons that the broader global community be doubts our word starting with the iranian community when we promised to protect them. but let's, if you want to talk about our credibility writ large, let's just go back and remind ourselves what transpired regarding our relationship with assad in syria. we said four or five years ago assad must go, we didn't do
anything. the president was encouraged by military leaders and others to at least arm the anti-assad folks, and this was three or four years ago before this ugliness of isil appeared. we did not arm them. the president said -- and this will always bother me just from a principled point of view when he said to assad if you use chemical weapons, then america will respond in kind. there were two things that bothered me about that statement, two observations. one, basically he said to assad -- who was in the process of killing hundreds of thousands of syrians -- regardless, basically he said if you think about that statement, sir, we don't care how you deal with your citizens and how many you kill or the means of their destruction and death, but if you use chemical weapons, that's when the united states is going to get involved. now 250,000 defenseless syrians are deceased, hundreds of thousands more have moved out. they use chemical weapons, and
we did nothing. so if you're wanting to talk about america's credibility, and i will certainly look at that, i will take a look at the plan that you've mentioned, but our credibility's at risk for many, many reasons, not the least of which is we've given our word on many occasions, we've committed ourselves to doing certain things. but when we had to keep that commitment, we failed. and in the world of diplomacy, in the geopolitical world, this interdependent, interconnected world we live in, when you give your word, you better keep it. once people doubt your sincerity, they get leverage, and once they get leverage, they start moving around, and that's why you see x be i moving so aggressively in the south china sea, a very aggressive putin x x -- and america is nowhere on the national stage. >> host: u.s. military wanted to provoke war with cuba in the early 1960s, top military leaders reportedly drafted plans
to kill innocent people and create acts of terrorism to create public support for a war against cuba. it goes on to say that the plans were -- details of the plans were described in a book called "body of secrets" by james banford at the time about the history of the national security agency. be alan in warren, ohio, republican. hi, alan, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, c-span. did it say what president was in 1960? i can't recall right now. [laughter] >> host: what's your point? what's your point, alan? >> guest: president kennedy. >> caller: kennedy. oh, okay, democrat. i understand what's going on. hey, tom, it's been a long seven years, mr. ridge. you know, identify got a -- i've got a couple statements and one quick question. >> guest: yes, sir. >> caller: yes. the statement was 240 years our country survived. [laughter] that's about what it is.
we had, what, $9 trillion in debt, now we're up to $18,7? it's been a long seven years, that's all i've got to say. now these illegals coming across the border, how big of a threat is that to our security? and the last statement is, the california guy? think about tomorrow. yesterday's gone. and the red line, it turned yellow. all right, thank you. >> guest: well, i appreciate that. as you know, that whole question of immigration broke from an economic side and a security point of view was raised a couple of times and was part of, i thought, a pretty good discussion during the presidential debate. i happen to believe that this is a problem that has been festering for a long time and that there are -- there is a solution there and that the solution would deal with both the economic and the security side. first of all, i do believe in giving credit where credit's due. i think under this administration there have been thousands of more -- it started
with president bush, but i think under president obama there's thousands of more customs and border patrol agents, i think there's more technology deployed down there. i think they've committed more resources, more people and more technology. i think the flow of people coming across the border has been reduced, but i don't think we're going to solve that problem from either an economic or security side unless we commit to a bold-faced, comprehensive solution that deals with -- your previous guest talked passionately about dealing with the 31 or 12 -- 11 or 12 million that are here. certainly, the federal government can walk and chew gum at the same time. that's not about walls and that's not sending them back, that's building a system for people to come back and fort across the border. it's about enhancing security at the border. it's about dealing with the mexican government in a more aggressive way to have them help us on that side of the border.
so this is a problem that can be solved, but right now there's no political to solve it. we have got a lot of people on my side of the aisle, they just want to focus on enforcement, a lot of people on the other side of the aisle focusing on citizenship. and i would tell you, sir, i dare say if you found 100 illegal immigrants and you asked them to come forward and you said, look, we can't make you citizens, you broke the law, and there's a long line of people going through the process lawfully, they go first. but here's what we're going to do. we'll make you, we will legitimize your presence as permanent residents of this country, but you can't become citizens as long as you haven't violated the law. .. have not broken the law you can stay. way, this in a realistic president bush, governor kasich, theynor bush, excuse me, say this is a problem, let's
solve it. one of the frustrations and reasons so many people view our government as distressed and a there are big is problems out there and people spend a lot of time talking about the problems but there are few people offering specific solutions. immigration is a problem that can be solved. you have to move down multiple paths at the se time regardless regardless of what they say in this town that can be sold we just don't have the will and we certainly don't have the leadership right now to get it done. it's not just about citizenship. you deal with the people that are here and you can do it in a passionate and compassionate way. but they don't want to be anxious under the threat of deportation and they have to build a very good system so people can get back and forth across the borders of what i think that everybody that comes to the country wants to be a citizen.
we should understand finding the means where people are coming in and going back and forth it can't be done the technology exists. there are all kinds of ways we can deal with this problem and frankly like a lot of americans i'm tired of people taking the edges. should be smart enough and capable enough in the right kind of leadership to solve it and move on. >> host: where does that rate? >> guest: it's most of the serious climate change but cybersecurity is probably the single greatest threat this country faces at this time. there are five basic areas in the theater of war, air land and sea, you've got space but the
fifth area is digital space and we know who the actors are. china, russia, iran, north korea, organized crime. they know what the motives are, they are economic, espionage the list goes on and on. every day both the government and private sectors targeted and subjected to all kinds of important information into in the property and personal information is used for different reasons so the greatest threat to the economic ability long-term national security is the cyberspace. >> host: edward snowden said this. we will name the names of the people that wrote it in favor. he says because of those number four the cyber sharing bill is a vote against the internet.
>> guest: it has no credibility. i think he is a traitor and created all kinds of problems. the congress is finally has finally after many years is working with the administration. do so in a way that is legally protected. and the agencies penalize the victims. and that would be better understood to understand its purpose to enhance digital protection in the united states.
there are many conversations. i've often referred to the 9/11 commission after we reviewed all the evidence and testimony etc. around the tragedy of 9/11 with the government. it doesn't take much to imagine a significant cyber attack that is so disruptive. from the republicans and democrat would consider an active more than the question becomes do you retaliate in a connecticut way you land, air or sea or digitally.
the cyber attacks continue to grow and the attacks continue to grow. the provisions of the cyber security information sharing at enables the the companies to share cybersecurity related information and cooperate with one another in the federal government allows the companies to monitor certain information systems for cyber security purposes. this from the national wall review. >> caller: i have a picture of you shaking my hand.
[laughter] i made a donation to you and i'm not sure what it was but i had a question for you and my question is what america honor these financially by what we consider increasing the foreign aid to israel from 4.7 to 9.7, and when are the needs financially and i know that the usual response is an ally but aren't they all allies and don't we give money to jordan and egypt? >> host: people take your point because they are in washington just recently talking to the president asking for more
money from foreign aid. >> guest: answering the question in a broader perspective our foreign aid is 1% or less of our overall budget and some of it does go to support the country of israel. the only democracy in the region they are a great ally. we are talking a monster budgets less than 1% goes to foreign aid but i'm a strong believer that development assistance and foreign aid is one leg of a three-part style that we should sit on to promote america's interest and values around the world. we do use the military but there've been occasions in the past where more aggressive diplomacy and in conjunction with development assistance for inmate might have made a difference in terms of reducing our potential exposure or need
to use the military. military is always the last resort if you can support countries particularly with advanced foreign aid goes to help people address real human needs and the food, quality and shelter and a good example. we've got some stability several years ago in lebanon and we moved the forces of confronting one another. they had an election but we chose not to give very much foreign aid. so what happened is iran is getting hundreds of millions of dollars to hezbollah and what they've done is to provide food and clothing and shelter etc.. and so it speaks to the notion that if you help people meet their basic human needs.
as the issues of foreign aid with the advancing interest that is an appropriate use of the tax dollars. i don't know if you saw the movie charlie wilson's war but for the end of the movie you see the russian tanks going across the bridge and with whom i served in the intelligence community they said that i would like to get some honey to build roads and schools in afghanistan and one of the colleagues said to you think you are the congressman from kabul and we do help them build the basic infrastructure and meet human needs so in the long term it is a great reward for this country. >> host: reporting on a meeting reported on a meeting between mr. mehta and yahoo! and president obama says that the prime minister asked that an increasing aid is the best way to contain iran's continuing aggression of the middle east.
the officials told the supporters that he asked for an increase in age from 3 billion a year to 5 billion over the next ten years. >> let's put this in comparison. the administrator asked from three to five over the next ten years to listen to this and i think that they were reliable accounts to leave the sanctions and follow the assets. they are the central bank for the region and iran knows has the law and hamas and islamic jihad. although the risk of iran's continued engagement and deeper engagement because of a.
of the countries around you don't even acknowledge the right to exist taking that aid to the democracy to the greatest friends in the region from three to five they ask in comparison frankly they would like to deduct it from the money to try to counterbalance and think about that we are going to have a problem in the region is a problem in iraq and syria and again it doesn't seem that we have focused on who the region is that we continue to go out of our way. they will be welcomed into the broad community and acts like a civilized world and not subject to citizens in the country that
disagrees with them with imprisonment and torture and murder. somebody told me this was a moderate. they will be moderate in my eyes eyes all the networks are allowed to have a permanent presence when they have the freedom of speech and freedom of religion and acknowledge the genocide if committed over the past ten or 15 years. >> christian is a democrat on the air with the former secretary of homeland security. >> caller: i'm asking a question how can you think that israel is our number one ally when they haven't gone to the war and also fought in afghanistan and i have a follow-up question to please don't cut me off. so answer that. how can they be the best ally when they do not send their troops over there were are into the country that we are fighting
>> it is a fair question. if you don't use the term ally for those that send troops to support and promote our interest as well they are an ally because we had a great relationship with intelligence gathering in the region and by the way it's important to us they are our ally because we share values and they are our allies because the economic relationship is critical and they think of the ally as if they do nothing else but preserve the democracy that they so cherish and that they worry about every single day by somebody in the neighborhood so i don't think there will always be an ally in the united states.
>> caller: that is a bunch of bs that you just said. you talked about leadership with president obama. leadership is george bush knowing that al qaeda is going to hit the twin towers on 9/11. you think that leadership is also brave and we've got people torturing other people, what do we do we are americans is leadership sending over blackwater and having them just annihilate people is that leadership? >> guest: it's been a favorite hobby of some democrats for the past seven years to view through the prism of criticism of its predecessor and you may continue to have your opinions with
regards to what president bush and his administration what we did or failed to do. some is disingenuous to keep referring to what happened nearly seven years ago as an excuse from ignoring the reality that some of us feel that this administration with regards to foreign policy has failed to provide the international leadership both our friends and foes expect from us and that is that we put military in harms way in the first instance which is the first reflex action but it's the leadership that frankly just doesn't exist. i know the anti-bush folks and strong democrats about what transpired but i think that is a little disingenuous and legitimate for people like me to accept your criticism which i
agree with but i do think that you have to take a look and decide for yourself who's been a strong effective leader on the international scene i happen to disagree with that point of view. >> host: indies in ohio, republican. >> thanks for taking i call. i am so thankful that you are on tv today and i tell you what i always believe that you are honest and when you made the comment about not keeping the promise overseas that is true. when our government promises to keep our country safe they are supposed to do that also here so i would like to know why you would not be wanting to run for president knowing what you know you see both sides. you take ted cruz who is young and very smart.
you tie him up with you and you can turn the country around more than any people i know. >> guest: thank you for those generous comments talk about keeping promises and keeping words. words you able to keep your doctor and his healthcare more or less expensive? it is made directly and indirectly and you take a look back at your allowed to look back. it's the audit their control but the question of credibility in the marketplace incredibility domestically and overseas is very important. i appreciate the kind words. i would've told you i'd look at this around the country and i start by being governor is on
track. the governors are ultimately the most accountable group of men and women anywhere else with an exception. they are supposed to be transformative and got the agenda accountable so i take that group and i narrowed down to the governors that have been very active and there's a couple that have been more effective than others and they narrowed down to those that can appeal to a broad section of folks hispanics, latinos, and i narrowed it down and that down and who understands the technology as part of the innovative future in the 21st century and then put all those together and supports the governor. >> host: we will have to leave it there. inc. you for your time as always. >> expecting to bring a forum on the supreme court and chief
justice roberts but unfortunately we had applied signal problems. we've recorded the program you can watch it later on the c-span networks. this news from capitol hill is short time ago. announcing today he will retire from congress after more than 22 years according to the source with knowledge of his plans. the 20th district is expected to stay in democratic hands after his retirement. president barack obama carried by that margin in 2012. the special election to succeed leon panetta will be the 12 member to retire without seeking another office this cycle. and this, democratic leader nancy pelosi is leading a congressional delegation trip to china. she and six other democrats left last thursday in her office says the trip is focusing on economic growth, national security and cyber security, human rights and the importance of bold action to
reduce carbon pollution. our delegation travels to china seeking to expand come up to the scope collaboration and advancing economic growth and confronting the climate crisis that threatens the world is that leader pelosi. the delegation will meet with local chinese government officials and students.
atlanta guy. the governor discussed his ideas for improving healthcare on immigration reform and foreign policy. thanks for coming up this veterans day 2015. welcome to atlantic bottling company. honored to host everybody here. we are a small company starting to get the coke business down. we've been in the business for about 106 years now so it's just a lot of fun and we are glad to be an atlantic. it is my pleasure to introduce a couple that are in today and i would be remiss divided and recognized my father a t. 38 pilot and world 32. [applause] is my honor to welcome the medal of honor winner who is going to
introduce governor bush. thank you. >> leo grew up as a minnesota kid and went to jail as a prisoner of war and after i got involved in politics i ran against george mcgovern in the senate and then campaigned harder than anybody else for me was bush i. he came to south dakota and when he asked if i would support him i said you bet i sent you that i would because there is a loyalty there but also he's so qualified and for one week now i have been asking is that how is governor bush when you were here. it went from pretty good he's the best we ever had.
there is a loyalty so i have an affinity. his brother and his father is a fighter pilot so there's more veterans in florida were veteran basis 33 i think it is and he's the only governor i know of that anytime a person was killed, he contacted late co- contacts them. governor? >> thank you, colonel he said he leaves the nepotism. [laughter] this is a great backdrop for the town hall meeting today i appreciate you coming out on a national holiday. first i want to ask all of us to show our appreciation for not
just mr. tyler and the colonel medal of honor recipient but for all the veterans that are here today we need to give a round of applause. i appreciate all of you. it's a delight to be here. i'm running for president because i believe contrary to some that we are on the verge of greatness again. in fact i think there are two competing sets of pessimism. one suggests we need to manage the liabilities we have problems in and that the government will manage our lives and that we have to get in line and accept the fact we can't grow the economy at the rate we used to. we used to accept the fact people are going to live in poverty. life isn't fair fair. we have to accept we are the other declining income in the class and we had a similar kind of pessimism that the end is
near and for the country to succeed and for the party to win we have to offer a compelling alternative which suggests the division of how we could improve things and how we could fix our tax code to power away from washington and fix the mindnumbing regulations that make it harder for people to rise up area to recognize that we are all getting older together and our democracy is changing because of it. that's a blessing. but the simple fact is we have to change the social contract to preserve those that have it now to ensure that it exists going forward. all of these things require leadership and the kind of leadership that i got to show when i was governor in the state in florida. i believe we are on the verge of greatness but it's time for us to start fixing the problems and that was the message i tried to give last night in the debate into the message i wake up each and every day thinking about. it's possible. it's possible that we fix these
things. it's not the most difficult thing that our country has gone through but we have to fix the culture in washington, d.c.. i believe that we should have a balanced budget amendment to force the conversation of the government living within its means. please clap. [applause] i think we need to make sure that when you delete elected officials finished they don't about the backdoor and start lobbying. there should be a six-year band. there should be disclosure of the lobbyist work its not that they is not that they do bad things but because people don't see it because there is no transparency they think the worst and they don't have confidence in elected officials are serving. they think they are the masters and in many cases sadly that's the case. i think people when they show up after work and i don't think that is such a complex thing. working -- i did an interview
today with the detroit talk show host and he said why the attack did you not be considered for the nfl job that's the best job in the world, and i actually liked being considered for it but it was the third -- it was my eighth year on the job i have nine more months to go. it never crossed my mind i would leave early. i put my hand on the bible that i was governor in florida to uphold the law and that meant that it was from the beginning to the end. i had a countdown clock. every time i walked in the office it was like i'd ever get going so the last four years of my time from the beginning of it all the way back to zero 12:00 on the first tuesday in january january 2007 it always reminded me that this was about service. the government is in the master servant and people should serve
rather than dictate. and it's the greatest experience of my life and to remind you you can move the needle if you have a servants heart. it's a sign of strength not weakness. i published a book called reply all and it's about my e-mails and i described my service through the e-mails. people like me have it. some of them them were not too happy that the governor but i gave out my e-mail address and i got probably half a million e-mails between receiving and giving. e-mails like a lady that send an e-mail from delray beach. she said i have a raccoon in my attic. what are you going to do about it? didn't know that was the description of the governor? i said mrs. jones, whatever her name was, she says she has a raccoon in her attic.
what are you going to do about it. and by noon that raccoon was out. i also learned that there's a lot of hardship going on. i will never forget an e-mail i got from a woman that was upset that child support arrangements but the court made a fort or to receive support from her child because her former husband had left the very first monkey was supposed to pay he didn't do it and i got another one and another one and the result was i created inside the department of revenue a service if you will a woman named karen whose job it was to make sure that children got the support they deserve to. we apply technology, we change how we went about things. i will cover when you talk that
i think but i think you have to first listen to people and when you learn from the challenges and learn from the challenges you apply the things you know how to do to fix things and i did that related education, child welfare across the board. florida was better off. don't you want a president with a servants heart to fix the veterans administration? think about it this is an organization of 330,000 employees. it's the largest healthcare system in the world. bonus management, thousands of people got bonuses for taking people off waiting lists. the assumption was by getting off the waiting list is meant they don't care. the simple fact was they got off the waiting list and didn't get care and veterans died. and millions of dollars went out in the form of bonuses.
and up until now the best i can tell, three people have been fired. three people have been fired. i can promise you that we can fix this. this is fixable. [applause] you start asking the questions why the heck is this going on you don't let up. you seriously support veterans that are deserving of a far better set of services than they are getting now and challenged the orthodox and in organizations that are protecting their own interest. you make sure you fight as hard as you can and you can change things i promise. no more building of hospitals in the va system that started out at $300 million now it is 1.9 billion without the appropriations to finish the building. no more languishing on the waiting list they are deserving the same thing americans can purchase the rights to choose. [applause]
is a veteran wants to see his or her private doctor, why shouldn't they have that right? i talked to veterans all across this country and sometimes it works but a lot of times it doesn't because it is so confusing and convoluted only in washington do they create these barriers that cost more and make it hard for people to get the care they turned to service to the country? one of the ways we can provide support is to not degrade the military anymore. we've cut the sequester where it continues in this path will have a bigger problem because they will be leaving the military because of the budget cuts. and those that stay are going to be in harms way because we are not funding via command and the training and the ability to keep them safe. we need the greatest military fighting force known to man. if you want to keep the peace and make sure that you don't go
to war then make sure you have military superiority and i pledge to do that i you that i will fix that. [applause] we need a foreign policy that suggests our friends should know we have their backs toward the across the world in creative doubts. we have an uncertain world. could we ever imagine a caliphate even about the term meant literally a year ago a caliphate size of indiana garnering energy each and every day because of our inaction, recruiting americans to go fight the fight in the caliphate but also recruiting them to do more here. thousands and thousands of
internet exchanges trying to recruit people that have a dilution of the view of the great country of ours if we are serious about creating growth for people to be lifted out of poverty into the middle class to get a raise for the first time we also have to recognize we need a secure and safe world. the next president has to rebuild the alliances that have been tattered of the scenes. iowa shows once again that they have lots of concerned voters. cuba and iran effectively. and in countries whose relationship is worth we don't have time to go through the rest of the world but the simple fact is we need to restore american leadership and itv by know how to do that as well.
if we are focusing on lifting people up, my goodness there's a lot of people that are struggling. and i would just give you a couple examples of what could happen. i have proposed a tax plan that lowers the corporate rate into carveouts and special treatments to simplify the code to go to 20% to allow full expenses for q. so if you want to build an expansion, you have the ability to invest in capital equipment and get it fully expensed. it creates high wage jobs for america and if we eliminate the idea that was talked about last night where we have worldwide taxation no other country has and we narrow it to the territorial taxation and them to come back to the country the combination of those two things will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country that are higher than the media and we will see the rising
income. it's possible to do this. there is the ability of the consensus across party lines. there's something that benefits everybody and also for working people as well. there's a couple. jonathan who is serving a national in the national guard right now deployed in oklahoma and they told us that if they get their tax cut your in the combined income totals x. amount they will receive 2,300-dollar tax break. the $2,000 doesn't sound like much for the thinkers in washington, d.c. what would you do with $2,000 a year you could do a lot of things. you could pay bills. provide for your grandchild's education and you can do what you want to do that with your decision in the case of jonathan i used this story because i love the term reagan love i just
think that it's a nice name they would set up a business there are more closing today than they are starting up in america. either never before that exists. it created a simpler tax code where washington is in the place you get your special deal. you have to hire a lobbyist, you don't have to be able to get the left-handed tax credit or the right-handed tax deduction that you are simplifying. people would set up businesses and restore the entrepreneurial spirit of this country. i know we can do this because i did it in florida where we lead the nation seven out of eight years where we have cut taxes and challenged the regulations and made sure we took on a special interest of holding people back. 1.3 million jobs were created during those years. income grew at 4.4%.
the disposable income in florida went up by $1,300. compare that to the 2,300-dollar loss during the seven years in the age of obama. hillary clinton gives that and a. he deserves an a for his economic policy. you'd think that workforce participation lower than 1977. 6 million people living in poverty. one in five children is on food stamps in this country today. that may be the best that she can do. she is graded on a curve is if that's the case. the country can rise up but we have to apply to conservative principles to simplify the code and fix how we regulate and embrace the energy in our midst rather than thinking it's a horrible thing that we are rolling energy costs for the re- industrialization of the country
and allowing people to have lower utility bills and gasoline prices. there should be marching band celebrating that this is a beast disappointed. i sustained economic growth will require leadership and a totally different approach to make things happen. the final thing i'm going to say is i hope you want a president that loves this country and been said and believes we are the most export american on the face of the earth because we are. think back on our history. think of the sacrifice that our families made about the greatest generation to protect the freedoms and create abundance at the likes of which no one could have imagined before. that's america. in this country we need leaders not just as presidents but across the but across-the-board across the board that love this country with their heart and soul that will fight to restore the kind of things that will about everybody to believe in the american dream, that will do
if just for the spirit and the joy and energy that will draw people towards this cause. but i know for sure is america isn't a get in line kind of country. do what you're told kind of country, get in line and we will take care of you kind of country. this country does extraordinary things when we are free to decide how we want to pursue our own dreams when we live our lives of purpose and meeting and inspires others in the community to do the same and inspires others. we are a bottom-up country. a country that is that is us. that has a spirit and dynamic belief that the future even if we haven't figured it all out is going to be brighter than we have today. i hear that it's a beautiful
time to go out at night. i hope you will support my candidacy and i promise i will not let you down. thank you all very much. [applause] >> this is a question i didn't know how to phrase the question is where is when you take office we are where we are with syria committee issues with illegals and the fact that we have to actually make a plan.
so how are you going to do this all by yourself and what are you bringing bringing him that is going to help to get this accomplished? >> first whatever we have, i would view it as a problem not an opportunity because if you start with the premise everything is a problem and the end is near it's kind of hard to imagine how you're going to fix it but if you fix with the premise that secretary clinton did in the debate when she was asked who her enemies are just kind of a beard question we had a son in so i have to admit i tell my fantasy football team is doing. [laughter] but that question, you know, enemies? she said the ra was an enemy and then she said well i guess the republicans are really my enemy. half the countries are our enemy. how will you solve problems with that so the answer to the question first and foremost you don't assume people that disagree have bad motives. they might just be wrong and you
have to persuade them that you do it respectfully and with civility. that isn't a sign of weakness. great things happen when you restore trust first and foremost, so the president needs to lead to change the culture in washington that is focused on solutions rather than pushing people down. i don't know about you but i'm so sick and tired of hearing about how great our president is and in his own words or how stupid the people that disagree with him are. the people that disagree are in cahoots with the death to america crowd or whatever it is. that kind of culture that is on both sides has to stop. second i think that men and women that have talent and life experiences but essential the same to have diversity because that's important. my experience was we had its diverse group of people with a set of shared principles we were all conservative but we make
great backgrounds you get a better answer to a challenge to solution. if you have the centralized power in washington and white house. then give them the power and go out and have their back. i don't always do with family and the family and public life is happening more and more which is there's a problem at the va it's somebody else's fault. the office of personnel management gets hacked by the communist chinese the dog ate my homework created no one accepts the responsibility. if lois lerner does her stuff in the irs we still haven't had somebody say that was wrong. my bad i will fix it. we have problems when i was governor in florida but the
child was lost. it was heartbreaking. my first impulse wasn't to say that the investigative workers problem. my first impulse was when a child is lost it's my responsibility. i'm governor. i didn't personally lose this child but it's under my watch so we are about fixing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. it's a much broader question than just who would be hired. so your president in the white house if you want to bring people together a story that i tell all the time is about the republican senator republican senator was invited by the white house to have so he's going up the elevator to go up to the residence the second floor and the aide to president obama says
that the fifth-year. now think about it by the first woman president, congratulations and you're trying to get something done you invite an important senator to come have dinner with you you don't think that you can convince the person how can i make it so it comes out as a win i will have your back what can i do to make it easier for you to do you go out in the balcony and looked over washington monument at the lincoln memorial and you're in this incredible place representing the country you don't think people can find your common ground? this country has been in existence we had this function.
it wasn't defined to be efficient. it wasn't designed to be orderly people did things to one another but there was always a belief that you could force consensus and it requires the leadership to do so so first and foremost the president has to need to change the culture. yes ma'am. >> i have two questions. >> why don't you make it a two part one question? >> social security is always getting dipped into and healthcare for the entire country which i believe everybody should have insurance but it used to be brought about in a different way. >> great questions. if you're interested you are interested in the full details of the plans, 2016 is the place to go and we have comprehensive
plans that i'm a policy dirt or whatever you call it. i just believe in the power of ideas and i think you have to be courageous to express your views and defend them even if they might be controversial and these subjects are kind of controversial. remember paul ryan when he proposed the medicare reform the head of the they had the ad where a guy looked exactly like paul ryan in a blue suit and red tie off the cliff. so putting your self out there when you're advocating social security reform but to your point, it's already bankrupt. it's effectively bankrupt because we've already borrowed the money to spend on everything else and it will be bankrupt in every way in relatively short order and when that happens, there's going to be double digits 20 to 25% reductions in benefits for everybody. so doing nothing which is the
proposal the president basically no one tried to change it we will create major cutbacks. i laid out a reform where we raise the retirement age ultimately to 70 and the early age to 65 and then we give it progressively raise that one month for every year just as ronald reagan and tip o'neill to get where we are today. if we raise the benefit level for social security beneficiaries to 125% of the poverty level, right now the minimum benefit level i think is 75% of the poverty level. so, we create a safety net of four is higher for everybody and then we suppress the benefits for those that are wealthy and the extending of the retirement age changing the calculation on what the beginning benefits are by the next generation those
four things will make social security solvent. another point they are over the retirement age and working. people like to work and it keeps them active and a lot of people have to work. they have to work. so the plan i'm suggesting says if you are above the retirement age and working you don't have to pay the employee portion of the payroll tax which is 6%. so instead of continuing to pay to the trust fund that's bankrupt you keep it in your own pocket because it's your retirement. was never designed as the retirement system as a supplemental retirement system which means we need to get back to private savings as part of this as well. this gentleman asked me about social security and i asked him he had to be in his mid-80s,
the sweetest guy in the world and he said -- i asked him when did you retire and he said i don't remember. so i'm talking about a subject and he yells out i remember now, 62. then he discovered something important. and then i started. they had a great 401(k). i liked working there. the point is we need to provide incentives for private savings as well. if you've ever tried as a small-business person you have to hire a lawyer, accountant it looks like you are committing a crime before you ever sign the papers and you can't pull them
together so the cost of setting up businesses is extraordinary and people don't do it. if you are a small business that wants to provide a sense is that you can't afford the employee or contribution why not able to provide direct support to people that are working for you so they can give you a savings support that is tax deductible and there's all sorts of ways we can promote private savings as well. obamacare is a job killer, wage suppressor, comforted and gives too much power to washington, d.c.. other than that, it's a great thing. [laughter] it raises the condition element i think that could be restored in a new way of allowing young adults to be on your plan is another park that is quite popular. other than that, it ought to be repealed and replaced with a consumer directed model, low premium, no mandates, low premium, catastrophic coverage. where the states decide the
additions to the plans. mine would say for medicaid, for the kids care insurance and the obamacare subsidies they would all be brought back to the states in a defined contribution kind of way of premium support with some increased because of inflation, not the kind of growth that we are having now so the federal government would save hundreds of billions of dollars over an extended period of time and allow states not to have all the rules on top of them to innovate to create low-cost alternatives with a focus on catastrophic coverage. insurance should be for the high-impact unforeseen unlikely event. that's what insurance is. it's not going to your monthly dr.'s visit or going to the dentist. that's pre- paid that's just paying for interacting with your healthcare professionals. what we should get back to its
insurance being insurance. consumers being more engaged allowing for health savings accounts to go along with the insurance so that you can go up and make healthy lifestyle decisions. the premium dollars you are paying them into an account that can be used for the time when you do get sick because ultimately, we all will. that will create many more jobs and rising income for the middle the middle-class. and it should be portable because the new economy that we are living in his knee used as a shared economy. i don't know if anybody here is a driver but in a lot of places you would be surprised who is driving these days and who has rented out their room. they may have a job particularly younger people they could have three jobs totally customized. our insurance system isn't designed for them so moving in a different direction because of the 21st century needs the final thing i would say his technology should be a cost driver downward, not upward. drugs, medical devices, across
the board this should be in most places without so much government involvement of the innovation lower prices think of what we used to have that would cost now one tenth of that in a better quality. while the technology harnessed the right way will allow us to live healthier. you could have wireless technology to tell you when your blood sugar is too high or when you have the means by which your device shows whatever the problem is is an acute level that sends a text message to your doctor or nurse or spouse. but the government through the fda and all other parts of the bigotry process make it harder for that to be cut the hardest in the way that creates dramatic improvement in health healthcare outcomes. yes, sir. >> i'm a fifth generation farmer here in task county and i
visited with you before about some concerns regarding trade with china. the problem being that congress created the birth of the ethanol industry and of course that meant very good strong trade with china. of course you heard this many times iowa is the number one corn and soybean states of its critically important in counties like task county for communities like atlantic in particular and the rural economy and we continue things on a good and strong course. the whole industry as iowa agriculture has always done as responded the last ten years to that demand the whole infrastructure has been built upon that demand whether it be land values, equipment values, land rental car the business expanding in towns like atlantic and now we are worried because
they are_to become under criticism and due to the strong dollar that trade is diminishing with china. we are getting hit on both fronts. and like i say, the whole infrastructure has been built into this demand. i mentioned i'm a fifth generation farmer. my concern -- i can probably weather a few storms trade my son on the other side of the room is a sixth generation farmer, and i guess my question to you would be what would be your thought -- [inaudible] [laughter] and going to ask you to adopt him them for about three minutes. [laughter] he's a pretty good kid. but what would be your advice to him looking on the cusp of investing in agriculture and engaged just joined the operation, just joined the
and i know this because i saw firsthand as governor. i'm making my page know. suddenly one of the ways you can sustain any sector of our economy but particularly agriculture is to change the whole regulatory system that existed the waters the united states rule that was a rule in search of a problem, frankly, there is no problem. this is a rule that was decided and probably has a huge impact on the business, its work in progress but this is a rule that defines the federal government's involvement in any development by broadly defining what is a federal water body, what is a navigable water body which can mean a drainage ditch potentially picketing all sorts of things that never was intended. and those kinds of rules,
whether it's the department of labor, epa, the clean power act will have a devastating impact on anybody that needs to produce power. we need to repeat them or read them every one of those rules. wherever possible shift of those will making powers back to the communities that understand, in this case agriculture, or other places may understand manufacturing. the simple fact is washington is not designed to do this. elect someone that has the skills to dramatically change how we create rules our society. if you want to go to jeb 2016 and have a total nerd ou out ine proposals where the regulars are the most comprehensive, complex and important roles that i think would just unleash the animal spirits of her country. third, you need a president that fights for free trade. fair trade for sure that this idea growing sentiment on the debate stage that so we're going
to like create not only walls, physical walls, or protectionist walls. been with the first group is the gets hurt on that quest agriculture. that's the jesus thing to counter. a month ago when i was here, governor branstad told me that the chinese in a very, president xi had come to the country in a very incredible way announced they were buying equivalence of a year's production of soybeans in iowa. it will not all be from iowa but the simple fact is that kind of volume at a 15% premium over the price of a month ago is pretty extraordinary. upmarket, put aside the country close to go up and down, that market as people begin to grow into the middle-class and want to consume more protein is going to be a marketable create enormous opportunities, more than any other factor, not just china but in the end of the countries as well. you need a president tears down
the barriers and fights for america's interest for sure, and make sure that trade agreement are verifiable and are enforced. but doesn't do in a way that jeopardizes huge swaths of our own economy. as well as to the arafat, here's my position. the very first part of what he said and we've had this conversation before it is the part that i'm sympathetic with which his rules were established in 2005 and six that greater billions of dollars of investing. and it takes time for that investment to be fully amortized for sugar it's just how the world works. along the way the innovators have lowered costs which is a good news story. ultimately, you may read the news, in florida we have the sugar industry that's huge. we produce more sugar than any other state. i never believed in the sugar subsidy. i just don't believe it's appropriate to pick winners and
losers. we need to food security for sure this got to do a minimum commitment to make sure that we have particular there's a role for government in this at picking winners and losers in energy or in agriculture by protecting one cryptic is that more clout clout than another group is not the way america works. ultimately, i think the subsidies with oil and gas or the rff, these are versions of protections that are to be phased out. with the recognition that you've made big time commitment as it relates to billions of dollars that have been invested in these ethanol plants, thus be some sensitivity and market access. and my belief is that just as yields have gone up in agriculture here in the state out of the indie of the world come you can get to the point where ethanol can be competitive with any source of energy us ownership market access. that's out into the future but i do believe that these things had to be phased out over a period of time.
yes? sound like. >> we've got a couple more. >> stop something happened like and the denver hospital. >> well, the congress came up with a pretty good idea on that and it's just been implemented. it's a complete, you know, just think, this is america. how could this happen? this is what you expect in argentina maybe. not our country. so the solution, the best solution that i've seen is let the army corps of engineers to the construction, get the veterans administration out of the business. they clearly don't know what they're doing. and if you look at procurement reform, information technology reform, and this reform of having the army corps which a subject matter expertise on how to build buildings, and you combine that with giving veterans choices by giving them a card with broad powers given
to see their own doctors, and then getting to veterans of ministers to focus on trading centers of excellence. because there are things i think given the challenges that exist, each generation has a different challenge. these are specialties. the big challenge today i think there are two big challenges that are different than the past that one, there are a lot of women veterans. so having focus women services in the veterans administration would make sense. secondly, you have post-traumatic stress which is a huge driver of a lot of challenges for veterans. been a long-term disabled. all of these things happened because the war fighting is different and the challenges are different. let them be competent of centers of excellence that are the envy of the world and allow veterans to have more choices. you can lower cost benefit greatly from outcomes if you do that. one more. >> on immigration.
youth advocate along with other candidates that if people want to stay in this country get to learn english and pay a fine, okay. spent more than that. committee tv the whole -- >> no. what i want to know is that's a general statement. nobody goes into details. what is your idea of paying a fine? how much money are we talking about what is going to pay for all these people to learn english and the proficiency level, who's going determined? what happens if there's a time limit on achieving than what happens if they don't do it, then what? >> great question. i have to put a book about this i'm going to hawk my book right now. it's called immigration were. you can probably get it for $1.99 on amazon last night is not a bestseller, let's just leave it at that. in that we detailed a full plan -- [laughter] defined i think this is
something that can be collected. it's in the hundreds, not thousands of dollars. learning english, most immigrants want to earnings because the want to advance themselves. they would pay for it. not commit crimes. that would be a deportable of this. that's pretty simple to enforce i think. work and pay taxes. no federal government assistance, none your you at all that up and did it over and asked in good times with a provision work permit, not a permanent green card, you earn legal status, and that legal status allows you to stay in the country but not gains citizenship. that to me is the practical, pragmatic, concerted approach to deal with a problem that if we do nothing which is perpetually it. this is the frustration i feel, which is vital to barack obama wants to solve this problem. i think there's enough history to suggest that. he could have done in his first and second year.
he had 60 democratic senators and nancy pelosi was eager, and he promised it. he made a full-blown promise and he didn't deliver because he wants to use this as a wedge political issue. our guys are reluctant to engage in because he can't be trusted on border security. in this executive order pakistan but now the courts have held up because i think it's unconstitutional. this is something i know a little bit about. and the law allows the president to have discretion to allow people to stay. but it didn't allow a president to say 5 million people can stay through the discretion. it doesn't come close to the. the courts are going to overrule him on this but we need to get to the point where we solve this problem and move on to make immigration a positive. right now it's not. it's a drain on our resources rather than something that if we could control who comes into we could create an economic
strategy that would help all of us. the other ideas for doing nothing, i don't think that works, of rounding people up. it's just not practical. you're going to violate civil liberties the people that you think you should round them up but maybe they are not. you have to due process put it would overwhelm the courts. it creates chaos. it sounds good on one level at a note it appeals to people's abject anger that the rule of law is not being applied. i get that part. but i'm in the problem-solving business. that's the basis i am aspiring to be a. i'm not in talking how bad things are business. i'm not in everything is great business. i think it's six these big, complex things and they get on with life. right now we're stuck on totally stuck as a nation, and washington is a problem and i think i can fix it. takes for the question, and thanks to you all for being here. [applause]
on our website c-span.org. we are going to leave it now for live coverage of secretary of state john kerry. he will be delivering remarks on u.s. policy in syria this afternoon at the united states institute of peace. should be arriving in just a few moments. basis live coverage on c-span2. -- this is live coverage on c-span2. a [background sounds]
[background sounds] [applause] >> good afternoon. welcome everybody. thank you for joining us today for speech on the topic of critical importance. my name is nancy ann on the president of the united states institute of peace. today's event comes at a critical moment in the searing conflict. this is become an open sore in the middle east, threatens not only regional to global security. the world is gripped with the arrival of refugees in europe. this is highlighted that there are 60 million people displaced by a global conflict. 12 million of those are syrians. estimates suggest a court of in an syrians have been killed in the civil war today.
so the syrian competent become one of the most pressing tragedies of our time. the united states has been the leading donor of humanitarian assistance over the last five years of this conflict, but with the conflict growing more bloodied, more complex by the day, the global community must urgently work together to provide desperately needed civilian protection and achieve a meaningful and lasting peace. we built the whole idea of an international team it on a collective commitment that we would never again turned a blind eye, that we would not let the and systematic violence and human suffering go forward that's on display in syria. so i want to welcome today to the u.s. institute of peace and extraordinarily energetic and committed leader for peace, and a vocal advocate for diplomacy over the course of his many distinguished years of public service. and navy veteran, a u.s. senate
cheer of the senate foreign relations committee, and now the united states secretary of state. secretary kerry knows better than most the importance and the values of american leadership, and the importance of building partnership to meet our nation's most pressing challenges. he's been tireless in his dedication to peace and security and, in fact, i understand that immediately following this speech, sector will get back on another plane, had overseas into yet another route at creating peace in syria. so without further ado, please join me in welcoming secretary kerry to discuss the strategy for u.s. policy in syria, and his vision for ending this intractable conflict. secretary kerry. [applause] a country and nancy, thank you
very but much. ipod touch being a couple minutes late over here, and i am delighted to see a lot of friends. and please do all you could come and to share some thoughts this afternoon. it's great for me to be here, and i want to thank the united states institute of peace for hosting all of us here this afternoon. i have to tell you i'm used to flying long distances to deliver a speech so it's really nice, although perhaps no less dangerous to walk across 23rd street, and just arrived. this institute as everybody knows is really a spectacular place. advantage of that even though it has reached the pivotal age of 30, i say that, as some of you may remember, my generation was told not to trust anybody over 30, if you recall. but given that i am now more
than twice that age, my message to young people is, don't believe everything you are taught. the truth is that under the leadership of nancy lindborg an old friend bill taylor, this 30 year old institute is really hitting its stride as a force for reconciliation and conflict resolution. and precisive because of the experience that it has gained, usip is increasingly effective. it is a place where smart and energetic people come to help others, and i'm absolutely confident that that is going to remain the case for many, many decades to come. so congratulations to all those of you who are part of that effort. and as soon as i don't expect every single one of you to go right back to work. [laughter] there is another reason not am
especially pleased to be here, and that is stated baldly in the very name of this institute, peace. -- and boldly. across the street and harry truman building there are thousands of men and women who think about peace and work for peace every single day. and they think about especially what it would mean to the many millions of people who live without it, including many who have never in their entire lives actually knowing it. and as a veteran, diplomat, citizen, a father, a grandfather, i personally believe that peace is as worthy of pursuit that anybody could imagine, and that no matter how hard it is to achieve, the attempt, if guided by principle and realistic vision, is always worthwhile. i doubt there are many leaders who, at the end of their lives, look back with regret at having
done all they could to prevent war. and i hope there are none who think to themselves, thank god i didn't bother to lift a finger to stop people from killing each other. i doubt that. so it shouldn't be a surprise to you that peace is a major theme here at this institute this afternoon of my remarks. as you know these are extremely complicated times. it's not an excuse. it's a statement of the playing field. and i appreciate the chance to share some thoughts in advance of the g20 summit that begins sunday in turkey. our leaders will assemble there with a full agenda which reflects the fact that our country, my country, and other states of america is today engaged in more areas of the world on more important issues with more partners, with higher stakes than at anytime in
history. and that is not an exaggeration. along the pacific rim we've negotiated a landmark trade pact that will bind together 40% of global economies based on high labor and environmental standards, and 21st century rules of the road. in africa, we're working with local partners to train the leaders of tomorrow to increase access to electricity, improve food security, today and debilitating conflicts and ensure that our success in stopping ebola cold and in slowing the spread of hiv/aids is sustained into the future. in latin america we're reaching out to the people of cuba by normalizing relations after 54 years while also working hard with our special envoy to help colombia to move closer to a negotiated solution, through a decades long struggle with a
group ferc. we are standing with the democratic ukraine as soon as strong message of her insurance that made us promise of collective defense will be upheld. and in recent days we have seen the beginning of what promises to be the most dramatic transformation of a nuclear program since the breakup of the soviet union. iran begins to mothball centrifuges, destroy the court of its heavy water plutonium reactor and export much of its stockpile of enriched uranium. finally, at the end of this month and into december, i will join the president in pairs what we are determined to negotiate a truly ambitious, durable and inclusive framework for curbing greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. earlier this week in norfolk, i
laid the national security applications of this challenge. from the impacts of her own military readiness to the potential multiplication of overseas crises caused by food and water shortages, higher temperatures, extreme weather events, sea level rise, and the movement of people away from areas that can literally no longer sustain life. the good news is that it is not too late to reduce emissions, to limit the damage and see seize e economic and environmental benefits which are extraordinary, staring at us waiting to be grabbed. all within the possibilities that come from a transform energy future. as we all know, the solution to climate change is energy policy. we are pulling out all the stops to make sure that we can succeed because the consequences of continued inaction of poor excuses, more delays, more
refused to acknowledge what is taking place right before our eyes are simply unacceptable. so it is an understatement to suggest that it's complicated, that there's a lot going on out there. in fact, there are many important subjects that we could be discussing well through this afternoon and into the evening. but today i really want to focus on an area of the world and, in fact, one particular country has been a central concern of the obama administration for the past four and half years, and that is syria. the civil war better and humanitarian disaster that is unfolding before the world eyes that has flowed from all of the insecurity and challenges of modernity, clashing culture, and young people and their aspirations, all of that will be a major topic of discussion at the g20 summit. and before that at the meetings that i will participate in in vienna on saturday.
so i thought this might be a good time to bring you up to speed on the administration's strategy in syria on decisions made by the president, and on the actions that we are taking and we will build on in weeks and months to come. now, syria as we know it is not just another country. in fact, it is one of the first places that most of us learned about when studying history in school, damascus and aleppo are among the oldest continually inhabited cities on the face of the earth. they are part of mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, for 4000 years empires have risen and fallen but syria has remained a commercial crossroads. this has contributed to a rich cultural mix of ethnicities, customs and creeds.
but the story of modern syria has been a grim one. 1970, a baathist military leader a la senate seize power ushering in an era of limited modernization accompanied by unlimited oppression. -- in the year 2000 he was succeeded by his son bashar a sucker raising hopes to the possibly of greater political openness, hopes the new leader chose not to fulfill. it was little wonder then that when the sparks of arab spring begin to ignite, demands for change were in syria. the protests are actually quite modest at first and they were driven not by sectarian or religious differences but by the lack of freedom and jobs. the violence only begin when assad responded to peaceful demonstrations by sending in dogs to be of young people. and when the parents of those
young people objected -- thugs. and they took to the streets themselves, the regime replied with bullets and then with bombs. having a peaceful change impossible, assad made war inevitable. and this war gave rise to daesh, isil, the greatest extremist threat faced by our generation and the embodiment of evil in our time. the result as we know has been for and if years of nonstop poor. one syrian in 20 have been wounded or killed. one in five is a refugee. one into has been displaced. the average life expectancy dropped by 20 years. 80% of electricity has been knocked out, plunging much of the country literally into darkness. the burden of the conflict falls most heavily on the smallest
shoulders. imagine what it would mean for america's future if the entire public school system of our largest cities, new york, chicago, los angeles were suddenly to close and stay closed. and then the arch like a two-year old whose birth in lebanon could not be registered because his parents were separated during the war. officially he is neither syrian like his mother nor lebanese, and there are thousands like him. young people growing up in camps, many of them without education, growing up in overcrowded apartments, under bridges, and in the streets, without a country to call their own, or any official identity at all. make no mistake, the longer this terrible civil war lasts, the harder it will be for the country to recover, and the more wounds of body and mind we will
see open, wounds that can never be truly closed. since the fighting began and as senator and a second estate, i've met with many of those personally touched by this conflict, doctors are risking their lives in a country were treating the injured can be equated with treason. women who struggle to keep their families together despite constant attacks, threats of abuse, bitter cold, shortages of water, food. a courageous whistleblower who emerged from syria with photographic evidence of the torture that assad security sources pashtun forces inflicted on thousands of victims. just a few weeks ago with refugees i've talked to those refugees, too. who had to buy barrel bombs dropped from helicopters and made their way through berlin, germany. given all of this i want to be very clear. from the beginning of this crisis, there has not been a
single idea for addressing the syria conflict that has been discussed in public that hasn't been the subject of intense scrutiny with india administration. whatever questions one might have about the content of our policy, should be no doubt about the effort made to consider every single option for ending this crisis. that explained why the united states originally supported the deployment of international human rights monitors in syria, why are you an advisor samantha power, the fight i in the secury council could net access for humanitarian relief agencies and for an investigation into war crimes by the international criminal court. at it is why we have been at the forefront of every single attempt to forge a diplomatic solution from the day i know that i became secretary of state. it's why we have been in regular contact from the outset with the mainstream syrian opposition groups, meeting with him
repeatedly, helping them in ways both public and private and encouraging them to unify and take steps to broaden their support. it is why we worked hard to mitigate the incredible burden the war has placed on syria's neighbors on her bed, lebanon, jordan, turkey and iraq. excuse me, not iran. iraq. and in each case, we have coordinated closely with the government in order to prevent the violence from spreading and help them cope with the massive influx of refugees that has now spread even beyond their own reaching into the heart of europe. to date as was mentioned, and we have probably given, contributed more than 4.5 billion in humanitarian relief, and where constant exhorting other countries to open their wallets.
because even as another winter closes in, the need for help far outweighs the supply. in addition we have announced a six fold increase in the number of syrian refugees that we were welcome to our shores of the united states. in addition to all this, the united states led a successful international effort to eliminate syria's inventory of chemical weapons. now, when assad attacked his own people with these horrific weapons banned by international law, president obama's threat of military strikes forced the syrian regime to back down and enabled us to strike a deal with russia and other members of the u.n. security council. as a result for the first time in history, weapons of mass destruction were removed from a country while the country was engaged in a conflict. and let me tell you something. it is a plenty good thing that that happened.
it is you can only imagine the devastation the leaders of daesh could've been able to wreak if they had gotten their hands on syria's arsenal of sophisticated arms. i emphasize this because the list of crimes for which daesh is responsible is already numbing. these thugs are not just terrorists. they are also smugglers, kidnappers, raw criminals. they butchered teachers, burn books, wage war on knowledge itself. to execute journalists for doing their jobs and average citizens not for anything they've said or done, but simply for who they are. what they believe about religion and god. in iraq, daesh fighters have been abducting, raping, and auctioning off women and girls.
even teaching that the abuse of under age nine dozen girls is not only acceptable, but a form of prayer, an expression of the will of god. that is how perverse this has become. they had urged followers and affiliates from across the globe to murder their neighbors, to commit homicides and suicide at the same time. this past summer terrorists picked up sledgehammers and smashed half a dozen statues in the ancient city of palmyra. they destroyed the 1800 year old roman arch and temples that were even more venerable. bases of the city's director of antiquities, made him kneel in the public square, cut off his head and left his body tied to a pole. the man was 83, an india been in charge of preserving pounders cultural heritage for more than 50 years. it couldn't be more plain.
history doesn't matter to daesh. human dignity doesn't matter to daesh. and the sacredness of life itself is alien to daesh. their leaders represent everything that we fought against from world wars i and ii day-to-day come at everything that we've tried to build up that is right and good in all of our societies. and then confronted him we face the fight against medieval and modern fascism at the same time. let me be clear. this isn't just a fight that we must make our behalf of others. as important as that is at times. the united states does not go in search of enemies. but there are times when enemies come in search of us. and we know for a fact that daesh means what it says when it threatens to attack america and to attack americans, and attack
america's interest. so the stakes could not be higher. under president obama's leadership, the united states has mobilized the 65 member coalition to take on daesh and defeat the daesh. and notwithstanding whatever you read recently about people diverted with other interest, yeah, there are other conflicts, but they remain deeply committed and that the table in vienna helping to broker a solution. we have said from the beginning that this would be a multi-year effort. not as i will describe in a couple of minutes, we are on the right track and we are making gains, and we are clear about the road ahead. my friends, the syrian civil war has dragged on now for more than four and a half years. we recall with sadness that civil war in neighboring lebanon lasted for 16.
regrettably this is not a part of the world where flames once ignited simply extinguish themselves. the intractable nature of the conflict in syria is attributable to a number of factors beginning with the assad government. for four decades of dictatorial rule, choke off any attempt to develop an organized political opposition. sectarian differences that might have worked themselves out peacefully in a more open society, instead festered beneath the surface. and the forces unleashed by the arab spring emerged so suddenly that the collision between rising alarm on one side and skyrocketing expectations on the other was much more traumatic than otherwise might have been the case. this situation was further complicated by the involvement of regional actors, especially hezbollah, which intervened on behalf of assad and a foreign
terrorist fighters who have joined daesh and other terrorist groups and members of the irgc across the international border to become involved in this fight. we face in environment now that bears little resemblance to the kind of black and white scenarios and make decisions relatively easy. put simply, there are bad guys all the bad and good guys who were not accustomed to working with each other. by the dominant truth about the situation in syria is that although assad and daesh are supposed to be bitter opponents, they are both parts of the same problem. in fact, the rise of daesh is directly attributable to the policies and actions of the assad regime. and that is why we have referred to assad as a magnet for terrorism. this is a case him and their meaning in history, in which two supposed enemies are, in fact, symbolic. clothing store to assad drove
thousands -- loathing towards assad come in fear of the daesh cost some syrian groups ago that they had no realistic option but to support the government. that's not just symbolic. that's a symbiotic relationship each piece is dependent on the other. and the desire to flee both explained a massive refugee crisis that we face today. the relationship between assad and daesh clarifies what the apparent peculiarities of this conflict. that the two extremes have only rarely targeted one another. think about that. in fact they even do business with each other. buying and selling oil. assad and daesh our enemies far more in theory than in fact. and neither has shown any interest in bringing the killing doing and. if not a as a dictator know that
terrorists are the answer, and they are not, our challenge is to great conditions under which a clear and broadly acceptable alternative can emerge. to that end president obama asset for our nation three interrelated goals are we begin with the daesh. some 14 months ago the president made it clear that the united states was committed to defeat and dismantlement of this terrorist organization. and over the last month, he has directed every member of his national security team to pick up the pace and move forward with ideas for degrading and defeating daesh more rapidly, more completely and permanently. second, we are intensifying our diplomatic effort to finally bring an end to the civil war in syria. and third we are determined to support our friends in the region and to ensure that the instability created by the syrian crisis does not spread
further beyond its borders. now, these measures are mutually reinforcing. the more progress we make on one, the more likely we are to succeed on the others. president obama has made his view clear that the crisis in syria cannot be resolved militarily. and that remains the case. but it's also clear that the chance for a successful diplomacy depends in part on the ability to exert leverage. on controlled territory, on perceptions about who is gaining or has the upper hand. that's why it matters that there is increasing evidence in both iraq and syria that daesh can be defeated. even routed when faced by the combination of coalition airstrikes and effective partners on the ground.
remember, this coalition has only been together for 14 months. people forget that. last summer, it did not even exist. but the coalition has already made a huge difference in reversing daesh is omitted and in saving peoples lives. at the evidence is there for everybody to see. today to the coalition has launched more than 8000 airstrikes in iraq in syria, the number is rising every day. there were more than 40 just last night. the coalition and its allies on the ground have defended most of them and other vital facility in iraq also prevented a terrorist assault on baghdad -- the most of them. we've driven daesh from the border town. it didn't fall and it didn't fall because we stepped up and the president in order to ordered the strikes and reinforce and we provided
ammunition capacity, and people were able to fight back. we have seen the city of tikrit liberated, enabling most of its population, about 1000 people to return and start to rebuild their communities. with its borders, the coalition helped to rescue at endangered minority on censure amount at today as we sit here, alan forces are engaged in a major operation to liberate singe art itself, cut off highway 47 which is their main artery from syria into iraq. we've also established a robust program including the deployme deployment, thousands of american advisers to train and assist iraqi security forces. we have significantly degraded nation's top leader said including the organization's second-in-command, and we continue to eliminate commanders and other personnel on the battlefield. over all, daesh is unable to operate. and 20-25% of the territory it
controls a year ago. and we are just getting started. we now know more about the enemy than we did and we know more about what has worked and what has not worked and what can work. and so at the president's direction and with those lessons in mind, we are stepping up our strategy in all its aspects. in iraq was supplying our partners with the help they need in the form of armored bulldozers and mine clearing equipment to break down the -- defenses around the key city of ramadi. in fact, as i speak, iraqi forces are engaged in a systematic but carefully calibrated effort to encircle and we take that city. meanwhile, the iraqis force recently took back an oil refinery which is strategically located on the road linking baghdad and mosul. and syria with increased
shipment of supplies and ammunition to moderate opposition forces fighting daesh. and the president has authorized a to point of a small number of u.s. special forces in an advisory role to help them in this fight. we are encouraging our european allies to do more, and they are. we are increasing our operational tempo in turkey flying more often and to great effect. we join with our kurdish partners in a daring rescue operation to save the lives of 79 daesh prisoners who were about to be executed one by one. we remain in constant medication with our arab friends who are fully supportive of our goals and continue to participate in coalition efforts which are not just military, but also include putting relentless pressure on daesh's finances come on its ability to attract foreign recruits and on countering its message of division and hate using all of the media available
to do so. we are also providing additional assistance to enhance the security capabilities of jordan and lebanon. these efforts are paying off. not long ago daesh controlled more than half of serious 500-mile long border with turkey. today, it has a grip on only about 15% and we have a plan with our partners to pry open and secure the rest, and we will. we are striving with local forces to put the squeeze on the center of daesh is operation. we've had some of the organizations key energy facilities include just recently the omar oilfields to which terrorists derive both raven and fuel. and we have made daesh change the way that it moves and operates because its leaders now get up each morning worrying about what might come down from the sky. all of this and more is part of a strategy to continue building
on what has worked, and to apply pressure against the daesh from as many directions as possible with as much intensity as possible, for as long as it takes. at the same time we know full well that the struggle against the daesh is not taking place in a political vacuum. and that is why we are working to promote a fully sovereign, stable, self-reliant, inclusive iraq that is secure in its borders and able to protect all its citizens. but the truth is nothing to do more to to bolster the fight against the terrorists that a broadly supported diplomatic process that would begin to escalate the conflict and that would give the syrian people are real choice, not between assad and daesh, but between the status quo and something far better and long overdue. a trick transition in which
responsible syrians from across the political spectrum will have a voice. that is what another core element of our strategy in syria is diplomatic. a renewed political initiative, broader and more action oriented than any previous attempted, to isolate the terrorists and set syria on the path to peace. this possibility was the focus of meetings in vienna at the end of last month. meetings that for the first time brought together all the key international interested parties to the very same table. and guess what. it came out with a product. that session produced a communiqué endorsed by every country who attended, countries that don't always agree on much like saudi arabia and iran, but who do agree that daesh is evil and that the war in syria must be brought to an acceptable in as soon as possible.
more specifically, the countries represented in the vienna agreed to support syria's unity, independents, territorial integrity, and pluralistic character. we agreed, all of us, that daesh and other terrorist groups have to be defeated. we agreed, all of us, that series state institution should remain intact we don't have the implosion that we saw in iraq. we saw and we all agreed that the rights of all syrians regardless of religious domination or visit have to be protected in whatever government comes out. we agreed all of us access argument generally has to be assured throughout the country and i will be one of the topics we talk about on saturday. we agreed all of us to increased support for internally displaced persons and for refugees and for the countries that host them. and we agreed all of us that the u.n. should convene members of
the syrian government and the syrian opposition, to develop a plant along the lines of the 2012 geneva communicate leading to a credible, inclusive nonsectarian government followed by a new constitution and by free and fair transparent accountable elections run under the supervision of the united nations to the highest standards of elections anywhere in the world. we agreed on that, all of us. and we agreed to explore the possibility of a nationwide cease-fire to be initiated in parallel with this renewed political process. now obviously such a cease-fire does not include daesh. because her effort to defeat daesh and effort of our partners to defeat daesh will continue until we prevail. in fact, it is precisely through this political process that we can, for the first time, if it works, marshal the support of the entire international community against a single
common enemy, daesh. i want to be clear. this year unit people will be the validaters of this whole effort -- the syrian people. they have met with represents of more than 230 syrian groups. our own special envoy, michael, has been a caustic indication with syrian representatives and i've met with the syrian opposition leaders myself. so this is not about imposing anything on anyone. we are trying to come together as a stakeholders to create a framework which can't ignite the united nations negotiating process. but the syrians will be the first to take that they need help from the international community to get there. and what they especially need is a consensus about how to achieve a political transition that will free them from the stranglehold of extremists on the one side and the stranglehold of a dictator on the other. and allow them to shape their
own destiny. now, i want to underscore, the leaders of the responsible syrian opposition are not focused on revenge. they have no desire to prolong the war, and they understand that compromise will be requir required. but at the same time it's simply not possible to go back to the situation that existed before the conflict again. who in the world truly believes that's possible? not after month upon month of indiscriminate violence and torture and bloodshed. not after 40 years of dictatorship. asking the opposition to trust assad or to set assad's leadership is a but not a reasonable request. and it is literally, therefore, a nonstarter. and even if we wanted to, my friends, even if you made the worst deal with the devil, as one says, and says that's what you have to do to try to make this process go forward, i've got news for you.
it will not stop. because there are those invested in what has happened and in what has been done to them, who seek assad as the critical component of the transition. that's why we are pushing so hard for a real transition. because without a real transition no matter how much we want it, the fighting will continue and the war will never end. on this point i acknowledge that we are still working through with russia and iran, the question of trent lott and his role has not been settled. we acknowledge that. but we believe through this organic process sirius defines a future of syria we and our partners believe that we can find the road ahead. we can believe that neither piece for the defeat of daesh is possible with assad and power at fort hood here's the bitter civil was made the position and the syrian people on the subject very clear. so easily modified on this
critical issue, the united states and russia and other countries involved have decided, wisely i think, not to let that disagreement prevent us from time to build on the common ground that we have established, build a legitimate organic negotiating process. our goal is to develop a timetable for action based on interim steps. the participation of a broad range of syrian parties including both men and women and the kind of political transition that will empower the center against the extremes. i cannot say this afternoon that we are on the threshold of a comprehensive agreement, no. there remains a lot of work to be done. the walls of mistrust within syria, within the region, within the international community are thick and they are high. but those walls will never be breached unless we make a concerted effort and a creative effort to surmount them. our meeting at the end of
october showed that the great basis for action is much wider than many had supposed. in looking ahead it should be crystal clear that daesh can never again be allowed to gain any control of territory or even, perish the thought, control of syria. and equally clear that assad lacks the ability either to unite, to wipe away the crimes of war and govern a country, or end of the war. so if the war is to end, we must find an alternative. data logic is compelling, it provides a basic unifying principle for our efforts going forward. so one friday evening i will return in be in vienna. assembled there will be representatives from the arab league, china, egypt, the european union, france, germany, iran, iraq, italy, jordan, lebanon, oman, qatar, russia, saudi arabia, turkey, the uae,
the united kingdom and the united nations. extraordinary group. and with those many people gathered around the principles that we've already agreed on, our hope and prayer is that we will be able to find a sensible way forward. america's message to each is that we all have a responsibility, not to dig in our heels, but to take the next step forward so that the bleeding can stop in the building can begin. and so that the habits of the civilization can once again take hold in the region where civilization itself was born. there are moments in managing world affairs, as all of you know, when the elements required for progress simply do not exi exist. but time and turbulence can generate new possibilities. we do not know for sure whether provide possibilities have yet come to get a connection with syria. we do not know for certain
whether the kind of political transition we seek in that country can be achieved. we do not know for certain how long it will take before we can say that daesh has been defeated. but we do know for certain that we have an obligation to ourselves, difference of the region, and above all, do serious next generation to test the possibility to the fullest, even more, not to accept no for an answer. ..
and russian president blood america who then will likely speak to each other at a summit of global leaders in turkey next week. the white house said today the security adviser said there is no formal meeting scheduled between the leaders of the group of 20 summit but we expect they will have opportunity for discussion directly. the summit comes amid tensions between the u.s. and russia over the war in syria and again that's from the hill today. the atlantic is holding a forum
on race and criminal justice including sentencing reform, community's interaction with policy and other issues related to race and justice. it airs tonight on c-span at eight eastern. here is a portion on the mass incarceration. >> it's the solution for the employment issues african american community solution that we choose to use for mental health issues and the community until relatively recently was the solution that we used in the african-american community there was a piece in "the new york times" about two weeks ago and it was talking about how heroin use was rising on the people and i couldn't help but note the benevolent tone that was taken when you talk about heroine use to the time i grew up in the
1980s when we were very much worried and i was worried about crack, to back mac but it wasn't benevolent or sympathetic in argument for birth -- incarceration. >> why don't we talk about that a little bit. there was a crime rates were higher in the 60s and 70s when the country embarked but you also made the argument that as you were alluding to that the crime was connected to the deeper history and portrayal of black criminality in this country. >> when i started giving the article i lived through the kind that was no disputing that it froze three items in baltimore. i knew my parents understood the neighborhood when they were growing up that one of the
mysteries was the fact -- >> sorry, everybody. >> one of the disabilities for me is in fact when you draw back and look at the world as a whole during the period, crying didn't just rise in the community and didn't just rise in america infected rose in canada and england and this was an international phenomenon. the united states is unique for increasing incarceration as a solution. and i think that's unique. the draconian nature is very different. how do we end up in the world's
population in the prison population how do we end up in a situation where we have an incarceration rate of 700 per 100,000 barely 40 years ago we had a rate of about 160. how do we end up with a situation where our competitor is russia with an incarceration rate. that can't be separated from the fact we have a very unique population of this country, and a very unique history with that group of people. >> the forum continues to live on c-span. federal, state and religious officials are participating in all of the sessions will re- air tonight at eight eastern also on c-span. next discussion of the history, motivations and strategy s. that dug into the roots. its leadership structure, how
the group was influenced in its current operations and trajectory. >> welcome to the iss. we are here to talk about the confusion of isis. i've been asked about this from time to time. we have two notable guests. one published a fascinating book on the rise. he's a journalist from the "washington post" who joined the national staff in 96 and has covered the national security intelligence in the middle east.
his previous best selling book has a triple agent i asked about shortly and helped inspire this book and how close they read it because it's not in the introduction. second, we have melanie was an associate professor at the department of social sciences at west point and a senior associate at the combating terrorism center at west point. and more importantly, she will be joining us as a research fellow at iiss x. 20 and i'm told to warn you that her views no way reflect anything about
the military or the army. so we will have a discussion about 20 minutes and then i will turn over to the audience or q-and-a. so the record will be recorded. first i would ask the book fascinatingly focused on a number of individuals especially the story of zarqawi and his rise in jordan and release from prison in northern iraq. but it also tells us the story of a number of key figures who
tried to find him and the story of how he led the insurgency in iraq. i'm wondering if you took this approach for purely narrative reasons as a journalist or if you feel that the rise is a related story about the individuals and their own contingencies and in other words could they have been competitive in the jordanian prison or do they hold on for example? >> thank you to iiss for being such a good resource for the journalists and policymakers and members of the public over the years and also to add it to the
congratulations for unlike some of our friends across the group that comes to mind whose also iiss and has a problem to give it explaining they are not the other isis. so good going on that. yes i think the starting point for me i'm a storyteller by nature. when he was still active in iraq after he went away because it became clear his importance was underrecognized and what he was able to create was quite unique and he moves into a space where they became a huge challenge for us to classify the country and
he did it very politically even though in many ways he is the most least suited for the least qualified person to lead. here's a guy that's never finished high school, he'd been arrested for petty crime as a kid, went off to fight and didn't do particularly well and this is the chance to fight because he got there too late but then he threw a series of circumstances with some unique ideas and ways of either rejected as being too brutal but he had such a powerful following, an interesting group that he formed around itself but they became a strategic force against him so there was an important story that needs to be told and broken down and understood that becomes so much more important than the context because i argue in the book that without zarqawi there is no isis because most of the things we see today that the focus on
building this is not an al qaeda idea but it's something that he decided had to be done immediately as a short-term proposition focusing building as a field of dreams into the successors to death more overtly but he was talking about that as it related in 2005 and 2006 that also he was the innovator of this idea through the sheer brutality achieving your objectives he didn't care about the popularity or want to be liked by others. he wanted to be respected and he wanted to make things happen by shaking things up. policing men in orange jumpsuits and cutting their heads off doing that the first time in 2004. so that's an important story and one we need to understand now if we want to understand isis. the other thing that's important is i argue that zarqawi as we
know you wouldn't have existed without the series of steps by an a number of outside individuals and parties including our own government and we got into detail about that as more goes on and i just wanted to try to help the readers and not just people in our world being saturated by this but help us understand all the points how it all came together and to create first of all this monster that was formed in 2004 essentially independent movement that followed such as isis today >> usually social sciences don't like to focus on individuals. what in your mind were the main circumstances that led to the rise of isis? the ideological reaction,
opponents to the authoritarian regimes? cynic first thank you for inviting me to this event and to be meeting. i'm also looking forward to be joining. if i may say something about the buck and from his book at the beginning, so one of the things he tells us about the book is the bombing that was carried out initially by the group that they tried to target an adult cinema and the would-be bomber was seen last at the film he was watching and forgot about the mission he was supposed to carry out and nobody -- he bought his -- lost his life.
they did something similar to me because i thought of reading it while i was on the train and on that day there were some mechanical difficulties on the train, and apparently we needed to change trains and everybody left but me. i couldn't hear the announcement of the one of the train conductors said you really need to leave the train. so i found myself enjoying many of these stories and aspects that i haven't read elsewhere and i do want to commend you on taking us back to the early period. since june 2014 when i was proclaimed to be the caliphate
sacrifice and of the need to die for a cause and so on. and i think that we are seeing a different kind of its they decided they wanted to the jihadis and we see some of those differences between the narrative side and between the prc at the end today. so i think in that respect the books fill an important gap that i do want to say also that there were aspects of the book that it doesn't -- we still have gaps in understanding the foundation and i think there was a serious gap in the book from 2006 to around
2011. so i'm studying the leadership of what was called the islamic state of iraq between 2006 to 2010 and i do think that it could only be neglected and i do think that there is something that has been underestimated about this period particularly because it was he declared the state. the islamic state of iraq was under him. he was the one who proclaimed it. also another phase i would like to note a little bit more about in order to have a better appreciation which is the time when you describe and when he
devoted himself this is when he became part and here this is a very important time because we saw many groups in iraq we actually joined under the umbrella into the group was one of many and we saw many serious divides. we saw many of the groups even appealing to bin laden on what kind of a disaster did you bring from these groups. so this is very important. and if there was one report i don't know whether -- i don't know about its authenticity. the report suggests he was actually the leader of the mujahedin and are we missing a
story and when i read his statement and so on, he provides the theorizing of the beheading. so he did it and when they chastised him he stopped it. now we may say that there was no state and of course it was weak and so on but the hierarchy and the infrastructure of the state at least on paper in all these areas show the signs of operations and various other operations that were mounted at the time during the era and i wonder why they counted up to him to have stages in the book. >> because that's your book. [laughter]
>> i would like to ask about your time in jordan as i said before what helped inspire this book it's clear that he went to remote places including prisons and facilities i'm wondering if you can talk about general people that you met from the jordanian intelligence director and the role in the security establishment and how that contributed possibly positively or negatively to the story in general. >> i think that they are a central characters to the story for obvious reasons of course he was a jordanian and at the same
time as i understand he's not part of the movement out of the muslim brotherhood. he was influenced more by his experience in afghanistan and coming back to jordan years later helping start the attempted bombings they could never pull off he didn't have a single successful attack ever and the ones that we saw most famously the just described by nelly. but what was important and what came out of it come out of the story is jordan's role is interested in doing containment of the groups they saw in the early '90s with these afghan
fighters coming back to the country looking for things to do being radicalized in the military training and getting into trouble. so a pretty sophisticated containment altercation began at the time to read it was pretty knew they had to deal with the various actions but this is the sort of homegrown terrorist problem that they were having to deal with and quite brutally at times so there was a combination of two things they do very well. they have extremely good penetration which i think it is easier to do in a small country but i've always been impressed by the fact that because good graphics of everything going on or seemed to in the country if they control the potential troublemakers particularly years ago in the '90s. the old headquarters had that reputation in mind and the nickname used to be the fingernail factory so they've become a little bit more -- a little rough around the edges
but they are keeping people in prison for quite a long period of time until there is a threat. the sort of ideological partner in the present days was the sort of palestinian who had sort of the philosophy that started the movement in prison and after they were released and the general amnesty and 99 that the jordanians solve the threats saw the thread but kept them essentially in prison until just a few months ago and would let him out whenever he was putting out messages that they supported criticizing him for example but they've been very effective at controlling the sum of these groups and they have a bigger problem now because it isn't just the jordanian problem with the number of that the number of
outsiders particularly unjust in the refugee camps but others as well and also the problem of having isis on two sides of the border in iraq and syria so the problem is amplified in the last couple of years. they are continuing complaining to me when i speak to them about how not just a resource problem but they feel disadvantaged and shortchanged on the challenge that is unique and they are a sensual to keeping them from progressing further and they don't feel they have the support they need to suppress a tragic element to what happened in the country to be impacted in outside forces that had disastrous economically and all the levels, to back. >> did you pick up any.
one mistake that was made into the jordanians would acknowledge back in the '90s they kept them together into this became a tactical decision and they were affecting the regulars, the other ordinary particles and they chose to put them all together into the buck is eventually opens up. they were in this jail but was abandoned years before the baby over and put them in here and it became kind of a university with all kinds of stories of torture and beatings and things like that hard to get the version in many cases that drives them together to create a more
radical and that becomes the problem that comes back to many fold over years later. i think now there's much more emphasis in part of the efforts today with good human intelligence and ordinary officers. we think of them as dealing with families of young men who were going into the camps working with parents and siblings and making street-level care of attention being paid to potential problems. it makes them remarkably if you look at the region stable compared to the other neighbors. >> can you, going back to isis today can you help us situate them in the spectrum of islamist
groups and talk little bit about the difference where al qaeda and how that evolved? scenic shore. he was the one time mentor and normally i prefer to call them jihadis. others i consider to be groups who use islam as part of their political agenda but they are willing to conduct elections for political parties and they are part of the political process, whereas they have the legitimacy of the process altogether. so on the spectrum i think that we encounter the groups that came to form ice is through the
lens of the writing he is the ideologues whose writings provided the foundation of that brand of sectarianism within jihad is. of bin laden and al qaeda for isis is of pragmatism of the sort. so they became quite popular among the followers of the religion of abraham, and in it he provided the scenes for that sectarianism that would actually adopt and run with. they have since said that others have used his writings but they didn't really abuse them.
if you read his writings you know that he's he is the one that reneged on his thoughts but they didn't abuse him and thought to get into too much technicalities about this but, the main difference, and this is the difference that was very clear to bin laden when they first met back in 1999 they didn't want to have anything to do with him because of differences to deal with the concept or the notions. i don't want to get too technical but these are the kind of social contract issues if you like of the jihadis or in this case the global contract. that notion with whom do you want to associate in terms of believers. and with whom do you want to associate whereas with al qaeda and bin laden they wanted to focus and emphasize the value of bringing people together.
they were concerned from the people that you need to associate precisely because they didn't share your beliefs and they didn't really reject the way they ought to reject them and so on and for those who actually emphasized that aspect on the basis of belief, they were resorting to that when a muslim declares fellows to be unbelievers. including bin laden and even people like bin laden and they were very careful about that and they would utilize it. mainstream muslims will tell you you've got to decide the
intention because ultimately you can only decide against those that have the ballot and they thought that they really wanted to cleanse if you like and peer via the face from the belief that they disapproved of and they were not as puritanical as of services where the ideological spectrum where we see the roots of that sectarian ideology emerging out of the writings and zarqawi becomes the arm that advances it. he was one of the people that are fighting alongside zarqawi and he died in iraq and how dare
you sent him to the battlefield this is a a guy that was commenting and making advancing short on issues to deal with religious beliefs and so on. so from that respect we see a clear difference between the strategically oriented jihadis and those that wanted to use religion to advance the objectives and those that were sectarian who were prepared to sacrifice the strategic objectives in order to purify the pace and tension was always culpable. even bin laden and he knew right then and there when they met him but they also say in fact liter
on they had refused to teach the books in the training camps and that's why he didn't want to join al qaeda initially. but then later on, bin laden and others were more pragmatically drawn into democracy when he became more interesting to me that these issues were -- he was facing the regime and also of using those that followed his views because he was prepared to revisit or say something of his disciples every time he wanted easily -- ethylene sentence from the establishment if you look at the trajectory in and out of prison it's one where he was
willing to make concessions and soon thereafter we see him being released from prison. >> do you want to add anything? okay. i will ask one more question to you. you described in the book i think quite well about the military advancement into the development of these fusion cells under the general crystal that were highly mobile included special forces together with intelligence analysis and resources as being the only breakthroughs against the fight of insurgency in all qaeda in iraq. with that in mind, do you see anything that we can learn from isis now in other words, the war
that's been going on for over a year sort of unwinnable without that kind of action on the ground? and certainly the special operators in syria are not enough but do you see that trend heading in any direction because of the success. it took them three years to get it up and running in the trial and error and he would say some baldheaded mistakes early on but essentially brought the movement on its heels is two things come of the awakening that happened to coincide with this improved tactic and the other part was the intelligence special
operations fusion group. it was during these in the distance or even large troop operations for high tempo intelligence capture and kill or kill and capture going after al qaeda every single night that are on our side but essentially go out, get up and have breakfast for dinner and they would go out at night and they would hit a safe houses they would collect intelligence and use it immediately to go after a second target so it was high tempo never giving them time to recoup or to regather if they were effective at taking on the second and third tier commanders and eventually killing coming out of the operation. a couple problems translating
that into current situation is of course one we have full control over iraq at the time of the airspace of the cooperative government with the significant resources and to do what we wanted to do but the effect is a relatively small groups that make a big difference but ultimately helped environment are sitting with intelligence votes in 2008 were convinced at the time they finished it and had been defeated has been defeated have turned out not to be the case. it timothy noah's isis today and i think that you see the movement of small groups and special operations professionals into the theater now and there's some indication that there is the hope to reprise the formula using global forces and the courage of using others are with advisers and trainers and instructors to help the
successful experiment so they can do that in a country like syria without full control airspace into the kind of intelligence that we have in iraq that's a huge question. >> i think there's time for q&a. so please identify yourself and keep your questions as short as possible. >> thank you for your discussion. i want to preface my question with a rather cynical observation. but if the current condition of the political process system of governance were in existence in 1941 b. would be speaking. my question is this.
since september 11, 2 administrations have made a strategic errors that strategic errors that range from catastrophic to ludicrous. he failed to answer the one last question the obama administration draws red wines and training five people in the special forces. how do you account for that is this in our dna and are and are the problems to tie for the political process such that it's difficult to make rational strategic choices that ultimately effective? >> that is the million dollar question. all i can offer to that is that it's instructive to look at these ample to see the failures that happened again and again often because we didn't ask the question what comes next or we didn't have the vision to see what was around the corner in the case of the obama administration they were thrust in the middle of this movement and nobody knew what to do and
seeing our good allies see in our good allies threatened and toppled and deciding if a project more american interests to decide the demonstrator even though we were not sure what's going to happen next i think we were hopeful something good come out of it and we've seen in almost every case it's been a disaster. and how we could have gotten ahead of that it's just a tough one. but whatever the case i think that i remember talking to folks here and also in the region convinced that it is going to fall and of course he's going to and we will have them come in and have a stable government in this critical place and it didn't begin to happen and now in a situation even with all everyone there, where does this end? no one can still answer that question. we don't know where it's gone
and we can't come up with good answers about how to solve it. >> from the center for american progress you said at the end that at the end of the operation transition to isis and i want to ask a question about why. both described the deed of education and disbandment as tragic mistakes but in fact they were part of the agenda and i don't think they were tragic mistakes. i think they were very deliberate policies that were pursued by the administration at the time. so what happened to those that were affected and why was zarqawi -- where were all of those that is in the iraqi
military people while zarqawi was organizing, why didn't they have a role and why didn't we see only zarqawi and described him as the opposition to the american occupation? >> i think this is part of the genius whether it was to liberate or just opportunistic. but here is someone who believed long before the organization took place that he was going to have a great battle. he missed out on the chance to find that the war was going to happen and he was going to be there on the ground. he brought this mix of these g. jihadis for fighting the infidel out of iraq but quickly joined forces with the locals so there
was a mix and suddenly the unemployed poetry officers who had didn't really share the position to how to run the society but the opposition to run with the extremist elements so the professional iraqis bureaucrats and military officers with these fanatical was the combination that made the movement so powerful and is behind success today. you have guys i'm convinced in the senior leadership that don't particularly share some of the ideological views of those like baghdad he could both see the value as a weapon going after the government for reclaiming and that is the sort of
innovation that began into the heart of what isis is today. but look at these as mistakes and every one of those decisions was quite quite literate including the one i described in some detail in the book the idea trying to create at the time an unknown figure in 2002 and 2003 and this kind of poster child is the connection between the government and al qaeda which didn't exist and they were convinced at the time that they had no connection with colin powell goes to the united nations and makes his case for the invasion of 2003 and put this and puts his picture on the screen before the council saying this is what we are talking about, this horrible problem that became part. >> if i may add prior to 2003.
it was kind of the ticket that you needed in order to get into the universities were so that the application had enormous impact but still have to be part of the party and that's why the new regime in 2003 but lost many talents and they were actually excluded. i do want to say many of them actually ended up fighting and form groups and it was the natural thing for them to do in fact alongside zarqawi until he started to get to go have a little bit better and once they started to get to know him better, we find that there was an enormous divide between
zarqawi and others and in fact it was one of his very first public statements he called on them to join if to say we call on you particularly those that are in the military he called on them to join the islamic state of iraq so long as they could have basic knowledge and so on and he is the one that did the outreach. >> just to add to that is clear in an effort for pretty amazing things early on the first the attack in 2003 attributed against the un compound in baghdad against the jordanian
embassy facilities all using what improvised bombs made from the aircraft initiative so aircraft initiatives are the result from the inside providing not just to be equipment but also the intelligence that get from outside the country able to have an intelligence that worked pretty quickly to plan the coordinated attacks and have them powerful and locally produced all of which points to the help from the well played source.
>> in the most recent years we have seen increasing islamic states activity in afghanistan and other areas outside the region. what evidence did you see of people in syria and iraq are they providing an example or is there leadership advisors, do you see any evidence or link of this example? spin it that is a question that is still needs to be fully answered in my view. i've been convinced that it's mostly by example that sometimes communicated their own propaganda and they speak to their stick to their own facebook posts and things like that giving the encouragement from the organizations around the region. it will be interesting to see what happens ultimately with the
doubting of the russian planes that couple weeks ago because if that doesn't turn out to be produced bob then the question is at a local affiliate they were able to put together or is that something that was directed at somehow the equipment and supplies and know-how. a centralized command and control capabilities of the qc beheadings in places like afghanistan just a couple of days ago it seems to me there's just a lot of e-echo going on but i think that it's crazy to move the coordination ideas and logistics. >> let's take three questions from the back.
the prevailing opinion is that the united states is behind the islamic state. it's how the state obtained those hundreds of brand-new 2005 pickups that they look over the takeover of northern iraq. >> it strikes me when dealing with an adversary or enemy the idea of giving credibility is always a dangerous thing. in how they are branded and how that effectively gives the credibility.
>> i mean his breath. thank you for being here. i wanted to ask if you could talk a little bit about recruitment and how isis has influenced the ability to recruit and how the processes have changed as a result. >> i will ask you to start with this question and in addition to the islamist isis branding you talk about perhaps who in the islamic world has some credibility about condemning the efforts by the king abdullah and various clerics to speak out
against them but how has that worked and where that's going and i will ask the general about the iraqi contribution to the rise of isis which i think stems more to the fact that they've taken over a lot of big bases and equipment that are from the iraqi army that are better trained than it turns out to be. so, -- >> sure. but they start with this question about what he called them into the issue on credibility here. i think one broad issue when we analyze groups like iss and so
on at the salon is important to realize and to understand when religion matters, however matters but more importantly, when it does not matter. and this is unfortunately lacking any analysis because we see sometimes religion as being a medium for opposition, political participation for something completely different ativan theological issues and this is where i think theology and the efforts to bring in the clerics and give us the three lecture on the islamic tradition and so on and it's not mitigated simply because of the spiritual reasons but because they really want to do something and this talks about the recruitment part of it borders on the recruitment part because here i think first
we need some time to work out what is behind that recruitment strategy and to understand the phenomenon. my colleagues are doing a broad study about foreign fighters looking at a very, very large data set based on that choice and literally that will give us at some point answers about why people join and so on. but roughly speaking, we are seeing from my own perspective we are seeing a different kind of people that are joining and here theology doesn't seem to be something that is critical because we are seeing many young people that are converting to join. and islam is a ticket to becoming the ticket to becoming a slum so this is very important
and it cannot be stressed enough. but at the same time we can't really. i think the group the islamic state is best described by al qaeda. it called itself the islamic state. it's the group of the state. this is a more accurate description. i'm a little bit concerned and cynical you are all contained in the islamic state. so it's appropriating that it is a group and it is not the state and the sense that it's not seeking a seat at the united nations nor is it going to have a seat on the united nations.
so, i think some of the things we need to acknowledge and have groups define themselves. because when you study them we need to acknowledge our part. but at the same time, we need to stress the other aspects as well. >> before you leave, and you can create a new acronym that they are quite successful at. >> you can forgive people in the region for having all kinds of conspiracy theories for the notion that it is somehow a u.s. funded or some way. how pervasive some of these theories are and there's a lot of people that educated people and people who really follow the news and are convinced that it is a creation of iran and others that are convinced that they are backing isis in some ways the
biggest argument is maybe the pickup truck argument that's absolutely true that it's a remarkable amount of western equipment in this case japanese trucks but all of us left behind by american forces and contractors in all these contractors that ran the basis that did the food preparation and logistical stuff going hundred 50,000 american troops they left their equipment behind. so you have parking lots full of these vehicles and isis that liberated them. so we have to have the whole divisions worth of tanks of humvees, you name it. typically the best equipped terrorist organization the world has ever seen. because we worry so much as a country and of giving to this area and rebel groups because if
they fall in the hands of isis but they have their own bases in iraq and took the stuff of themselves so that's where we are. >> any other burning questions? thank you for this discussion. i am working for the words of america and my first question is to the actors that came from the west to join isis and my question is whether or not you have any information on the possible connections between isis and some organizations in the west like the far right or other radical organizations. ..
♪ ♪ ♪'s been good evening. thank you for joining us tonight for a debate between the runoff candidates for governor of louisiana. we have a 40 year tradition of contributing to the democratic process and tonight we continue that this debate and other public forums. this tradition is a very viable one for all of us and we welcome you for this entire audience this evening. thank you. >> i am barry erwin, president for council for better louisiana thank you for joining us. our debate tonight features the candidates in the runoff for louisiana governor. versus state representative john bel edwards and just senator david vitter. thank you both for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> join us with questions that are due questions that are are churchill's, kerry, aspires a reporter and producer at louisiana public broadcasting and jeremy hallford, editor of law politics.com. >> and i will attempt to cover a lot of territory as we dove into topics and issues of great importance to the voters and citizens of louisiana.
a drawing was held earlier to determine the order of questioning and the order closing statements. the format is designed to encourage a dialogue between the two candidates. >> we will touch on seven subject areas. accounting style of the candidates, elementary and secondary education, the budget and taxes, workforce development, health care, infrastructure, and issues related to each candidate's campaign. our panels provide background on a topic and post a question to start the conversation. then candidates will return to ask each other questions. the panelists will ask follow-up questions to ensure clarity and responsiveness in the answer. >> we begin by exploring the governing styles of the two candidates and to get us started is kelly spires and show posed the question to mr. vitter. >> yes. let's talk about your management style. one of the two of you will be the next ceo of our state with tens of thousands of employers and the multibillion-dollar
budget. what experience have you had in executive management? mr. vitter? edwards: i managed my senate office or so here's antidote to folks who interact with that on any number of issues particularly louisianians who we fight for and work with, they will tell you it is a very, very responsive senate office. i've hands on. that's my style. very different quite frankly and bobby jindal has been criticized for being aloof not given with legislators, not talking with others directly. very hands-on hundreds, thousands of people have my personal cell phone number. i am accessible and i get in the weeds of important issues. i have great staff to help me. i help direct them. but i did in the weeds the that and leave them there to actively. again the proof is in the pudding and i think in that i have built a solid, solid record of accomplishment. in fact, i would put my record of concrete accomplishment on
issue after issue after issue next to anyone from the highway bill that we're working on now to culture regulation efforts more than a leader, hurricane recovery, saving flood insurance for louisiana because we have to reform that to get it right for louisiana citizens. >> mr. edwards. vitter:.edwards: . thank you for the question. i was commission and esa's army. ultimate i commanded a rifle company in the 82nd airborne division. that is an executive position as a commander responsible for 150 paratroopers. when we would go to the field and train, that number would grow sometimes 250. also i've worked the last eight years as a state representative managing the office and being chairmen of committees in the legislature that word -- requires me to call committee meetings and issue the agenda,
whether it was being on the military and veterans special committee in the house of representatives which by the i resurrected the committee. it had gone dormant. i used that committee to do a lot of work on behalf of veterans across the state from strengthened our war veterans homes to making sure that cemeteries were open and our parish service offices remained in place in the parishes to enable our veterans to access the services that they are entitled to. >> now gentlemen, it's your turn to ask each other question. mr. vitter, you ask mr. edwards first. mr. edwards you have one minute to respond and then you have a three-second rebuttal. the topic is about governing style threat to john, i would ask about governing style. you often talk about shared sacrifice, particularly given the enormous challenges we face as a state. but what i look at your concrete record, others a picture concrete record, i don't see
that shared sacrifice required of politicians, your legislative colleagues, other insiders in the system. i see something different. very soon after coming into office you voted for yourself getting 123% pay raise. in addition you voted for yourself to get a per diem increase on top of that. you have opposed significant ethics reform, opposed a bill to mandate penalties on government employees who take illegal gifts. oppose greater transparency for elected officials. you have expressed opposition to the concept of term limits. so eventually does go to governing style. what real sacrifice will you ask a political insiders, the politicians not just hard-working taxpayers who seem to have to pay more and more and more for government? edwards: >> you have been sideways in the public crossed since 1982. $40,000 per year more now in the
senate when you got elected to the senate. that's more than i make, you make more per month than i make in a year. so i'm not going to take a backseat to you on any of these issues that you just raise. in fact, i voted for every single bill in the first ethics reform special session that we had in 2008. so shared sacrifice absolutely. that is shared sacrifice. i have led by example. i'm very proud of the work that i've done in the legislature on a whole range of issues. you ask, so me different things their breath than one question. but i will tell you as relates to term limits, i believe that are turning those already. every office has a certain term whether it's four years or six years come and the voters are able to decide whether to stay in office or not. they are able when they want to
to turn someone out of office. i think you're going to extremes that pretty soon. edwards: again i think this illustrates the differences between us in terms of philosophy. velocity about governing. i've always body cams the political establishment because quite frankly i think the political establishment is way too isolated from normal voters and they don't understand normal voters everyday lives. that's what i thought automatic pay raises. that's why never joined the congressional retirement system, will not get a penny from every. that's why fought a special obama to exemption and don't get that taxpayer-funded subsidy even though my colleagues in congress do. certainly i led the fight to establish term limits in louisiana. i believe in that concept and to think we need to return to citizen legislators, not politics as a profession. >> mr. edwards come it's your turn to pose a question to mr. vitter. edwards: sure. david come in the last 16 years
you've only past five of 565 bills that you've authored. you've been called the most corrupt member of congress three times. you been named the least effective member of congress in either party and you don't show up for work. the best indicator of what someone is going to do to is what they did yesterday. your behavior shows you are a virtual bobby jindal clone, more concerned with helping friends and your personal gratification than being accountable to voters and taxpayers. how is it that you don't represent a third bobby jindal term? vitter: first of all i share your completely misrepresented my record. you talk about bills you introduce i passed. you to look at things i fought for, worked with others on on a bipartisan basis. was a prime author on a day pass and a record of a parser that comes with i will put next to anybody comes from including yours. for instance, and water
resources bill that i cowrote with barbara boxer of california, enormous import for the maritime sector our economy, for coastal restoration. important measures like fixing the flood insurance crisis. i helped lead that effort. yes with others on a bipartisan basis. coastal restoration. i've been extremely involved in that helping make huge progress we've made in the last several years to fund the work we need to do. hurricane recovery, i worked nonstop with our delegation, with others to pull us out of that dark time in terms of recovery from katrina and rita and those other disasters. steve gleason act which we just passed into law so it's a very full, robust record of bipartisan accomplishment. >> your rebuttal. edwards: five-65 bills doesn't speak for itself. you have been named the least effective member of congress pick up one of the worst attendance records in the united
states senate of all of those members, of all 100 of them. you certainly said that you endorse bobby jindal three times. i like bobby, i respect his leadership and i agree with all his political values. that's your record. >> follow-up question? >> i would like to bring it back to the state legislature and how y'all interact with lawmakers. would y'all have a plan to testify in front of committees or would you not? spent i would. as i said a few minutes ago, i'm a very hands-on person. i would be interacting with individual legislators all the time as i do know. most of them have my personal cell and interact with and constantly. i would be on the floor off the floor in committees, whatever it took. that's a very different governing style than we've seen in the last several years. i have exhibited that governor style and the senate i think with real effectiveness.
>> mr. edwards, would you like to continue? edwards: i will testify, i will lead from the front, by example, i will do so in support of the bills that i'm proposing to the legislature. i will meet with not just the leadership of with rank-and-file members as well both in house and the senate. i will tell you i haven't had a meeting with bobby jindal now in many, many months. certainly predating this most recent legislative session. that is not my leadership style. >> moving onto the next topic at the next topic k-12 education. >> as they stay we've seen reforms and changes over the past 20 years including school accountability measures for teachers and students, growth in the recovery school district, charter schools. this is in addition to vouchers and school choice mechanisms. aside from common core, i know that's a big list, could you pick a couple of those he would keep her strengthened or get rid of from that list that i just
went through? edwards: sure. i'm going to support charter schools. when charter schools help the parishes and the parishes obviously are in need of help. however, i believe in local control of education. i believe that local taxpayers and voters and tears off to be able to hold their school board members accountable for how dollars are spent and children are educated. under our accountability system is a district have an a or b. letter grade i did not have a final decision of whether any charter school opens in the district or not. if the letter grade is below, i think would be appropriate for the best for the board had the opportunity to review and perhaps reverse the denial of the charter application. i also no plans to in the voucher system. it was unconstitutional when it was passed. i voted against it for the reason and certainly the supreme court held that it was unconstitutional. i will not end up but i will
conform to its stated purpose. it will be to give parents of kids are trapped in failing schools a choice. >> united states this is a huge issue or john bel and i have dramatically different records. it look at the pacific record you'll see that. on all of those reform efforts, i've been an active leader for charters all the way for voucher scholarships all the way. choice fundamentally empowers parents, particularly from poor families coming teachers and faith-based leaders. also accountability i've been strong in support of the. john bel's record is consistent in the opposite direction. he can try to talk a good teamed talk a good enough for the record is the record and is consistent in the opposite direction against charter. he would love those opportunities as he just admitted voting against the voucher scholarship proposal when it first came out. voted consistently against accountability over and over and over because fundamentally he's been doing the work and charting
the course of the teachers union, not parents, not empowering parents who need it the most. >> thank you. it's now your opportunity to pose a question to mr. vitter on this topic of education. edwards: just lik like bobby jil within usage as you're all the same political values you were for common core before you against it. in fact, you are a strong supporter of common core, and you are against it in a fundraising letter, then you were for it again and now you have flip-flopped again and you want me to believe, typically that you are against it. you have put your personal interest ahead of the common interest and with the political winds change, so do you. so just like bobby jindal you put personal ambition of what is best for our students and teachers. so on this issue why should louisiana parish trust you today? vitter: john bel, utah about common core first of all. it said at the press club quote
with respect to the common core of state standards i'm okay with those standards, closed quote. you supported that. you said that. it is used it in the advocate in 2014 quote, the standards themselves are fine, closed quote. you said quote, there is no communist conspiracy about common core. this is a some federal takeover of education. you said that about common core. not me. i have a specific concrete plan to get us out of common core, to get us out of the park test. it's been part of my plan in this governors race all along. it's all that david vitter.com part of aikido but on all the major challenges we face. edwards: i've been voting against common core since it was first brought to the legislature in 2014. that is my record, 2014 and in 2015. i did make statements such that the standards themselves are not a communist conspiracy but i've never said the standards ought to be adopted in wholesale
fashion in louisiana without being vetted by our parents, educators and make changes where necessary. that has been my record from the beginning. i have been against common core. my voting record is 100% consistent on that. i have never the clock. you flip-flop and then flip-flopped again. vitter: john bel, i want to go back to this choice in education issue because i really think it's the premier civil rights issue of our time, whether every child in louisiana and america is the right to a great education. as we discussed before you are in favor of greatly limiting the opportunity to establish charter schools. you wouldn't allow it unless an entire school system is drf. you propose that before. that would cut out 6800 students in lafayette parish, for instance, who were in d. who were in deep or at the school should be able to enjoy new
charter schools statewide that's 170,000 kids who are in drf schools. what do you say to those poor families who are not going to get those full charter opportunities because of your specific legislation? edwards: first of all when it comes to vouchers, i voted against the skin because it was unconstitutional. my oath of office means something to me. ms. eshoo support the constitution and laws of the united states and a state of louisiana, i take that seriously. my decision was affirmed by the supreme court. when that happened, $24 million that had been stolen from local public school district had to be returned so those students you're talking about could receive the services they were entitled to. i believe in local control of education. when a school district is performing well it out to be in control of the decisions about whether a new charter school will open.
otherwise the creation of a charter schools going to divert funding away from the programs that make a school district successful to begin with. i believe that is the right thing to do because if local parents and taxpayers and voters don't have the ability to hold their school board members accountable for how dollars are spent and how children are educated, italy and out of time before they stop. authorized new taxes or even the renewal of taxes, that will harm our children. vitter: as you know in all of those school systems are talking about, or are failin failing sc, biarritz could you limit and trap those students without the choices that more charters as well as voucher scholarships would give them. the record is the record and you can try to talk a good game but the record is the record. and on education you've thought all of these reforms every step of the way. you fought the voucher scholarships. you try to limit charters. you have offered at least four different bills to curtail
charter schools. certainly accountability. you haven't consists of the post-common core. you have consistent impose accountability and that's what you're trying to point to in terms of suppose about position of common core spirit we are out of time on this particular topic but we go to the next one with kelly and it would be post to mr. vitter. >> louisiana has been given a significant budget cuts for the last several years. issue the legislature raised more than $700 million in new revenues yet another huge shortfall looms. given where we stand today do we solve our problem by further shrinking state government, or should we match our revenue, she would better match revenue with spending? vitter: quite frankly we need to do both. i have a balanced approach on both sides of the equation. i laid out this approach months ago in my detailed plan that on a website that david vitter.com. i said the first thing i would do when i'm sworn in as governor
is call a special legislation session focuses closely on this but i would start on the spending side and structurally i would propose reforms to i'm dedicate most areas of the budget so we can roll up our sleeves, get in the weeds and cut spending in those areas that we can't afford or wasteful or are off limits. that's the biggest structural reason higher ed has gotten disproportionate cuts. i've been specific about that. i said yes on the tax side that we need to broaden the tax base, it rid of certain exemptions and credits and deductions that don't produce for the economy. don't produce for the taxpayer. i'vi have given several examplen our plan. something as opposed to john bel, i would have a balanced approach that looks good at both sides of the equation. >> mr. edwards? edwards: we have to both. you always look for new ways to create efficiencies and deliver state services with a cost
savings. you've got to expand your flexibility to allocate cuts across a broader spectrum of the budget so you're not focusing those on higher education and health care and other critical priorities. you did episode public at the statutory dedications and also the constitutional dedications but those are hard and take longer because you got to get two-thirds vote in the legislature and approved by the voters themselves. we are going to accept federal dollars back into louisiana. when they help us meet our obligations to our people and save us money we will do that present with the medicaid expansion. i would say we are going to focus on growing the economy and the way that produces net new revenue where we're not incentivizing for growth to the point whether that revenue to show for it. as far superior as force raising tax rates fort sumter we have to reduce or limit tax giveaways that cost too much can don't produce return on investment. we can create savings to reallocate to our higher
priority items. items. >> you ask the first question on budget and tax. vitter: it goes directly to this. john bel talks about a balanced approach by john bell, your record is a very different. it's another every when we had completely if it records what you think suggest would lead a very different direction. this past year in the legislative session, you voted for enormous taxes, $2.1 billion. you have a plan on your website that you are touting that is $1.54 billion tax increase on the 161,000 families that are involved. and yet you have never specifically offered a single piece of legislation to i'm dedicate any area of the budget to give never offered a single piece of legislation to cut in those areas. that is not a balanced record so why should voters believe you said you're going to take a
balanced approach when the concrete record is very, very different? is all toxic and no budget reform, no cuts. edwards: what the voters shouldn't believe issued and that ridiculous question that you just asked with figures that you just made up out of thin air. my record is very clear. i did vote for exactly the sort of things that i just talked about, reducin reducing tax givs that cost much and don't produce enough return on investment to create savings that we then reallocate to higher priority items like saving lsu which was threatened with bankruptcy this year fred upton so. i think ensure our charity hospital system state open. like making sure the medical school in shreveport have the money to continue to operate. those with hard choices that we had to make this year. i did vote for those measures because it was right thing to do and they are fully consistent with what i just said i will continue to do as our cover. because we're not going to stay
in this ditch we are in under bobby jindal. we're going to roll up our sleeves can work together and pull ourselves out as sort financing our priorities. that is my commitment to the people of louisiana. vitter: i think you proved my point. i asked what is a balance side. you talk about a tax measure can be rid of an exemption or a credit or deduction which is essentially a tax increase. we need a balanced approach in your record is all taxes, no budget reform and no savings. that's the record. you have authored a single bill to i'm dedicate any part of the budget or if i'm missing it, please david vitter you have authored a signal to go in those areas and cut the budget it's just not there. you have never proposed that, never led in that effort but you voted for $2.1 billion of taxes this year and you're proposing much more on top of that.
edwards: david, your pledge to grover norquist cause you to repeatedly to vote to send our jobs overseas. jobs of louisiana, jobs americans. bobby jindal's pledge to grover norquist cost our state's budget to implode. you have been unfaithful to louisiana taxpayers, and why should they believe that you have changed? vitter: don bell, as you know i've taken no pledge to grover norquist india with our challenges in the state budget, and i've laid out a truly balanced approach in terms of doing that. also you constantly refer to bobby jindal and i get that politically. the fact of the matter is that i on several occasions publicly fought, bided heads, disagreed with bobby jindal on important things. his use of one time i to plug the budget hole. you voted for that a lot. i am posting very vocally in
2012 on that. i led the charge to stop abusive legacy laws. he did what to do that and you were on his side, and i dragged him kicking and screaming to propose and pass that reform. so i disagree with him on a number of occasions. in contrast, when have you ever publicly disagreed strongly with your party leader, barack obama quacks when did you take him on publicly? we need you stand up at the total democratic national convention and said no, he's wrong on this, he's wrong on obamacare, he's wrong on gay marriage or anything else? it's never happened in any sort of clear, public way. edwards: you're wrong, you have signed the grover norquist anti-tax -- kind of how am i wrong with disagreeing publicly with barack obama quacks. edwards: you just like. you sign the grover norquist tax point when you in
washington, d.c. in fact i stood up against the present with respect to the moratorium. i voted for a resolution calling on him to direct the secretary of intricate take that moratorium down. just the other day i stood up and oppose the decision not to go forward to keystone pipeline because that is the wrong decision for our country and for our state. it would create jobs, about for energy independents. so if you believe sitting here tonight that the president poses the biggest threat to our future in louisiana, you need to stay in washington and deal with that. >> time is over for this topic. we need to move on. [talking over each other] >> okay. we can continue that conversation because in the next topic were talking about, and that is workforce development. >> we been told there's an an industrial boom coming for qualified workers particularly the technology sector.
we all know this equation. in southwest louisiana there is supposed be in need of 35,000 jobs over the next five years. meanwhile, centurylink is trying to bring engineers and technical workers to fill such jobs by their funny that difficult. can you give us to every specific examples of what you are going to do to address that need over the next four years? vitter: this is critically important . edwards: anyone generations have requested a situation early 25% of our people needed some education beyond high school or to get a good job. now the number is going to be two-thirds of our people. you have to first of all we invest in higher education. that includes for your universities but also community and technical colleges. estate under bobby jindal has cut state support for all of higher education more than any other state in the nation over the last eight years. and raise tuition on its kids more than any other state in the nation in the same time period. that is the perfect recipe for
disaster. we have to do better. we have to make sure we are aligning workforce needs with the job creation opportunities that are out there so that kids are getting the education that allows them down the certified skill, the training necessary to succeed come to lend those jobs. we've got to do around the state. you would talk about centurylink in monroe. since the end of the recession in 2010, job creation in the state has been positive over all but when you get to alexandria and point for the note it's either been zero or negative. a key to making sure we can address this and investing our higher education system around the state. vitter: jeremy, i have a lot of detailed proposals in this area at our planet david at october the asked for a few so many highlight three. number one, our maritime sectors enormous import and great potential for growth. i think that's been woefully ignored under bobby jindal and
on his louisiana economic to fill the. i proposed structure reforms would focus on ports, maritime and have real leaders built into led as well as dot. a subcabinet focus on growing those jobs. secondly, we need to be much more effective in terms of addressing the burden of litigation. we need litigation reform because we are hurting because of abusive lawsuits by dialers who are by the way funding john bel edwards campaign. i've laid out detailed proposals to make those reforms like texas did in the 1990s and that was a major factor leading to their very, very robust economy. the our other detailed proposals in my plan. >> mr. edwards, question for mr. vitter. edwards: you've voted against job training for louisiana veterans, many of them are
seeking gainful about to support their families after their dedicated service to our nation. if you can't make those who protected our freedom part of their jobs plan, what kind of plant isn't? vitter: john bel, you are just wrong. i've a very strong record in terms of supporting our veterans. it often starts with individual cases helping him get the proper treatment and benefits they need. i has been a longtime personal along with my great staff helping veterans on those issues with great results. talk to the veterans of interactive at the office. i know you don't want to do that but talk to them, ask them how they feel about my representation of them. asked them how they feel about my leadership to make sure we get the community based clinics we need for veterans, particularly the new ones that we are building and lafayette in lake charles. i have worked closely with charles boustany. i'm proud he is supporting and we are getting those committee based clinics -- and job
training at the va. i sponsored legislation this year as the chair of a small business committee to put increased emphasis to the sba and through the va, specifically for veterans as they make the transition from wartime to work. i have helped lead that effort. >> david, your record is u-boat against the gis educational for veterans moving up from $1100 a month to $59 a month in 2008. in 2012 you voted no on the veterans job court act that would have invested $1 billion in new job training for veterans to help them find work. you voted no on the national defense appropriations act which provided for jack pinto prepare members of the armed forces, for for civilian employment. your record on these issues is atrocious when it comes to job training for veterans and helping him to transition from warriors to workers in the
country. >> it is your turn, mr. vitter. vitter: economic development, workforce development is critical. a gain you are trying to portray this myth that somehow you're a conservative or a moderate. you are in the middle, you're going to unite and you have a mainstream record. but if you look at the record it's very different. leading pro-business groups and economic development groups give you a very low score. national federation of independent business, 23% rating. the top economic development group in the state, louisiana associate of business and industry, 25% lifetime rating. that's lower than which landed in atlanta and bill jefferson, that's the bottom 10% of the legislature. why should voters think that is a per economic development workforce development record that's going to grow jobs and grow the economy? edwards: first of all the louisiana association of
business and industry gave over 90 legislators at the great. i was one of those because it didn't like the way we support our universities and hospitals and the people of louisiana. -- on whether i will also take that the louisiana association of business and industry is headed i someone who is a very strong supporter and former executive council and chief of staff to bobby jindal. today they endorsed you because they want a third bobby jindal term out of david vitter. except they would like to have a third term on steroids. when it comes to voting records, i don't intend to give anybody 100%. except for my wife. vitter: well again, john bel, you try to portray itself as a conservative. the record is the record at it suggests something completely different. you can try to talk about bobby jindal but these are mainstream economic development groups. i'm not talking about this year.
i'm talking about a lifetime rating of 25% am talking about comparing that lifetime rating to mitch landrieu and mary landrieu and bill jefferson to get all score hard to talk about the fact that you're in the bottom 10% in terms of those ratings about jobs and economic development. that's not conservatconservat ive. that's not a modicum anything other like spend time to move on to another topic. >> into them of education our state has seen several changes over the past few years into a public health care is delivered. would you keep the policies we have now and work out the issues we currently face or would you go in a different direction altogether? yazidis mentioned a few different things to let's go down the list. the public-private partnerships i think are good reform but they need work. i specifically have been proactive leading the charge to
improve the public-private partnership in north louisiana which needs the most work. i think that needs to continue to be an important piece of the puzzle and in the mix. medicaid expansion is a huge issue in this area. we have very strong differences of such. john bel would lunge into medicaid expansion under obamacare, under a barack obama's terms. i set up and only consider it under louisiana terms. if you look at states have done what john bel is proposing to do like kentucky, their costs have soared way beyond anything they projected. kentucky's costs have at least double what they were projected to be. they are facing a budget crisis because of that. and just elected a new republican governor largely on that issue. so those are some of the big differences between us. edwards: first of all i do support the move for the public-private partnerships and
we've got to make it work. it wasn't done well. today the state of louisiana owes the federal government $190 billion because the bobby jindal plan was an illegal scheme to draw down dollars that we were not entitled to. we've got to strengthen it because i believe in taking care people. my mother was an emergency rooms nurse. we have to take care of the uninsured people in louisiana. log chip is that a great success, expanded the medicaid program with that. we have already reform medicaid. we don't have the fee-for-service model anymore. we country managed care plans administered by five insurance companies. so we're going to spend the medicaid program when i'm governor and it is not the obama plan to it is the louisiana plan. we've offered before the. it would have saved $52 million this year alone. that's how it was scored. 30 states have done. 14 with republican governors.
this is in right versus left. this is right versus wrong and it's the right thing to do and i will do as governor. vitter: the biggest issue around health care is obamacare. the core of obamacare as well as medicaid expansion. john bel, you have supported all of that including the court mandates the obamacare. you voted in support of that in 2013, very clear vote. that fundamental mandate is exactly what through 98,000 louisiana to offer health care plans they had and they wanted to keep. obamicons said no, we are not alone that. we know better that's not good enough. that fundamental mandate has led to dramatically increasing cost. folks working to premiums right now and they are soaring. what do you say to middle-class louisiana families who got thrown off a plan to want to keep the face of soaring
premiums? edwards: i see the photo care at came from congress. that's where you sit we have not been voting in louisiana on mandates for obamacare. you are making that up david. i will take a few words about health insurance premiums going up you should support the medicaid expansion because every than with private insurance is paying $1000 extra per year to cover the uncompensated care that hospital or rendering. because they don't get compensated they are building it into the context when they negotiate with health insurance companies. that results in higher premiums. not only are we paying taxes to the federal government and not accepting them back so that our working poor, 250,000 of them, get the benefit of health care coverage with our tax dollars that are instead going to the other states that did debt. we are paying more in terms of private insurance. that is a disaster for this state. we need to do better by our people, bring those dollars home. we need to save tax dollars in the process, save premium dollars in the process as well.
it's just the right thing to do. it's called putting louisiana first. i know that is foreign to you but that's what we need to do tonight against the record is the record. very specific vote in 2014 come hb 429. it was a vote by you directly on the core of obamacare and you sided with the president in my opinion i decided against the people of louisiana. that's what through 98,000 louisianians offer health care they wanted to keep. in terms of medicaid expansion of the 14 republican governors you are talking about use the model on proposing. they didn't say absolutely we will do it under your terms. they negotiated their own terms. >> mr. edwards, he is a chance to pose a question on the subject. edwards: while you've been in congress you voted to end medicare for 700,000 louisiana seniors. that cruelty and fiscal
irresponsibility has no place in government. the seniors deserve to know what you plan to balance the budget on their backs as well. how can you just for anyone of the most successful insurance programs and ascii our seniors to pay more? vitter: john bel, you know i for medicaid and have not bothered to end as we know. you know that's the case. this attack is exactly what we hear from the national democrats but i do this in harry reid over and over on the senate floor. i hear from barack obama over and over. i have never said i want to end medicare as we know it. i've never voted that way. in fact, one of several top reasons i voted against obamacare is it still for medicare. it still for medicare $750 billion to create a whole new entitlement. it weakened medicare. and so that's my record on medicare which i'm very proud of. again you're just spreading the
old fears and old lies of national democrats. we hear it all the time from harry reid, from barack obama, from all the rest that can you hear it all done because it's your record in 2013 and 2014 you voted for budgets that would've turned medicare into a voucher system that would've increased health care costs on our seniors and made them pay the difference. that's your record. and that's the paul ryan budget that you have supported. the people of louisiana need to know that you're going to treat them better than that as they go into their senior years and they deserve dignity and security into retirement as seniors, and the detail they've got a governor who's got their back and isn't going to balance the budget on their backs. that's the commitment i made to our seniors. >> if we are moving from one thorny topic to another one, and that's the states
infrastructure, roads, highways, ports, everything. jeremy? >> i'm sure you know what number i'm going to say which is 12 billion. that's the backlog of projects in louisiana. bona fide support direct the money back to the transportation trust fund but that doesn't seem to be enough to address the larger problem. how would you generate more money to do that or is it time to concede that this is really to be given issue, too big of a price tag to address box i watched the 2003 run off debate and a similar question was asked. how do we break that tradition? edwards: first of all it is a big problem but in to fix the transportation trust fund it is premature to ask the people of louisiana to begin with whether it's a tall order an additional gasoline tax. the fact of the matter is that up to $60 million recently has been leaving the transportation trust fund not paying for roads and bridges but according to the
state to lease for traffic control on our highway system. that is wrong, not the expectation of her taxpayers when it paid that gas tax. i will get the trust fund under control in my first year. eye of the wind -- weans the state police out of the trust fund. that is $60 million right there. i will also increase i-25% the amount of our capital highway built each year that goes to transportation infrastructure projects. that's an additional $75 million. as soon as we do that, we will also double our investment in the port parity program from 20 million to $40 million the year overnight. that's just the right thing to do. at that point in time once we have cleaned it up and we see that we don't have enough rounded to go forward to maintain a system that we have in terms of our highways, then and only then will we consider polls or any other revenue measure. vitter: we can't ask the hard-working citizens to put more money in the bucket when
there are gaping holes at the bottom of the bucket, gaping holes. that's the situation and john bel has voted for that situation. that'that's the situation after laughter only 11 cents of every dollar of revenue associate with the state transportation trust fund went to roads and bridges, went to concrete and steel and acyl. that's ridiculous. i have a detailed plan to change that. again it's all let davidvitter.com. i have outlined a specific second step that's also in my plan which is to lead an effort among chambers, business groups, leading citizens, legislators to develop a high priority building program. high priority project in key areas of the state to spur economic development linked to new revenue, tied to that, go to the voters, go to citizens and say this is what we are going to build in a finite amount of time if you supported that we will not spend the money any other way, and we would go to voters
and citizens to earn their approval spent mr. edwards, a question to mr. vitter on infrastructure track and as i mentioned, you can read as the least effective member of congress. yet the fifth highest absence rate among the 534. in congress. nowhere does this show more than on transportation. as a regimen of the subcommittee on transportation you haven't lifted a finger to help louisiana finish i-40 nine or address the 12th in those backlog on transportation infrastructure projects. you even worked at in securing the loan forgiveness after hurricane katrina for local governments. how much longer should the people of louisiana wait for you to start putting louisiana first as relates to infrastructure? kind of wanted to talk to local officials about my work and my record? you will hear a very different story. i've been a leader on i-49
including as a high ranking republican on that committee. we have brought significant mining to virtually finished i-49 north and to start i-49 south in a major way. to that work on the committee i've helped to louisiana from a donor state, we were sending more money through federal gas tax to the federal governmengovernmen t then we received back when i went to congress, it was not 93 cents on the dollar we were getting back. we are no longer a donor state. we are getting more back then we sent to the federal government because of the reforms and because of the work i did with others. there are lots of specific projects. i-49, many critical projects around louisiana, congestion relief in baton rouge and greater new orleans. that have directly benefited as a result. we need to go further and start working on a federal highway bill threaten the fact that is
you've been terribly ineffective in the senate. you worked against local government in louisiana when they sought a loan forgiveness after hurricane katrina and we do with respect to the theme. >> love to you worked against the people. china i helped to secure that very loan forgiveness to and i get my information from the local people who lead our municipalities and our parishes. >> mr. vitter, you can continue this conversation with your question tonight again and john bel is completely misrepresent the record i helped secure the very loan forgiveness, talk to the leaders who got a. got to talk to the leaders and other key parishes. but john bel come you're always talking about fighting governor jindal. in fact, there have been eight or the gentle budgets. you voted for come you supported five of them. and on this critical issue of infrastructure, they were horrendous. they spill over and over like you were talking about from the
transportation trust fund. you voted for five of those eight budgets, hundreds of millions and you voted for the very budget that i was referring to an which only 11 cents of every dollar of that revenue goes to roads and bridges and steel and concrete and asphalt. why should voters believe that has come you're going to do something completely different when that's the specific record? l.a. governor \facts/fax.com. that's a record try to i have voted for five budget and that means i voted against more than the vast majority come on circum- voted against more budget than the vast majority of my colleagues. the reason i will be different is because i'm going to be together. i'm going to set the priorities. if you don't vote for the budget that everybody doesn't poll for the budget then you don't pass a budget and i think it's funded. but as governor i will be able to control the process and make sure with a line-item veto we will do the things that i'm talking about.
just this most recent year we voted for revenue to make absolutely clear that the state police can get out of the transportation trust fund. that's what happened in my first year. they will be $0 appropriate to the state police out of the transportation trust fund. that will leave that $60 million there. that is my commitment, and it has been all along. we now have the revenue in places to make sure that that happens. i did support that revenue because i want to be in a position to make sure that we can restore faith and confidence to the people of louisiana should have in a trust fund that night again that there is just this enormous gap between the rhetoric and your record. and the vote. talk about battling bobby jindal, supported five of his eight budgets. five of eight. talk about protecting the state transportation trust fund. under the budget it was raided over and over and over, hundreds to millions of dollars, and you voted for the budget under which
11 cents of every dollar, only 11 cents goes to transportation, everything else is rated. that's the record. your rhetoric is different but that's the record speed and gentlemen, we have, to this last topic that we have this evening, and time constraints say let's teach try and do 30 seconds response to the first question. i gave it to the reporters. >> both of you one point or another in recent forums or with reporters had discussed negative ads that target you. you have discussed trackers that are falling around you and your family. more recently the louisiana needed is writing about private investigator to have you or your campaigns hire professionals to carry out the services? if so, is there anything that they have done that you regret? vitter: is the reality these days of campaigns that i've lived with for several years that i've lived with these
trackers for many years, and to associate with every campaign. we haven't directly hired them, but others in support of my campaign have on not going to say that's not in support of our efforts. i wish that rails were different but it certainly is not the it is a free country and i think we are entitled to a free and open debate. in terms of negative campaigns, there's nobody has been the target of more negative campaigning than me. you just look at the number, look at the metrics. there are eight different entities that in attacking me relentlessly. three candidates in the primary, three of their associates -- track in the short answer the question is no. my campaign has not hired, paid for anybody to do any tracking or any investigation for and in senator vitter spent $156,000 on private investigation, and light about and said the money was being spent on legal fees.
and now we know he says it's a free country. he is sending private investigators to spot on the sheriff. it is in of scandal and embarrassment here to last a lifetime in louisiana doesn't need anymore of that. i urge everybody to go to www.-- watch the press conference of the sheriff gave today on this topic about senator vitter spent we will go into question now. mr. vitter, a question for mr. edwards than non-john bel, follow-up on this. you act holier than now. the state democratic party does on your behalf we don't do negative campaigning. in fact, you the most vicious negative at up right now that veterans have been offended by and asked you to take down. somehow you've nothing to do with the trial lawyer back that has been running negative campaigns in the millions of dollars for months. isn't that just completely
disingenuous? somehow you've nothing to do with that. edwards: it isn't completely disingenuous . vitter: you're not living by the honor code, john bel to do nothing by the lawyers code trying to parse words and great technicalities that don't exist. edwards: no, sir. my campaign has not paid for a track or a private investigator i haven't seen any footage of you anywhere from a tracker. not part of my campaign to it is just absolutely is a. with to the negative ad. if it's a low blow it so because that's where you live, senator gets 100% truthful. fact of the matter is you didn't say it was untrue. you only get taken down because you don't like it. i understand that you don't like it. it hit you where you live. vitter: on ipod me sing anything, john bel. on talk about what veterans have said. edwards: they wanted to know that you are missing out on your public performance of your
duties in congress in order to engage in those extra creative activities that you don't want to admit to trying to john bel, again, your holier than thou -- track and i am not holier than thou. [talking over each other] tragedy was anything it into your unmentioned by the truth [talking over each other] spent let's stop. let each one of you have a chance to ask each other question. we are almost a closing comments. why don't you get 30 seconds on this topic and you get 30 seconds. 30 seconds, mr. vitter try not again, john bel, you are being completely disingenuous to suggest that state democratic party isn't your close outlined in all of this. to suggest that the trial lawyers are not doing your dirty work for you. again you're not living by some honor code that you are living
by some lawyers code of technicality. that's not what a transparency and forthrightness is all about. edwards: i'm not suggesting anything. i am saying it. i am not looking at any video footage from you. i haven't hired a private investigator to go after you. with respect to the honor code, the last part of it is i will not tolerate those who do. you are a liar. you are a liar and you're a cheater. i don't tolerate that. vitter: if you don't agree with her behavior while you tolerating and benefiting from their behavior? edwards: i have looked at it and i haven't used it. >> what we're going to do right now is to go to or closing remarks. we're just about out of time for our our to be. we thank you for your candid and energetic commentary. now we are going to go to our closing remarks, and mr. vitter, you begin.
vitter: thanks. this is only an important election. we have two candidates for governor, john bel edwards and myself, who couldn't offer more starkly different voting records and political philosophies and, therefore, direction in which we would lead the state. it's pretty clear that john bel wants to talk about anything but the future. he wants to talk but anything but those records and those philosophies and where we would lead the state. that's because his campaign is built on a myth that he is some sort and a conservative. that we don't differ much on the issues we absolutely do. so i humbly ask for your vote and support. .. issues and how we differ on job creation. his ranking is at the bottom of the barrel. on education my support of
charter and accountability and reforms and john bel has the opposite record supporting the teachers's unions not parents, families and children. >> thank you. mr. edwards? >> i want to thank the veterans. we are on the eve of veteran's day and i want to thank them for the service of the country. when i decided to serve the country >> abl to >> which candidate is able to lead this state right nowes? le after miserable failed policy under bobby jindal.eod to bring people together tooppor forge consensus is theat is my r biggest challenges to provide real opportunity for our children and a louisiana. party when the i will fight against anyone
that will do harm toparty whe louisianan when they want to do our states could. i will always be honest and i will never embarrass you i will always try to put louisiana first i ask for your vote and your prayers. god bless you. >> thank you for your participation the election is november 21st. check on line for a sample ballots and boating location >> for louisiana public broadcasting have a great evening.
>> no solution has been more disastrous than mass incarceration. with a blended issues a solution and that we choose to use for mental health. and until relatively recently a solution from some drug issues and it was talking about and i cannot help note thus the bathetic and benevolence own when you talk about hair when use among white people compare that at the time where about
crack but the tone was not benevolent and a large part a argue before incarcerations you cannot separate solutions away. >> because cry rates were higher in the '60s transeven these. but you made the argument of looting to connected to a deeper history of black criminality in this country. >> when i started doing the article there was no disputing that crime rose. i know how parents understood the neighborhood. there was no real dispute --
sorry. we are sorting out the audio. >> but when you drop back to look at the world as a whole that narrows in canada it was an international phenomenon to embrace incarceration as a solution and it is the idea people are committing crimes especially aid of a draconian alliance but that draconian nature with 5% of
the world's population in 25 of the world's present? and all the 40 years ago we had incarceration how do we end up with the situation with the nearest competitor is russia? that it said a a competition. i'll think tech could be separated from the unique population in bayberry unique history of that group of people. >> part of a summit on rates and criminal justice. we will have highlights including a discussion on communique's interaction with police tonight 8:00 p.m. eastern
i hearing on port safety after the associated press reported fbi thwarted for attempts to illegally traffic radioactive materials over the past five years from the house transportation subcommittee this is to have been ours -- two and a half hour. >> good morning i went to indicate my a displeasure and a lack of response regarding a letter i sent before this hearing on october 7th asking for information related to today on the number of containers suspected and the percentage inspected after arrival so how many do screamed abuse can them you think there would have those numbers in front of that because that
is what they do. basket any requirement but the impression requested is relevant to today's hearing the department to provide a response within three week lead time taken to develop the testimony. if you are aware of the secretary's response to my letter? >> yes, sir,. the letter has cleared the interagency and is waiting for final approval at the department level. >> you have the numbers? >>. >> we will not hear from anybody from southcom or anybody from north, . as they refuse to send witnesses horror are briefer
from either i am not sure of that was the department of defense as a common security issue or if they justin and care enough to send somebody. maybe they have the beef with me and i would say that is petulant. >> besides co-star from the department of defense. the committee is meeting to discuss the dirty bonn in the u.s. for. the bin and adversary with 360 ports in the maritime border is unique to to the size and the ease of moving
large quantities of materials. understanding of pathways is a critical part of the process used for drugs today could be used to bring in anything nuclear issue carried thousands of pounds of something or something else. due to law enforcement efforts after 9/11 security aid measures were enacted by expanding efforts it is easy when they're not on the west shorelines. and screenings where it had been before entering united states territory and we hear
from the witnesses today have the federal government deployed is where the approach with technology and intelligence with potential threats. ever come by retreat eighth in agreements with foreign governments with cooperative enforcement efforts overseas. in early october with the efforts to have four attempts of criminal gangs tusis under middle eastern extremists. even though those desirable adversaries had a minimum and is growing. due to the iranian deal with
your nuclear facilities there will be in more nuclear material on the market. you'll have more countries of more nuclear capability than you'll ever see and that is one of their reasons we start the series of hearings because the interdiction efforts by the coast guard is paramount as the only line of defense will whole government approach is a with for a nuclear policy. and then we have greater access to nuclear material although it is about deterring threats coming to the ports and how they
potential the disruptive force managers to keep them safe. mr. chairman? >> 84 the hearing. about 2005 created a series of a national meeting on natural disasters included among the three things will look back to the hurricane of the east coast and the terrorism of a dirty bomb at the port of long beach. there is the study of there that i could not gather in time but the threat of nuclear lot -- nuclear dirty
bob is sobering -- schaede turvey bomb is sobering every national review of disasters and it is unimaginable 50 years ago is no a primary fortress of coordination strategy involving multiple agencies including the u.s. coast guard but the global nuclear detection is scheduled programs and activities and capabilities better implemented to fill the strategy seemed to be meeting that challenge outside of the u.s. of land so the effort made by thousands end yet we cannot let our guard down. smuggling weapons of mass
destruction but the consequences would be catastrophic. that is what we learned in 2005 because the risks are catastrophic remus to make sure it does not have been. are we adequately testing and validating technologies and procedures and training and in the event of a definition entomb quickly respond to the recovery and today i am sure it is also a no.
and although they may be hot water redoing everything we can to track and monitor up to make sure those vessels operating in the domestic waters are not a potential conduit they queued for that panel. thank you for that testimony >> with the assistant commandant director gowadia from department of homeland security mr. owen from the department of common security from the office of field operations for customs and border protection and nhtsa gao director for common security.
>> i am honored to be here today to discuss the coast guard rule in response to the arrival of a dirty bomb into u.s. ports executives said pleasure to be here today with the customs them border protection. the nation and is safer in no small part to the two organizations so my complete statement has been provided by a -- to the subcommittee asked it is entered into the record. their approach the coast guard plushes port security beyond the shoreline and the
economic zone. by fostering a strategic relations as far as the shore as possible to prevent a attack -- an attack of a homeland. with robust international partnerships to provide access to maritime ports of origin. through the international program to oversee the port assessments that the meet international standards and since the inception of the program coast guard personnel visited more than 150 countries and port facilities throughout this hemisphere coast guard maintains more than an for maritime agreements in the lead than bilateral proliferation agreements that allow coastguard teams
suspected of carrying illicit shipments the delivery systems far from shore. echoes guards membership in the intelligence committee provides copal situation all awareness including the cia and national counterterrorism center. to the maritime cruz rotation security act draft compliance inspections to reduce the vulnerability involving our ports. it's true that detection regime to anywhere in the maritime domain conducting over 400 vessel inspection examinations the coast guard personnel kerry detection devices to alert the
presence of radiation. to develop maritime radiation to standardize the right equipment to enhance national capacity for detection of multiple level capability excluding the ability to reach back to scientific experts for more information and. with a tsa intermodal response. and with the major covers to identify the specific isotopes and the team provides a nation with maritime capabilities with identification and decontamination as a routine
or hot style situation and. to integrate with other interagency response force is. at the national level the coast guard screens for all vessels that are required of the advanced notice of a rival 96 hours or more. over 124,000 and over 32 million. the coast guard response is part of the coordinated interagency effort to bring the most capable and appropriate resources to bear. a dirty bomb is suspected to be identified in a u.s. port of the interagency maritime part response protocol to be employed to have pulled government interagency