tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 20, 2015 12:00am-10:01am EST
next day hearing on child sex trafficking. the senate homeland security subcommittee on investigations reviewed a report on the classified advertising site back page.com. the company ceo failed to appear before the committee. his hearing is an hour and a half. >> thank you all for being here this morning. we are waiting for the documents to be circulated. this hearing will now come to order. senator mccaskill and i have called his hearing to address the difficult but really important subject of sex trafficking. over the past seven months the subcommittee has conducted a bipartisan investigation into how sex traffickers increasingly use the internet to advance
their trade and evade detection. the aim of this investigation is very straightforward. went to understand how lawmakers law enforcement and even private business is can more effectively combat the serious crime that thrives on this on line black market. as cochair of the senate caucus on human trafficking and maybe more importantly as someone who represents the state that has experienced some sex trafficking networks and most importantly as a father this is an issue that i feel strongly about and i worked on over a number of years. i have spent time with those dedicated to fighting this crime and those victimized by it. for victims the toll of sex trafficking is measured in stolen childhoods and long-lasting trauma. for travers is measured in dollars, often a lot of dollars. it's a problem that i believe congress should pay more attention to. precise date is hard to come by
because the marketing exist in the shadows but experts tell us there are as many as 27 million victims of human trafficking last year including 4.5 million people trapped in sexual exploitation for united states about eight of every 10 suspected incidents of human trafficking involves sex trafficking, 80%. that is to say minors and a pulse for commercial sex. sex traffickers prey on the vulnerable are the department of justice has reported more than half of victims are minors and the problem appears to be getting worse. over the last five years a leading authority on child exploitation the national center for missing and exploited children who we will hear from later today reported an 846% increase in reports of suspected child sex trafficking. that increases quote directly correlated to the increases of the internet to sell children
for sex. that is what this hearing is all about. traffickers have found traffickers who specialize in advertising so-called lawful advertising. a business called back page.com is the market leader in that industry. with annual revenues in excess of $130 million last year. with a look and layout similar to the craigslist.com that page has a special niche. according to one industry analyst in 20138 out of every $10 spent on on line commercial sex advertising in the united states goes to bat page, eight out of $10. some of that advertising is legal. much of it is illegal. a federal court in chicago noted this year for example that back page until services section overwhelm and contains
advertising for prostitution including the prostitution of minors end quote. public record indicates back pages at the center of this black market for sex trafficking. the national center tells us that page is linked to 71% of all suspected child sex trafficking reports he receives from the general public through its cyber tip line. so think about that, 71% of all the suspected child trafficking reports that the center gets are related to back page. according to leading and the trafficking organization called shared hope international quote service providers working with sex trafficking victims have reported between 80% and 100% declines have been bought and sold on that page.com end quote. it's easy to see why the national association of attorneys general described back page as a hub as human trafficking especially the trafficking of minors. a recent study of press accounts
reveals scores of serious crimes are linked to back page. sure hope information is reported hundreds of children using back page.com. psi psi staff has identified at least 13 reported cases of child sex trafficking in my home state of ohio law and links to back page over the past four years. on this record psi of a compelling need to understand the business practices of back page.com especially the efforts to prevent the use of this site i sex traffickers. that seems very reasonable. we thought it might be simple enough because back page holds itself is at quote critical ally unquote against human trafficking. the company stated that it leads the industry in its review and screening of advertising for illegal activity. the process involves moderation. that page's top lawyer has described its moderation process
is the key tool for disrupting and eventually ending human trafficking via the world wide web. but back pages refuse to turn over documents about the ski moderation process as well as other aspects of its business. specifically the company refused to comply with initial subpoena issued by the subcommittee on july 7 saying it was overbroad. senator mccaskill and i read to withdraw the subpoena and issue a new or target subpoenaed designed to accommodate that pages concerns but the company refused to comply. the find to the congressional subpoena is where an serious. back pages tried to excuse its noncompliance based on a claim of constitutional privilege. the company's argument is vague but it can be summed up this way, back it says the first amendment to the constitution -- advertising by sex traffickers but -- because it also -- an interesting argument.
it has no support in law or logic. in a detailed ruling on behalf of subcommittee senator mccaskill and explained by the fact page legal arguments out mary. we also explained the potential first amendment entry at stake. we have made that rule publicly available today am psi's web site and i encourage you to take a look at it. after overbilling back pages objection senator mccaskill and i ordered the company ceo to produce documents we asked for by last thursday, november 12. that came and went with no response. the next day back page was informed psi it would not comply but at the same time that page made to show producing certain documents favorable to the company along with a 16,000 page pile of material and documents that it is not seeking. we don't think that page's response to subpoenas in good faith. it's time for parties to have
legal disagreements about constitutional privileges in a particular request. we treat these objections very seriously. back pages done more than raising legal objection to producing certain that immense. just last week back pages lawyer told psi the company had not even bothered to look for the documents in response to the subpoena and not even other to look for the documents responsive to the subpoena. which means that page does not even know what all that is refusing to produce much less why these.and should be protected by the first amendment psi was disappointed with that pages noncompliance but were not deterred. the other sources including a contractor at that page outsourced its process to be sought to learn more about the issues under investigation. a bipartisan staff report released today and outlined for many findings some further questions that need answers. the report reveals the fact that
bedding advertisement by deleting words and images before publication. this is important because changing the appearance of a public that does not change the advertising transaction. the staff report finds in some cases these editing practices like they serve to conceal evidence of the illegality of the underlying transaction. that finding raises some very serious questions. we want to know more about the effect of these editing practices which is why we issued a subpoena that could tell us whether and how that page deletes or protects images that could alert law enforcement about crime being advertised. when that failed the subcommittee try to take the test might to back page employees charged with moderation practices but they refuse to testify on the grounds that might incriminate them. nevertheless we continue to seek documents that would allow us to
understand this and other aspects of the screening process. in a moment senator mccaskill will describe other findings in greater detail. at the close of today's hearing will address the next step we plan to take to enforce a subpoena that back page has violated. i'm grateful to her ranking member senator mccaskill and her staff for their shoulder-to-shoulder work with us on this bipartisan investigation and now i will turn to her for her opening statement. >> thank you chairman portman for holding this hearing and thank you for the strong working relationship we have on this committee. four months ago a 15-year-old girl walked into cardinal win lynn children's hospital in st. louis missouri and asked for help. along with for four other girls between the ages of 12 and 18 she had been sold for sex at truck stops across surrey, florida, texas and new mexico for almost two months. she was lucky to be alive.
according to her police report another girl traveling with her during those months had died in her arms. the 15-year-old girl who walked into cardinal blend like the majority of children who were sold for sex in the united states today was trafficked using back page.com. throughout the subcommittee's investigation we have received information indicating that back page has built a hugely successful business in part by posting advertisements of children and other victims of human trafficking on its web site. despite knowing this web site is hosted advertisements of children being sold for sex, back page has apparently signaled to its moderators at those ads should remain on this site. in april 2012 for example that page initially told us outside moderators that they should quote fail end of quote or
remove references to certain sex acts and words including quote schoolgirl unquote, quote teen unquote, quote human trafficking unquote end quote yung unquote. two days later back page reverse that. they issued clarification regarding the band word. he instructed that moderators should no longer delete ads that use beyond or misspellings of young. those deletions were capturing too much volume he explained. because there were too many legitimate uses of the word to warrant a removal every time. instead of deleting advertisements for services with young, but that page employee instructed moderators to send ads to him for additional
review. we don't know how many if any ads were removed following the additional review. we do know that that page instructed its moderators to be very cautious about deleting ads. according to the manager of the moderator, quote the definition of under age is anyone under the age of 18 but for the purposes of making reports error on the side of the caution and try to report anyone that looks under the age of 21 end of quote. importantly guidance of that page emphasized in all capital letters if in doubt about under age the process should now be to accept the ad. if in doubt about under age the process for now should be to accept the ad and quote only delete if you are really very sure a person -- only delete if
you are only very sure that person is under age, only delete if you are really very sure a person is underage. that was in. the results of back pages guidance is the site contains innumerable advertisements for sexual transactions with children. the national center for missing and exploited children, for example reports of 71% of the child sex trafficking reports it received about the ads posted on back page. according to shared hope international service providers working with child sex trafficking victims have reported that between 80% and 100% of their claims have been bought and sold on back page.com. we have also learned that back pages failed to reserve information would help law enforcement and other entities locate victims and put
traffickers in jail. back pages failed to implement other free widely available technology that would help law enforcement build cases against assist -- suspected sex traffickers. that page represents an third party consultants have the subcommittee that back page moderators edit and delete content and add illegal activity for law enforcement. the subcommittee is also found back pages business model has been highly profitable. based on information obtained by the subcommittee back page has read -- net revenues of $135 million in 2014 and is expected to net more than $163 million this year. nearly all of it profit. the company's fair market doll you taking into account its lack of marketability is
approximately 430 million. as a former prosecutor i know i had these financial statistics are survivors traumatized from abuse and degradation and family suffering from years of terror and uncertainty concerning the fate of their loved ones. today i hope to -- witnesses about the impact of back page on the efforts of advocacy groups to curb sex trafficking in the united states. i'm confident their testimony will make clear the importance of subcommittee efforts to press back page for information on its operations and procedures. i also hope we will at some future date finally have the opportunity to question that page ceo carl serrano -- carl for rare or received a subpoena to appear before the
subcommittee today but has refused to attend. i have many questions for him. i think of witnesses for being here today and have it or to their testimony. >> thank you senator mccaskill and thank you for your partnership in this investigation. senator mccaskill mentioned a report in without objection will become part of the record. we turn to our first panel of witnesses to ask questions and we are pleased to be joined by yiota souras senior vice present of senior counsel for the council for missing and exploited children. for over 30 years she has provided valuable services to law enforcement and the croom justice community with the goal of eliminating child exploitation and reuniting families. it is recovering over 200,000 missing children. including assisting with the
rescue of a rescued child in cleveland ohio this month of may may pursue a deal. i'm also honored to have with us today the founder. many of you know john walsh who is here with us in the room this morning who has been a good advisor to me and to the subcommittee. we are also pleased to be joined by darwin roberts at the deputy attorney general of the washington state attorney general's office where he supervises criminal justice division among other units and lead attorney for human trafficking issues. the state of washington recognizes a manner leader in combating trafficking in large part to the work of the state agency's office. the polaris project a highly-regarded antitrafficking organization gave washington the highest ranking for its antitrafficking efforts last year from 2005 to 2013. mr. roberts served as assistant u.s. attorney. appreciate both of you being here this morning and we look or to testimony could without objection we will also make her the record be written testimony
submitted by the director of ohio attorney general mike dewyze crimes against children initiative. ojai was at the forefront this issue of their leadership of former senator mike dewine. also without objection make part of the record the testimony of the two assistant district attorneys from manhattan who have also been engaged in the balkans issue with us on the subcommittee prey to the witnesses is a custom of the subcommittee to swear no no witnesses and this time i would ask you both to play stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you're about to give before the subcommittee will be the truth the whole truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. all of the written testimony will be printed in the record in its entirety we ask that you try to limit your oral testimony to five minutes. ms. souras we would hear from you first.
>> chairman portman ranking member moran haskell and members of the subcommittee i'm pleased to be here this morning on behalf of the national center for missing and exploited children. let me take a moment to thank you for your efforts to investigate the crime of child sex trafficking the potential solutions to combat this horrible crime. i'm joined today by co-founder john walsh and our incoming ceo john clark former director of u.s. marshal who are here with me to underscore support for the committee's work in our dedication to preventing child sex trafficking and assisting survivors and their families. we are here to talk about the on line lucrative sale of america's children for sex. which in our experience occurs most prominently on the web site back page.com. every year in the united states thousands of children are sold for sex and repeatedly raped. child sex trafficking victims are boys, transgender children and girls.
we see victims as young as 11 years old with an average age of 15. many of these children are moved constantly from city to city, sold for sex up to 10 times a day and tattooed by their traffickers, literally branded for life. child sex trafficking is the rape of a child in exchange for something of value. lying, selling or facilitating the sale of a child for sex is always illegal. child sex trafficking is not prostitution and it has no relation to illegal sexual activities between consenting adults. when we talk about child sex trafficking we are talking about illegal activity that is not protected by the first amendment. technology has fundamentally changed how children are trafficked. today an adult is taken from their home office or -- on a cell phone to buy a child for
sex. their advertising web sites notably back page that are on line marketplaces to buy and sell sexual experiences. some may be legal but most are not. it operates a cyber tip line to nations reporting mechanism for suspected child sexual exploitation. since 1998 we have received over 45,000 reports relating to suspected child sex trafficking. a majority of these reports involve ads posted on back page. in our experience child sex trafficking often begins with a missing child. so far this year more than 1800 missing children was reported that involve child sex trafficking. because there are so many child sex trafficking ads on back page, our staff searched back page first when a missing child is being traffic.
we routinely work with on line companies to help them make sure their web site isn't misused to harm children. we met with that page at the request after they started voluntarily reporting some ads to us in 2010. during this time back page publicly represented that it wanted to do everything possible to stop child sexual exploitation on its web site. at our last meeting in 2013.page was frustrated for not promoting their surrogate effort to curb child sex trafficking. we have not met with that page again because it seemed they were more adjusted and trying to publicly claim a partnership on these issues rather than reducing the sale of children on their web site. during her meetings with that page we recommended many steps they could take to reduce the possibility children would be sold for sex on my web site.
back page decline to adopt most of these recommended measures. here are just two examples. back page does not consistently remove ads reported even when the ad is reported by a family member of the child begging for assistance. here is ever afford and what mock -- one in mom and dad were to back page. your web site has us featuring her 16-year-old daughter posting -- she is being out by your old boyfriend and she is under age. i have e-mailed the ad multiple times using your web site but have gotten no response. for god sakes, she's only 16. we raised this issue repeatedly during her meetings with that page but were never told why some ads for remain on the site after being reported. back page has stringent rules for motorcycles or boats.
for these ads you are required to provide a verified phone number even though back page knows noses site is used for child sex trafficking and after our repeated recommendation back page still has not implemented any form of verification. today back page all entirely reports some child sex trafficking but they have not taken basic measures to disrupt the on line marketplace of sex trafficking they have created. there is no reason to believe success -- suspected child sex trafficking as decreased however that page is number of reports this year has dropped to less than half the number purports in 2013. the same year we had our last meeting in the same year he we filed an amicus brief in support of child victims in a lawsuit against back page. before a close i would like to acknowledge determined separates
of many other advocacy groups many of whom are here in the room today and the attorneys who are working on civil court cases in massachusetts and washington to end the devastating on line business of selling children for sex on web sites like that page. mr. chairman and other members i thank you for the chance to share this information regarding child sex trafficking him back page and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you ms. souras. mr. roberts. >> good morning chairman berman ranking member mccaskill and members of the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to appear today. i'm appearing on behalf of attorney general bob ferguson and i appreciate the invitation he regrets he wasn't able to come your person. i'm proud to be representing washington state which has been wrecked nice as a leader among in fighting human trafficking at the state level. we were the first state to make it a crime to commit human trafficking at the state level and of course our definition of
human trafficking matches the federal and that the use of force, fraud or coercion for forced labor and voluntary servitude or sex acts is classified as human trafficking in the sexual abuse of a minor is any use of a minor and a commercial sex act because minors are recognized as not being able to consent legally to engage in any sort of sex act with an adult much less a commercial one. ..
was unconstitutionally vague under the first amended imprinted by the communications decency act. simultaneously behind the u.s. district court a lawsuit was filed in washington superior court alleging that back page in fact, have done more that hosted the posting of bats as they claim to invoke their immunity under the communications decency act. and several miners say they were prostituted using backpage.com alleging backpage essentially making themselves a market leader, the go to site for of law in prostitution and.
confusing turns like a score that is widely recognized to tell consumers that is a purchase they could get on the web site. and the sham efforts at self policing to allegedly tried to keep for under age individuals of the site. that by doing this backpage.com has moved beyond the mere facilitation or hosting of the ads said it was materially contributing to the use of its light to sell minors for sex. the attorney general's office filed the amicus brief when it led to the washington supreme court.
in an offer of -- they argue the plaintiff should be allowed to conduct discovery if backpage was materially contributing. the washington supreme court ruled in favor of the planet and now it is proceeding to discovery. we are aware that backpage.com has repeatedly asserted that law-enforcement is best helped if it remains open as the web site posting adult services types of ads. and works with law-enforcement to try to prevent mitt -- the comments sound positive but they're not certain these
commitments are sufficient to prevent individuals to be traffic on the site in there have been repeated numerous instances of children being trafficked for on backpage. the question is for the attorney general whether they doing, where the goals, how effective are their techniques? are they doing everything they can? what is the cost of compliance correlative to this significant revenues? for all those reasons that backpage.com will shed more light on how exactly it claims to be working to prevent sex trafficking for
minors. i am happy to answer questions. >> i appreciate testimony. your perspective is viable. we will begin with five minute question rounds to go as many rounds as necessary. technology has changed is something the said committee founded you concede that in our report. i have deep concerns about the notion of editing advertisements. we have had some evidence of that how prevalent are advertisements on
backpage.com in your experience? >> as a testified, backpage is the first place research with a missing child suspicion of being trafficked because even if it is on another site it will always put one on backpage as well so between that and in the numbers of reports that we received over 45,000, with the predominant number for the public or reported from and adds headed is the primary market place online speesix any percent of all suspected sex traffickers going to this cybertip line is:backpage?
>> amazing with the mill is from the company that has outsourced of political moderation but it moderator's. they are in doubt the process should be to accept the ad if you're in doubt. and also cautions moderate is only to beat if you're sure the person is under age. with seems there is a bias there but doesn't sell like
those that are really concerned about kids? >> gasoline not the they have a sincere interest to beecher and remove a child exploitation from websites and will take a number preventative bichirs early on that old picture children or minors and it will report the content as well there will not take a half measure this is very similar to backpage with the process for those that might appear to be young. >> there practice of vetted images but one of the obvious concerns if you change the wording is not the underlying transaction the you change the potential
for the underlying crime committed. for your where the moderator's edited ads in this manner? garett we had previous conversations the editing as it pertains to photographs little follow any discussions regarding text we have been told when an ad comes a multiple photographs of there was one they deem to be a violation containing nudity or sexual activity it would be pulled the ad would move forward to a posting process. >> is in the evidence we uncovered is accurate so concerned is that give you? to make it is incredibly troubling. it definitely of the skates of legal activity is of a
post and add to the stated 16 years old that is a minor sold for sexual acts so then they struck out the age component. that hides the crime before you go public and could create concerns is is still in a publisher category were shifting into a creator as well. >> makes a harder for you to rescue children if you don't have the full of advertisements including a photo or the text that might have existed and makes them more difficult. >> absolute correct if we could receive all the photographs in the initial
information whether a photo that includes the face would benefit greatly identification warda phone-number zero or e-mail address -- crucial for law-enforcement and for that individual. >> can you explain, it defies logic your testimony there is more stringent posting rules for selling a motorcycle and a 12 year-old ? >> i have no explanation. that is what we were told when we met with backpage it is a reality. during our meetings in 2010 and 2013 we constantly asked
to know your customer know your individual with a high incidence of child sex trafficking a big dose of this with motor vehicles and why could they not incorporate that element as well? we never received a satisfactory answer. >> what was it? >> they would save a buck in twitter discuss a up the next meeting there was never a satisfactory response stomachs of the sex as a dealer wants to require verification. >> i have elected other categories we have done research on the escort ads
themselves there are many categories of items for sale >> have you done the math what percentage are sexual related vs. others but they pretend they're interested in? >> we have not others have done research. we are responsive to our cases so forget the report we go to the backpage purpose of of the where the child may be trafficked. >> it appears they are engaging in trying to find out that it appears it is a very important part of the business model. because settled think anyone could say it is high risk
engaging in high-risk activity it is because it has a great deal of impact on the bottom line. mr. roberts isn't about reaching conclusions, about affirming the legitimacy of this investigation and the questions that we're asking and demanding answers. in your of make this brief they filed both the amicus brief to explain the importance to receive the same information rears seeking prestress the records and the protocols to create the ad offered
children repeating offenders. can you explain why it is so critical to produce this type of material? and why our efforts is so essential in spare no procedural efforts? >> absolutely thanks for making the effort. and without understanding what is going on we cannot understand whether they put in sufficient effort to solve the problem. because back page invokes their own efforts to block children from being advertised on their site as the reason they should be allowed to operate freely in this area even as the litigation vigorously to protect themselves from the
lawsuits to attempt to hold them accountable. we need to know precisely what these protections are and have a significant to the overall volume? it is important for regulators and members of the public this is a tremendously profitable business what an amount to spend to keep children sold for sex. >> air cleaning protection while refusing to give the people that represent the law of the pact that would support their claim and so
basically trust us we will not give you any information. has backpage ever produced documents that have been requested in 2011 in 2012? >> i don't believe so. >> thanks for your involvement with like to thank you for your significant involvement for the children with this unsavory and unpleasant aspect of america that seems to have overtime because it
as a subpoena when i applaud you for your actions. it is all about money? >> 80% of their revenue can be directly derived from their commercial sex advertising. >> that appears so. it goes along with other websites and around the country to a federal court's reach the conclusion so what do we need to do about the whole situation that to some degree of technology?
>> this is a complicated question and. the prosecuting attorney for seattle is doing cutting edge work in this area and has been a couple years of the justice department's. >> real many federal acted engagement. do you? >> no, sir. so prior to the attorney-general of the united states? >> please proceed to mention
our local prosecuting attorney's office is working on a project to inhibit the on line demand for people seeking sex with minors by having targeted advertisement on line. bin backpage seeks to become the first search results when someone places ads that asked people do you really want to buy sex to expose them to the negative impacts when they participate in the economy that women are not
there willingly of exploitation and violence and harmed and trauma coming from these efforts. with grants from private sources of we have potential to make some impact. >> the fact that such said devastating effect is what should lead to stop this evil. i hope we can send a message to the attorney general we need parity on this issue.
>> 8q chairman in a ranking member for this important hearing. into frequently represent but talking about the most vulnerable people in america. and then to be sold as a sex slave. and we're told we're told by 89 there doing everything and as hard as they can to prevent this horrible thing from happening to children and. we say you need to try harder and if he were truly trying that hard if you to be cared you be in this room with us talking about how we could attack this problem
that they're not in the fight with the rest of us. very here to make money. then to see what we're doing with north dakota people think this is removed as a city issue the north dakota it has hit us hard because backpage.com allows them to be invisible nobody is walking the street corners. suggestions today 69 new ads for escorts is equitation's posted on backpage. 69. earlier this year a 14 year-old runaway was rescued from traffickers.
her mother saw the emails advertising her answered the ad and it was posted on backpage.com. right across from fargo north dakota and local law enforcement responded to a posting on backpage.com and found a 13 year-old runaway from minneapolis that was trafficked for sex. do we assume these are the only winners that never appeared on backpage.com? and he would have to be naive and foolish and you have to be naive and foolish we don't have a partner there. someone that is not participating but
capitalizing to become filthy rich. honestly. so one of the issues basically the issue of metadata. to scrub bin rewrite the ads but metadata is also scrubbed which then eliminates some opportunity to trace back to the source this is a question to explain how that is treated on backpage.com as it relates to escort advertising sinecure understanding is correct there is not metadata in
back of that. like my it address to be totally irrelevant end to the pertinent to connect the individual food took the photographs with the individual. a but to connect the child to the photographs. >> the use the metadata being removed from the advertisement for a car or anything else? >> that determined that answers. >> metadata it could be important to traffic
prosecution because. >> a think we all understand how important but is there any legitimate business reason to remove metadata from the advertisement? >> commercial purposes? there is an investment that may be required of servers. >> and storage is so expensive these days? [laughter] it is very cheap. let's not pretend it is not about storage. quite honestly. as a shot out for her reputation and a great partner for the missing and exploited people. it is a champion to do more to raise the issue of back page than anyone else in the country. she is a great partner to
have for children in this country and we are grateful she is here with us as we address this issue. >> asking if he could come by today he said of course, . and he has been great to raise awareness with the issue and will lot of time and effort skimmings for the work and for what you are doing. this is important to all of us in the nation that has to be confronted. a dark spot a we have to shine alien on so i appreciate we we're doing
his in his painful to cd images. the queue for what you we're doing for a lot of families around the country. what does it cost for one of those ads? how much is a child worth? to make a regular seat -- rigorously calibrates so manhattan ago upwards of $18 of boston and miami but in a small town to calibrate lower. >> to be able to get the service of mine.
when did speeleven the local u.s. attorney's office with the for the effort. the washington coalition against trafficking response and network has significant federal funding including the fbi and:security investigation. we feel the federal government and the justice department are a valuable partner. >> as they should be. >> deal backed.
>> backpage it has been used bezel of flagon does a shield with lawsuits arising from time to time the basic argument is they are a mirror publisher as somebody may put a band-aid supermarket that seems very unrealistic when the item for sale is a human being or a child. that is the basic component is a fairly old statute created with a gender growth of the internet to serve tremendously purpose to protect private -- providers from defamation suits. en to be a major publisher
and we're not responsible for what people put on coming out of the investigation and what they will be focusing on after this hearing. >> so the information in they may be editing so they are aware of the content. to evolve this illegals then the other trafficking activities. >> absolutely. with the creation. >> you mentioned as we talk
today but other providers are not using the way that backpage is taking more affirmative set -- steps for their side. is that true? >> it is a huge contrast do you think we need to revisit and how it is being used with the older statute that we have backpage using this statute in a way that they post these ads of trafficking of children which is appalling. >> another tremendous discussion especially with the focus on anti-trafficking measures and how is it to be brought
still here and we appreciate your testimony so far as this increases the risk to reckons it will not getting the cooperation unfortunately with the subcommittee and a lack of cooperation. you did testify over the course of three years, you worked with backpage recall -- regarding child sex trafficking with recommendations how they could utilize the technologies in a way to reduce child sexual exploitation. there is no recommendations that you made to backpage they chose not to adopt to make the most egregious is that i've been to end they
do not remove it even after it has been reported for child sex trafficking. also a failure to introduce to know your customer or the of verification to put this in a mobile number that we are who we are to use that content. from that innocuous content this is very high risk. with its proclivity for misuse of trafficking with the e-mail address and with
the cybertippling when you don't have the metadata to locate that geographical location moving city to city. to better -- to better gore is traffic. so after the dna but to utilize the #to have a successful prevention mechanism with the content you know, is child sex trafficking for going up. so they never see that advertisement flagging those
not pulling ads said a mother finally sent them an e-mail saying for god's sakes. she is only 16. for all those who our parents or grandparents grandparents, think about that. the yet they refuse to pull the ad in regard to finding them, we appreciate ohio working with legislation to be exploited children think about that. to provide the information into law enforcement in began the heartbreak to know the information is out there is a legitimate commercial concern that is what this
hearing is all about. these kids in the practice that keeps you from doing your job but also keeps parents and grandparents from being able. >> cady briefly outline for the record what you believe backpage operates outside of immunity of the communications decency act? >> i don't have enough information but the concern of the expressed with the amicus brief is that they are exceeding the boundaries of the exemption and.
way the appearance that take them from truck to a trucker called what lizards for the record that is distasteful. but how many sting's go on. there are thousands of cases right now with their caught in basting. have you tried to place an ad to sell those interested in escorts and sexism in the room location for state nativity have a high likelihood to be prosecuted as anybody tried to place that?
we have the back page problem, the criminal element in the demand program. that they can try to access children through the internet. what efforts have you ben privy to of the organizations trying to do good in this area with the customers the chance is there responding to an ad with a law-enforcement officer with my nonprofit colleagues with that advocacy is my understanding to those messages are detailed from the escort
section or are removed. with a public awareness message for a potential buyer is maya understanding. >> we need to make sure we get that have any times have you blocked an ad that there is the likelihood that it may be law-enforcement? >> i'll be happy to refer the committee. >> the uplift be important to. >> into the prosecuting attorney's office but they have been focusing on purchasing and results from search engines like google and microsoft. >> there are different opinions to get this problem
why it is important to be tenacious and refuse to give up let me say for the record i know how dedicated the chairman is how dedicated i am to this issue ended back page think they will go quietly into the night they are sadly mistaken. there is an organization called chukkers against trafficking is a culture that needs to change and they're doing terrific work and hopefully making strides
to address the demand problem. as long as there is a demand we will find the next generation so we need to be on top of that as well. but as we look going forward will be tenacious as we can then maybe talking about a couple of ideas to add to the efforts legislatively and did your testimony to require entities of the instances of child pornography that is federal law but the same requirement
does not exist for child sex trafficking. why do you think that is? would make a difference and has this issue ever been raised before congress or a broader discussion? >> it would be a tremendous additional tool it is that the original statutory requirements for a number of reasons with those instances as a was on child pornography may are inherently more difficult to identify to simply have a photo a child sex trafficking had and that
being said we had some anecdotal discussions of that small gap that is a change of a further discussion that there is a requirement to report child sex trafficking to become aware of their don't have to search for the content if they did it would not only increase our ability to assist families in the process but would go far to assist and other measures. to develop prevention measures. >> into air on the advancing that kind of content.
>> they would welcome an awkward -- an opportunity. >> with the advocacy groups on the front end of this but as we work through these as the first amendment that his work will have repercussions not just in our country but all over the world. a one to think the chairman and the ranking member and thank you for your testimony is great to see you again if there is anything more we can do they will reach out to the committee or individual members on these issues.
>> all of my colleagues have an intense interest what we have been able to find today is specific ways to deal with the online issue certainly that would help with prevention in terms of prosecution those that should be due to pass legislation you were involved with that for those were the most vulnerable in to make some progress and then to change the federal bias for the show women and
men that are victims engine not be treated as criminals to deal with the trauma that is long term or lifelong. it is an opportunity not just to talk about backpage but the ability to be here today with the unwillingness to cooperate to combat sex trafficking and put an end to it in this country. thank you very much for your testimony they give for your hard work you will keep that up nationally working with the attorneys general. john walsh's year from the national center thank you for your dealership and all those that are out there in
the trenches working on this issue every day with a particular shot out to those who are embracing the victims to meet with victims and ohio by going into treatment and recovery, this is the most heartbreaking in difficult part for all those groups. you are excused will now call the second panel. [inaudible conversations]the cel ferrer.
we had hoped he would be here but he has refused to come. we talked up the underlying sex trafficking issue in the 21st century with the human rights causes and we have talked about the fact we have not received cooperation from backpage with legitimate questions that have been raised in the report lays out enough evidence to make it clear why we need the information. at this point, we planned to hear testimony from the ceo, mr. carl ferrer. he is under a vehicle obligation to appear since the october 1st and the
said committee notified on november 3rd for the same day the staff called his lawyers to confirm the plan to appear at the we would not accept logistical excuses and they did not mention any conflict of interest. last friday his lawyers asked us to excuse is appearance because he is traveling and that a test by he would claim the fifth amendment that request was denied on monday. witnesses have the right to refuse questions but that belong to the witness in on his lawyers. it is appropriate to require him himself to exercise his constitutional right if he
believes may incriminate him. they would respect any assertion of those privileges. >> yesterday approached us that he would not appear today because he is on international business trip. this is truly extraordinary. you heard earlier senator mccain said he has never, never see a situation re individual refuses to appear. or to wait to the day before he will be out of the country. the senator and i are working on the steps with his refusal to appear is a clear act of contempt. i would now like to turn to
senator mechanical. >> -- macao's go. >> the laws should apply to everyone. we should make sure we've fulfilled our obligations under though lot. the senate is entitled to ask witnesses to appear and for them to answer questions and provide information. so i think it is important we are steadfast in our resolve to get the information that we need in order to make sure the public policy is effective when it comes to children being victims. with an exercise to make
sure we have done everything to protect children. ed any witness refuses to be invisible wall full requirements of testimony must be held accountable for that. we will be careful to caution about using the procedures available but we will use them. to ensure the separate is robust and informed and ultimately the result is more children that their government is doing everything it can under the law. >> we are partners in this effort and will not be deterred.
applied to thank the chairman of the full committee of komen security ranking member there was a joint statement they commence the efforts in this regard and i like that to be made part of the record. they are supporting us not just an important work we're doing but also referring to back page. we began this bipartisan investigation to better inform congress how to combat spruce more reforms through legislative actions we will then be deterred from the inquiry if backpage
fails to change course to comply with the subpoena to pursue a contempt proceedings as they said earlier this is extraordinary if not taken for more than 30 years regrettably the backpage conduct has very unusual action. acting in good faith what is civil contempt the resolution to bring a civil lawsuit to comply but i speak with the senator with this appears to be more serious. it isn't about questions of privilege. they have not even bothered to search for or identify
and with no lawful excuse this the u.s. olin his obligation today. these are not the actions of a party. he could have come and pleaded the fifth but he chose the even to come. ed is evidence of willful defiance and for those reasons we believe we may justify a referral for criminal contempt. is a lot like to think the witnesses for this very important hearing for any additional comments or questions and with that the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
to the council on foreign relations. for those of you who do not know us, we are an independent nonpartisan membership organization and publisher for nearly 5,000 members, government officials, business pe cue activist, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders and other citizens to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing this and other countries. consistent with the mission we are making ourself a resource for the presidential candidates and their staffs as well as for the american people in the run off for 2016 presidential election. i've written to republican and democrats alike to speak and take questions from our members.
so far we have had marco rubio, the senator from rubio and jim web, former senator from virginia. this tuesday in washington chris christie, the governor of new jersey is scheduled to speak. today, however, we are pleased and honored to host the former secretary of state and former senator from the great state of new york hillary clinton. today's conversation will be conducted by sicaria, thinkers of international relations and american policy. has host show secaria of gps. the format for today we will hear remarks on u.s. national after which she will take
questions. we aim to establish all of this in the span of one hour so we can conclude by roughly 11:30. madame secretary, senator, i want to welcome you back in foreign relations, the podium is yours. [applause] >> thank you, thank you very much. thank you, richard, and thanks for the great work that the council does you should your leadership, it truly is an important resource for us all. i look forward to have having the conversation with you. everyone here at the council and mr. mayor, thank you very much for being here and for everything you are doing and will do to keep our city safe and strong. i'm very grateful. i wanted to come here to our city, which has shown such
resilience in the face of terrorism to talk about the events of the past week and the work we must do together to protect our country and our friends. when the united states was hit on 9/11 our allies treated that attack against one as an attack against all. now, it's our turn to stand in solidarity, france and all of our friends. we cherish the same values and we must share the same determination. after a major terrorist attack, every society faces a choice between fear and resolve. the world's great democracies isn't sacrifice our values or turn our backs on those in need, therefore, we must choose resolve and we must lead the world to meet this threat.
let's be clear about what we are facing. beyond paris in recent days we have seen deadly terrorists attacks in nigeria, lebanon, iraq and turkey and russian civilian airline destroyed in sanai. they per -- persecute religions. an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond and an ideological movement.
and time is of the essence. isis is demonstrated new ambition, reach and capabilities. we have to break the group's momentum and then it's back. our goal is not to deter or contain isis but to defeat and destroy isis. but we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks only to face threats down the road. so we also have to play and win the long game. we should pursue a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy. one that embeds our mission within isis within radical jehadism that's bigger than any one group. whether it's al-qaeda or isis or some other network. an immediate war against an urgent enemy and generational struggle with deep roots will
not be easily torn out. it will require power. one defeat isis in syria, iraq and across the middle east. three, harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and home-grown threats. let me start with the campaign to defeat isis across the region. united states and our international coalition has been conducting this fight for more than a year. it's time to begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts to smash and deny isis
control of territory in iraq and syria. that starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allied planes, more strikes and a broader target set. a key obstacle standing in a way is a shortage of good intelligence about isis and its operation. so we need an immediate intelligence in the region including tech -- technical and speakers with closer partnership with regional and intelligent services. our goal to achieve penetration that we have achieved with al-qaeda in the past. this will help us identify and eliminates isis command and control and its economic lifelines. a more effective coalition air campaign is necessary but not sufficient. we should be honest about the
fact that to be successful air strikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from isis. by president obama i do not believe that we should again have a hundred thousand american troops in combat in the middle east. that's just not the smart move to make here. if we've learned from anything from 15 years of war is that local people and nations have to secure their own communities. we can help them and we should, but we cannot substitute for them. what we can and should support local and regional ground forces in carrying out this mission. now the obstacles to achieving this are significant. on the iraqi side of the border kurdish have fought to defend their own lands. but the iraqi national army has
struggled and it's going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. as part of that process we may have to give our own troops advising and training iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility and helping target air strikes. ultimately, however, the campaign will succeed if more iraqi soonies will join the fight, but that will not happen so long they feel they do not have a stake in their country or confidence in their own security and capacity to confront isis. now we've been in a similar place before in iraq. in the first soonie awakening in 2007 we were able to provide sufficient support to persuade them to join us in rooting out
al-qaeda. unfortunately under prime minister malaki's rule, they were forgotten. but nonetheless, we need to lay the foundation for a second soonie awakening. we need to put sustained pressure on the government in bagdad to get political house in order and move forward with reconciliation and finally stand up a national guard. bagdad needs to accept, even embrace arming soonie and kurdish forces in the war against isis. if baghdad won't do that, coalition should do. more ground services to engage isis beyond the syrian curds that are deep in the fight.
the viable soonie opposition groups remains preoccupied with fighting assad, who let us remember has killed many more syrians than the terrorists have. but they are increasingly under threat from isis as well. so we need to move simultaneously toward a politically solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and encourage more syrians to take on isis as well. to support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force president obama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as more syrians get into the fight and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable syrian opposition units. our increased support should go hand-in-hand with increase
support from arab and european partners including special forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. we should also work with coalition and neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop assad from slaughtering civilians and opposition from the air. opposition forces on the ground with material support from the coalition present safe areas where syrians could remain in the country rather than fleeing toward europe. this combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the turkish border from isis choking off its supply lines. it would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that secretary kerry is pursuing. of course, we've been done several diplomatic dead-ends before in the conflict, but we have models how seemingly and
tractable multicivil wars do eventually end. we can learn lessons from lebanon and bosnia about what it would take and russia and iran have to face the fact that continuing to prop up a vicious dictator will not bring stability. right now, i'm afraid president putin is making things somewhat worse, to be clear, though, there is an important role for russia to help in resolving the conflict in syria and we have indicated a willingness to work with them toward an outcome that preserves syrian as a state with protection to the rights of all syrians and to keep key state institutions in tact. there is no alternative to a political transition that allows syrians to end assad's rule. now much of the strategy on both sides of the border hinges on
the role of our arab and turkish partners and we must get them to carry their share of the burden with military intelligence and financial contributions as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in iraq and syria. countries like jordan have offered more and we should take them up on it because ultimately our efforts will only succeed if the arabs and turks step up in a much bigger way. this is their fight and they need to act like it. so far, however, turkey has been more focused on the kurds than on countering isis. to be fair, turkey has a long and painful history with kurdish terrorists groups, but we need to get turkey to stop bombing occurreddish -- kurdish fighters
in syria who are battling isis. the united states should also work with our arab partners to get them nor invested in the fight against isis. at the moment their focus in other areas because of their concerns in the region, specially the threat from iran. that's why the saudis, for example, shifted attention. so we have to work a common approach. in september i layed out a comprehensive plan to counteract such as hezbollah and hamaz, we cannot view iran and isis as separate challenges. regional politics are too interwoven.
and as we work out a regional approach, we should, of course, be closely consulting with israel, our strongest ally in the middle east. israel increasingly shares with our arab partners and has the opportunity to do more in intelligence and joint efforts as well. now, we should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is. we have to fit a lot of pieces together and move on multiple front seat at once, but if we press forward on both sides of the border in the air and on the ground, i believe we can crush isis terror, and to support this campaign, congress should swiftly pass authorization to use military force. that will send a message to friend and foe alike that the united states is committed to
this fight. the time for delay is over, we should get this done. now, the second almost of our strategy looks beyond the immediate battlefield of iraq and syria to disrupt and dismantle global terrorists infrastructure on the ground and on line. a terror pipeline that facilities the flaw of fighters, financing, arms and propaganda around the world has allowed isis to strike at the heart of paris last week and al-qaeda to do the same earlier this year. isis is working hard to extend its reach, establish affiliates far from home base and despite significant set abacks -- setbacks it has encountered but even al-qaeda, including the death of osama ben laden, they are still posing great threat to
so many. let's take one example. we've had a lot of conversation about isis in the last week. let's not forget al-qaeda. they still have the most sophisticated bomb makers and vicious plotters and active affiliates in places like yemen and north africa. we can't just focus on iran and syria. most urgent is stopping the flow of foreign fighters to and from the war zones of the middle east, thousands of young recruits have flocked to syria, belgium, united kingdom, and yes, even the united states. their western passports make it easier for them to cross borders and eventually return home ral -- radicalized.
we should not stop pressing until turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into syria finally locks down its borders. united states and allies need to know and share the identities of every fighter that has traveled to syria. we have to be smart and target interventions that will have the greatest impact. for example, we need a greater focus on shutting down key enablers who arrange transportation, documents and more. when it comes to terrorist financing we have to go after the once who facilitate. un security council should update terrorism sanctions. they have a resolution that does try to block terrorist financing and other enabling activities, but we have to place more obligations on countries to police their own banks and the united states which has quite a
record of success in this area can share more intelligence to help other countries. and once and for all the saudis and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations as well as schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to rat -- radicalization. we have to identify the hot spots, the specific neighborhoods and villages, the prisons and schools where recruitment happens in clusters like the neighborhood in brussels where the terrorist attacks were planned. through partnership with local law enforcement and civil society special you with muslim leaders, we have to in these hot
spots. there's no doubt we have to do a better job contesting online space including websites and chat rooms where jihadist communicate with followingers. -- followers. at the state department i build up a unit of communication specialists fluent in arabic, somalian to battle with extremists online. we need more of that including from the private sector. social med accompanies can also do their part by swiftly shutting down terrorist accounts so they are not used to plan for both or celebrate violence. online or offline, the bottom line is that we are in a context of ideas against an ideology of hate and we have to win. let's be clear, islam is not our adversary. muslims are peaceful and
tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. the obsession in some corders with clash of civilization or repeating the specific records, radical islamic terrorism isn't just a distraction, it gives these criminals, more murdererrers more standing than they deserve. our priority should be how to fight the enemy. in the end, it didn't matter what kind of terrorists we called ben laden, it mattered that we killed ben laden, but we still can't close our eyes to the fact that there is a distorted and dangerous stream of extremism within the muslim world that continues to spread. it's adherent but capable of causing profound damage, most
specially to their own communities throughout an arc of instability that stretches from north and west africa to asia. overlapping conflicts, collapsing structures, poverty and repression have created openings for extremist to exploit. before the arab spring i warned that the region foundations would sink into the sand without immediate reform. the need has grown more urgent. we have to join with our partners to do the patient steady work of empowering moderates, supporting democratic institutions and the rule of law, creating economic growth that supports stability, working to curve corruptions, helping train effective and accountable law enforcement intelligence and counterterrorism services. as we do this, we must be building up a global
counterterrorism infrastructure that is more effective and adaptable than the terror networks we are trying to defeat when i became secretary of state i was surprised to find that nearly a decade there was no international vehicle to regularly convene countries to deal with terrorist threats. so we created the global counterterrorism forum which now brings together nearly 30 countries, many from the muslim world. it should be a clearing house for directing assistance for countries that need it and let's not lose sight of cooperation of nuclear material and biological weapons and keep them out of the hands of terrorists. at the end of the day, we still must be prepared to go after terrorists wherever they plot
using our tools at our disposal. that includes targeted strikes by military aircraft and drones with proper safe guards when there are aren't any other vilable options to deal with continueing eminent threats. blocking financing, battle in cyberspace is vital to the world against isis but also lays the foundation for diffusing and defeating the next threat and the one after that. the third element of our strategy has to be hardening defenses at home and helping partners do the same against both external and home-grown threats. the united states made a lot of progress breaking down bureaucratic barriers for allowing better information sharing among agencies responsible for keeping us safe. we still have would recollect to do on this front but by
comparison europe is way behind. when a passport is stolen, it steams like after most terrorist attacks we find out that the perpetrators were known to some security form or another but too often the dots never get connected. i appreciate how hard this is specially given the number of suspects and threats, but that has to change. united states must work with europe to dramatically and improve intelligence sharing and counterterrorism coordination. european countries also should have the flexibility to enhance their border controls when circumstances warrant and here at home we face a number of our own challenges. the threat to airline security is evolving as terrorists develop new devices like nonmet alic bombs, so our defenses have
to stay at least one step ahead. we know that intelligence gathered and shared by local law enforcement officers is absolutely critical to breaking up plots and preventing attacks, so they need all the resources and support we can give them. law enforcement also needs the trust of resident and communities including in our own country muslim american. now this should go without saying but in the current climate it bears repeating. another challenge is how to strike the right balance of protecting privacy and security. encryption of mobile communications presents a particularly tough problem. we should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. they have warned that encryption
may prevent them from accessing terrorist communication and preventing a future attack. on the other hand, we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security and creating new vulnerabilities, that bad actors can and would exploit. so we need silicon valley not to view as adversary, we need to challenge our best minds to work with the best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that will both keep us safe and protect our privacy. now is the time to solve the problem, not after the next attack. since paris, no homeland security challenge is being more hotly debated than how to handle syrian refugees seeking safety in the united states. our highest priority, of course, must always be protecting the american people, so, yes, we do
need to be vigilant in screening refugees from syria guided by the best judgment of our security professionals in close coordination with our allies and partners and congress needs to make sure the necessary resources are provided for comprehensive background checks drawing on the best intelligence we can get, and we should be taking a close look at the safe guards and the visa programs as well, but we cannot allow terrorist to intimidate us in abandoning our values and our humanitarian obligations. turning away orphans and applying test and discriminating and slamming the door on every syrian refugee, that's just not who we are. we are better than that, and remember many of the refugees are fleeing the same terrorists that are threatening us. it would be a cruel irony indeed
if isis can force families from their home and also prevent them from ever finding new ones. we should be doing more to ease this humanitarian crisis, not less. we should lead the international community in organizing a donor conference and supporting countries like jordan who are sheltering the majority of refugees fleeing syria, and we can get this right, america is open, free, tolerant society is described by some as vulnerability in the struggle against terrorism, but i actually believe it's one of our strengths. it reduces the appeal of radicalism and richness and resilience of our communities. it's not a time for scoring political points. when new york was attacked on 9/11, we had a republican president a republican governor and a republican mayor and i
worked with all of them. we pulled together and put partisanship aside to rebuild our city and protect our country. this is a time for american leadership, no other country can rally the world to defeat isis and win the generational struggle against radical jehadism. only the united states can move common action on a global scale, that's exactly what we need. the entire world must be part of this fight, but we must lead it. there's been a lot of talk lately about coalitions. everyone seems to want one but there's not nearly as much as talk about what it actually takes to make a coalition work in the pressure of international crisis. i know how hard it is because we've done it before. to impose the toughest sanctions in the history of iran and stop dictator from slaughtering in
libya and democracy in afghanistan, we have to use every pillar and that is smart power. we have to work with institutions and partners like nato, eu, arab league and un and strengthen alliances and never get tired of old-fashion, show-leather diplomacy. united states and our allies must demonstrate that free people and free markets are still the hope of humanity. this past week as i watched the tragic scenes from france, i kept thinking back to a young man the world met in january after the last attack in paris.
his name was lozana, muslim immigrant who worked at a kosher market. he said it had become a new home and colleagues and customers a second family. when the terrorists arrived and the gunfire began, ozana risked his life to protect his jewish customers. he moved quickly hiding as many people as he could in the cold storage rooms and then slipping out to help the police. i didn't know or cared if they were jews or muslims, we are in the same boat. what a a rebuke, but when it mattered most, he proved he was a citizen
already. that's the power of free people, that's what the jehadis will never understand and never defeat, and as we meet here today, let us resolve that we will go forward together and we will do all we can to lead the world against this threat, that's threatening people everywhere. thank you all. [applause] >> thank you so much, madame secretary and thank you, richard for organizing this extraordinary opportunity. in the wake of the paris attacks president obama said that he thought what we needed now was an itensification.
>> but it has to also intensify and accelerate our efforts in the other arenas. what we have done with air strikes has made a difference, but now it needs to make a greater difference and we need more of a coalition, what we have done with the president saying there would be special forces sent is right in line with what i think but they need to get there and check stock of whether we need more and empower our trainers in iraq to have more support to do what they're trying to accomplish by getting the iraqi army, once, again, to be a fighting force.
and when he need one thing that i believe we haven't done yet is make it clear to bagdad that we are going to be arming soonie tribes and kurds if they don't. because at some point they have to be in the fight. the kurds are fighting greatly on both sides of the border and they need the support that we've given them and some of the special ops work and the assault and taking back of sinjar and the other two elements that i mentioned. we have to deepen and better coordinate not only within our own country in europe but more broadly. >> do you believe that president obama underestimated isis when he called it the jb team? >> i don't think it's useful to replow old ground fr the sper -- from the perspective of what they had accomplished at the time, even though they had
ceased and held territory, the major focus of our government was on trying to remove assad from power so that there could be a resolution, a political resolution and there were so many groups fighting. there were so many other factors at work. now that isis has made clear that i think in part because they have been pushed hard by the air strikes, by the kurds, they are now expanding their reach so that they can keep their propaganda going. it's been an evolution in their threat and we have to meet it. >> a couple of days ago new york times, terrorist counterattack with obama. has it? >> it's not the first headline that i have disagreed. i have made it clear that i have
differences. i was very proud to serve as president obama's secretary of state. i think we made a good team. we largely agreed on what needed to be done to repair our alliances to get our country in a position to deal with the wars that it had been inherited and take on the new challenges we faced. but even when i was still there, i thought we needed to do more to try to identify syrian fighters, moderates, i think there were some early on that we could have done more to help them in their fight against assad, but, you know, this is an evolving and fast-moving situation. we are all working to, you know, make sure that what we do actually will produce the results we seek. >> when you were secretary of state you tended to agree a great deal with the then secretary of defense bob gates. gates was opposed to a no-fly
zone in syria. this seems to me the major difference with what obama's administration is doing and what you're proposing. what do you disagree with bob gates on this in. >> i believe that the no-fly zone is merited and can be implemented, again, in a coalition. i fully respect bob and his knowledge about the difficulties of implementing a no-fly zone, but if you look at where we are right now, we have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out by a syrian government and supplemented by russian air force. we had a no-fly zone over
northern iraq for years to protect the kurds and it proved to be successful, not easy, it never is, but i think now is the time for us to revisit those plans. i also believe as i said in the speech that if we begin a conversation about no-fly zone, something turkey discussed with me when i was secretary of state in 2012, it will confront a lot of our partners in the region and beyond about what they are going to do and can give us leverage of discussions that secretary kerry is carrying on right now. i see it as both a strategic opportunity on the ground and a -- an opportunity for leverage in peace negotiations. >> you talked about arab partners, saudi arabia is
essentially dropped out, ua dropped out. what would you -- what can you do particularly to make these key soonie states that see more interested in fighting in yemen where they are battling forces. what can you do to make them actually take this on as their struggle? well, we did build the coalition with respect to libya. we had jordan involved in what we were doing on the ground and it takes constant outreach. obviously you have to define the problem as the way it's affecting their interest. they have put all the resources against iranian backers in yemen. now what does that mean? they see the battle that they want to fight as one against
iran and its proxies. my argument to them to me left unattended, you could have iranian reach. if you allow syria to fall into as terrible of distress as it currently is and basically assad being a proxy for a front-man for the iranians, russians are interested in their naval base. so what you're facing in yemen could be a limited preview of what you could face going forward unless we get some concerted effort to stop fighting that gives group to all groups to, syria in the future.
just as the arabs were breaking. i did so not knowing the air above spring coming to full bloom but it was so clear of what was doing by denial of opportunity, by the secretary divide, it could not stand. it was going to explode at some point or another. with the developments in libya, for example, the libyan people voted twice in free and fair elections for the kind of leadership they want. they have not been able to figure out how to prevent the disruptions that they are confronted with because of internal divides and because of some of the external pressures that are coming from terrorist groups and others. so i think it is too soon to tell. i think it is something we have to be looking at very
closely. now most of it left problems but the problem we came at by having a deal, in fact my husband is talking about the dayton accords the people have been slaughtering each other and result to exist within a government together. is it perfect? no. but has it cap going, and have we kept going. absolutely. so we have to look at these different situations on their own as well as part of bigger trends. >> several of the people running against whoever the democrat is argue that we should not be taking in syrian refugees. if we we do, we should prioritize christian refugees, jeb bush has
said this, ted cruz has said this, they are being particularly persecuted by isis. >> i just don't think we should have religious tests of who we bring as refugees in our country. we have, in the past i looked more more than 2 million refugees since 1990. so far, we know that trying to that and understand the connections that a person or a family might have with someone in the united states, looking to see what organization, often a faith-based organization will sponsor them and what they will do to help them get education or job. that is by far the best way to sort out and to determine who should be included. now, this is going to take a long time.
really, doing this is hard under any circumstances. doing it when people are essentially stateless, they don't necessarily have documents, it is hard to do the vetting. it is going to be challenging which is why said in the speech congress should be providing resources for us to do this right. not not trying to stop it. i just don't believe that is in keeping with our values are history. frankly it doesn't doesn't send that kind of message that we want to stand to the rest of the world. we have to be careful, we have to be vigilant, we have to have a system that does all of that. >> let's open it up to members of the council, if someone wants to put up their hand, identify themselves and please make sure it is a question with a? at the end. and make it brief. >> thank you very much for your comments. with respect to tpp, i would like to understand a little bit better why you oppose it and what changes would perhaps make it acceptable to you?
>> there are two problems that i see with it. one, the final language of the treaty itself which i don't think went far enough to meet the test that i have always applied to any tried agreement. i have voted for them and i have voted against them when i was a senator. does it help to create more good paying jobs in america, does it reason comes, does it raise our national security? i think are enough on answer questions. it was an extraordinary effort to try to bring these countries together to come up with an agreement, i think at the end of the day for a number of reasons, including they cannot figure out how to get currency into the agreement and it is only a side agreement, i opposed it. the other side of the coin though is we have been doing so little because of republican
opposition, mostly, mostly, to better train and prepare people who have been either sidelined or wrapped up by their head from globalization. globalization is real, we do not have a good training program, we do not have the kind of support people need to move into positions where they can acquire new skills. i see those those two things is going together. because we have to first and foremost focus on how we better prepare more americans to be competitive in the global economy. i do not not think we have done that. i want to see that done alongside any tried agreement to strengthen the republicans have been willing to support it. >> madam secretary, amy bondurant. so importantly you have
recommended the u.s. lead the air coalition. i wondered what next steps might be taken to ensure that what happened? >> well amy, there is nothing magic or easy about putting together such a coalition. i know presidents around will be coming to the states to see president obama this week. i assume there'll be a group of defense officials, intelligence officials, homeland security officials, that will be meeting with their american counterparts. on the defense side i think certainly the united states working with france and from that sort of hubbub beginning to reach out to other countries to seek out other support. i i would go back to arab countries as well. so looking for a way to begin the discussions about the
negotiations that lead to the coalition as quickly as possible. going back to libya, the europeans were the ones who wanted americans support and we did not agree to do so until we had a very clear idea what they were willing to do. then we reach out and worked with the arab league so there would be air partners as well. that took weeks. it was not something that happened overnight. but it is definitely doable if we begin with the french-american position and move out from there. >> carrie whitney. my understanding is with regard to u.s. supported syria rebels
over the last year to one of the main restraints as they did not fight aside directly. if this is a severe limitation a part of the plant that did not work. when you recommend supporting additional training for syrian rebel groups, would you advise them to fight aside or is that a part of a conflict we don't want to get into? >> back in the first term when dave patrice and i made our recommendation on vetting and arming syrian moderate rebels the target was a side aside. it was to prevent the military taking over territory and creating the type of humanitarian disaster that we now see. that is what we recommended in the first term. since then, i know it has been a very difficult task for our government to take on and pursue successfully, but one of the
challenges has been trying to draw lines. if you draw the lines because you want to be able to vet and follow what happens to the arms that you are equipping people with. but what happened with some of the few groups that have been trained is that they were quickly overrun by much more hardened fighters who were fighting aside. was a very hard task to do two or three years later. i think it might've been but i i am sad i cannot predict what would happen if we had moved earlier. it may have work, it may have not work. you cannot you cannot really take syrians who are rebelling against the side. let me ask a follow-up on that madam secretary. if the only way you can put together a moderate syrian force
is by having the united states cajole, bribe, arm, and train train it, we're then looking for the force to defeat isis then defeat aside and then defeat other affiliates. they take control of damascus and establish a democracy in syria. isn't that kind of a tall order. >> certainly described like that. that is why i focused on isis. i think right now we have one overriding goal. as i outline, we need to crush their territorial domain and we need to try to secure the entire border between syria and turkey. there is not going to be a successful military effort at this point to overturn the assad
regime, that that can only happen through the political process. our effort should be focused on isis. yes, there are other terrorist groups. there particularly. >> no fight against -- >> we have to prioritize. we had an opportunity, perhaps i wants it would have work. right now we have the russians in protecting aside, the iranians and has below protecting aside, we need people to turn against the common enemy of isis. then we need to figure out how we put together a political outcome that provides enough autonomy so that the separate communities within syria will be able to re-create a syrian state even though it is probably unlikely it will be controlled by damascus the same way it was before the civil war started. >> there's policy here but
there's also politics. there are inescapably people trying to appear tough and tougher. if there were another terrorist attack, god forbid in the united states, do you think the pressure to send american troops into syria would be unstoppable question that. >> will, it was really grow but i think but i think it would be a mistake. as i said, we should be sending morse vessel operators, we should be empowering our trainers in iraq. we should be leading an air coalition using both fighter planes and drones. we have a lot of work to do to be able to really decimate isis in iraq and syria. but we have got to work with the kurds on both sides of the border. we have to figure out how to, if it is possible how to have a second awakening and get
the sunni tribes to feel that it is their fight again as they once did. that that requires a lot of political pressure being put on baghdad. injecting some large contingent of american forces complicates that, in, in my opinion. right now we need to keep the pressure on the people on the ground and get them to change their priorities and work together. >> back to the no-fly zone. are you you advocating a no-fly zone over the entire country? or partial no fly zone where refugees may find a safe haven? in the event of either do for see you may be potentially provoking the russians? >> i am advocating the second. a no-fly zone principally overt northern syria, close to the turkish border, cutting off the supply lines, trying to provide
some safe refugees, creating a safe space away from the barrel bombs and other bombardment by the syrians. i would certainly expect to and hope to work with the russians to be able to do that. the russians have, as you know, been primarily a focused on sides enemies. not on isis. i think that has changed and after he comes here he is going to moscow to see putin. as i said earlier, i think getting russia to play a role in that and getting aside to understand what happens to him will be a result of a political rebel resolution which secretary kerry is undertaking right now
but to have a swath of territory that could be a safe zone both for syrians so they would not have to leave but also for humanitarian relief. i think it would give us this extra leverage that i'm looking for in the diplomatic pursuit with russia with respect to the outcome of syria. >> we can take one more brief question. >> my question is as we leave saudi arabia do think the goals outlined in the middle east can be achieved? more cooperation from saudi arabia and if not how do you think it can be convinced to change the course question marks. >> i think the saudis are critical to achieving the goals. the saudis are now engaged in the discussions that secretary kerry is leading, they are in the same process as the iranians
which it was something that was hard to get to but finally achieved. i think the saudis have a multiple level of responsibilities. first and foremost foremost stop in their own citizens from continuing their financing for extremists. saudi financing is still a major source of revenue for terrorist groups inside syria, inside-out rock. >> including isis you think? >> i have no evidence of that. isis has become quite a self financing terrorist network with their vast of oil and selling it on the black market with their destruction and seizure of antiquities, selling that on the black market. they are taking over muzzle and rating the banks. they have a source of funding. i don't really know but i know the saudi individuals have certainly funded other related terrorist groups over time. also exported a lot of the hobby
radicalism by kicking out or sending out emond's and and teachers to a set of schools and mosques to teach that particularly harsh brand of islam. saudis have a lot they can do to both stop into hell. that is why said they are can legitimately concerned about a takeover in yemen that lets up against their border. that is why they can do a lot of resources and reestablish the government. they they have a lot going on there. i would hope to draw them into a broader reading into what is going on in the region. for a lot of people the sunni shia secretary and divide is one of the major reasons for what is
happening there, it is understandable that the saudis need to have a broader view and looking at iran's influence inside zero, their groin influence in iraq as well as in yemen they have to help us stabilize northern syria to start with while trying to come up with some resolution of the civil war. i hope the
>> [applause]. thank you. wow. look at this. [applause]. there is some excitement in this room today. thank thank you, thank you all for coming on behalf of of the school of public policy, the institute of politics and public service at georgetown university, thank you for being here. i'm going to try to be brief because i'm guessing you are not here for me. of years ago when the school became the first new school at georgetown in decades, it really came together about the commitment to bring together the notion of the jesuit ideal of seer service for the common good. an evidence-based policy, bringing them together. part of that vision was to
create an institute that looked at the practical side of politics. with a focus on engaging young people in public service. that vision here on campus was realize the semester with the creation of the institute of politics and public service, or g politics as we like to call it. i like to thank the dean for your leadership on that [applause]. >> i'm not to say met because you are my boss and you are in the front row. [laughter] >> key politics is we believe that politics is a beautiful. it is how democracy settle their differences. most major movements in our nation's history were relies, at least in part, through a practical political element. when it is done right it is how we as a nation realize our dreams and goals of the people. when it is done right.
but it is not always done right. there is a a real disconnect right now between people and their politics today. nowhere is that more evident than with your generation. it is not that your generation is disengaged. i think those of you who are standing out there in the rain for hours this morning proved that point. but politics do not always speak to young people the way it used too. or the way that it ought to. the goal at geopolitics is to figure out ways to address that. one, pull back the curtain, show you how politics is actually done from the people who actually do it and bring that political access in d.c. to you, here on campus. more importantly, we are here to engage you, i was in politics for 20 years politics for 20 years before i came back to start this institute i can't teach people how to do politics, one who broke it.
there is a better way to do it and we need to hear from you what it is. so it is a master that we are gathered here today. regardless. regardless of whether or not you agree with his politics, you have to give today speaker a lot of credit. he is energized, a tremendous number tremendous number of americans with a message of engagement both socially and politically. the the speech is giving today has the potential to be a defining moments of the 2016 presidential presidential campaign. the fact that he came here to give it and to take your question afterward is his testament to engagement i am thrilled that he is here today, i am thrilled that you are here today and with dialogue maybe we can reconnect people with the political system. as we like like to say at gu politics, politics is a good thing. with that, i like to bring up
the person that is going to introduce our speaker. [applause]. don't you just love this. studying international political economy, she is originally from appleton, wisconsin and she is a member of the gu politics do not advisory board. aside from government, politics, and economics she is passionate about gender equality. when she is not in class you can find her at her campus job at a career center or on an aimless walk somewhere. please join me in giving her a warm welcome. [applause].
thank you for the introduction. thank thank you all for being here today. it is an absolute honor to be able to introduce our guest, 2016 presidential candidate, senator bernie sanders. [applause]. as mentioned i am a senior in the in the advisory board member for gq politics. i joined gu politics looking for space on campus where i can meet other students as a passionate about public engagement as i am am from both sides of the aisle. standing here today, i can can confidently say that i have found just that. gu politics is making conversations like the one we are going to have today possible. i'm i'm proud to be part of that. you might be skipping various commitments or should be in class, but the fact that you have been waiting in line for
hours and have billed to the brim speaks to how engaged are students truly are. you are here because you care about what is going on in the world outside of the front gates and you want to be a part of that dialogue. that is amazing. now, i am am honored to introduce senator bernie sanders. [applause].
we are so excited to have with us today senator sanders, or bernie as he is down to the people of vermont and others were feeling the burn. this is the point where i should ask you to turn your phone off, but i i won't, as long as you keep it silent we want you to continue the conversation by tweeting at gu politics using the #. please help me welcome senator bernie sanders [applause]. [applause]. thank you all for being out on this beatable day.
[applause]. let me thank mole for that wonderful introduction. i think my message to you all today is a pretty simple one. that is, our country faces some enormous problems and these problems are not going to be solved if the people turn away from political struggle. if it people throw up their hands in despair and say i do not want to get involved in this crap. you are getting a great great education here at georgetown, i hope it very much you will learn and use what you have learned here, to fight to create a better world and to follow in the traditions of so many people, for so many years who have struggled to create a more democratic and just society. let me take you now back to the
1937 and in his inaugural address, in the midst of the great depression, president franklin d roosevelt looked out at the nation amidst a terrible depression and this is what he saw and this is what he talked about in his in our girl. he saw tens of billions of people denied the basic necessity of life, he saw millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the family disaster hung over them every single day. he sought millions of his fellow americans denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and a lot of their children. he saw millions lacking the
means to buy the products they needed, and by their poverty, by their lack of disposable income denying employment to many other millions. when you do not have money to spend you are not creating jobs for other people. he saw one third of a nation ill housed, ill clad, and ill nourished. and he acted against the ferocious opposition of the ruling class of his day, people he called the economic royalist, roosevelt implemented a series of programs that put millions of americans back to work, took them out of dire poverty, and restored their faith in
government. he redefined the relationship of the federal government for the people of our nation. he combated citizens, fear, and despair. he reinvigorated democracy, he transformed our country and that is exactly what we have to do today. and by the way, almost everything he propose, almost every program, every idea he introduced was called socialist. [applause]. i thought i would mention that
just -- social security which all of you know transformed life to senior citizens in this country was defined by his opponents as socialist. the concept of the minimum wage that workers had to be paid at least a certain amount of money for their labor was seen as a radical intrusion into the marketplace and was described as socialist. on employment insurance, when you lose your job you have something to fall back upon, abolishing child labor, and in the fact that children of eight, 10, 12, 12 years of age were working in factories and working in the fields. they were working 40 hours work week, collective bargaining, the rights of workers to engage in
the negotiation with the union. strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described in one way or another as socialist periods yet, as you all know all of these programs and many more have become the fabric of our nation and in fact, the the foundation of our middle class. thirty years later, after roosevelt's speech in the 1960s, president lyndon johnson fought for medicare and medicaid to provide healthcare to millions of senior citizens
and families with children, persons with disabilities, and some of the most vulnerable people in this country. today, medicare does not seem to be such a terrible radical idea to say that when someone gets old they should have medical insurance. but when it was proposed, once again we heard right winged forces describe these programs as socialistic and a threat to the american way of life. that was then, now it's now. today, in the year 2015 despite the wall street crash of 2008 which drove this country into the worst economic downturn since the great depression, the american people are clearly better off economically than they were in 1937.
but, here is a very hard truth that we must acknowledge, we must addressed, we must not sweep under the rug. that is, despite a huge increase in technology, and i can remember back i was mayor of the city of burlington, vermont. vermont. is anyone here from vermont? [applause]. okay. and while i was mayor in the 19 eighties, radical development took place. we got computers in city hall. okay. 1980. despite a huge increase in technology and worker productivity, meaning every worker in america with that technology is producing more than workers who came before. despite major growth in our gdp and a huge increase in the
global economy, tens of a millions of american families continue today to lack basic necessities of life, while millions more struggle every day to provide a minimal standard of living for their family. i hope none of you will turn your back on that reality. the truth is, and again this is a truth we must put on the table. yes, we are better off today economically than we were seven years ago when bush left office. but the other truth is, that for the last 40 years on their republican leadership and democratic leadership, the great middle-class of our country has been in decline and faith in our political system is extremely low.
new technology, increase worker productivity, people work longer hours for lower wages, faith in our political system now extremely low. the very rich get richer. almost everyone else gets poorer. super pacs funded by billionaires by elections. coke brothers brothers alone and a few of their friends will spend more money in this election cycle than either the democratic or republican party. ordinary people, working people, young people don't vote. we have an economic and political crisis in this country and the same old, same old politics and economics will not
effectively address this crisis. if we are serious about transforming our country, and i hope all of you are serious about transforming our country, if we are serious about rebuilding the american middle class, if we are serious about reinvigorating american democracy, we need to develop a political movement which once again is prepared to take on and defeat a ruling class whose greed is destroying our nation. [applause]. now, i know that terms like
ruling class are probably not talk too often here at georgetown. [applause]. not too often talked about on cbs or nbc, but that is the simple fact. in my view, the billionaire class must be told loudly and clearly that they cannot have it all, that our government belongs to all of us, not just a handful of billionaires. [applause]. this goes beyond politics. we need to create a culture, an
entire culture, which is pope francis has reminded us, cannot just be based on the worship of money, we must not accept a nation in which a billionaires compete as to the size of their super yachts while children in america go hungry and veterans, men and women who put their lives on the life to defend our country sleep out on the street. today in america we are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. but few americans know that. so much of the new income and wealth is going to the people on top. in fact, over the last 30 years there has been a massive
redistribution of wealth. the problem is it hasn't gone in the wrong direction. mac the last 30 years we have seen trillions of dollars go from the hands of working families of the middle class to the top one tenth of 1%. a handful of people, top one tenth of 1% who have seen a doubling of the percentage of the wealth that they own during that period. unbelievably and grotesquely the top one tenth of 1% today owns nearly as much wealth as the
bottom 90%. one tenth of 1% owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. that is not the kind of america that we should accept. [applause]. did i tell you that in my state of vermont and all over this country it is absolutely not uncommon to see people working two jobs or three jobs to cobble together the income and healthcare they and their families need. in fact, americans work longer hours than do the people of any other industrialized country.
but despite the fact that our people are working so hard, i go around the country and i see a lot of working people. you can see the stress and exhaustion on their faces. they're they're working crazy hours. husband hardly see wives. people don't have quality time with their kids because they are working so hard just to bring in the income to survive. despite despite all of that, despite people working so hard, 58% of all new income generated today is going to the top 1%. today in america as the middle class continues to dissipate ., median family income is $4100 less hundred dollars less than it was in 1999. the median male worker made over $700 less than he did 42 years
ago in an inflation-adjusted. you you know why people are angry? they are angry because they are working terribly hard. yet, in real inflation-adjusted for dollars they are earning less. they are looking all over her and say what is happening? why is that? but it is not just men, last year the median female worker earned more than $1000 less less than she did in 2007. 58% of all new income goes to the top 1%. today in america the wealthiest country in the history of the world, that that is what we are today. more than half of all the workers have zero retirement savings. think about that, you are 50, 55 years of age and you are thinking okay, how my going to retire? because my wages have gone down i have zero in the bank for retirement.
at the same time, all over america you have millions of seniors and people with disabilities trying to survive on 12 or $13000 per year social security. from vermont to california, all of the workers are scared to death and they are saying how my going to retire with dignity? i want all of you to get your calculators out, not now, when you leave here, do some arithmetic. try to put yourself in the place of a senior citizen in my state of vermont work it's cold in the winter. try to survive survive on $13000 per year. you tell me, how are you are going to pay for the food that you need, heat your home, and by the medicine that you need. you know what? you can't do it. today in america, nearly
47 million people are living in poverty and to over 20% of our children, including 36% of african-american kids are living in poverty. the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any nation on earth. what i want you to think about is why is it, in the wealthiest country in the world where we are seeing the proliferation of millionaires and billionaires, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. today in america, 29 million americans have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with outrageously high copayments and deductibles. in other words, people do have insurance but i talked to people
every day. they have a $5000 deductible, 8000-dollar deductible. they can't go to the dr. when they need. on top of that, for a wide friday of reasons our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. doctors tell me all of the time, we prescribe something, medicine for our patients they can't afford to fill that medicine, that prescription. prescription. one out of five americans cannot afford to fill the prescription. what insanity is that? today in america, youth unemployment and underemployment is over 35 percent. for. for african-american kids it is over 50%. meanwhile, we have more people in jail than any other country. china, communists country, four times our size, we have we have
more people in jail than china. countless lives are being destroyed as we stand $80 billion a year locking up our fellow americans. the bottom line is that today in america we not only have massive wealth and income equality, but a power structure built around that inequality which protects those who have the money. today, a handful of super wealthy campaign contributors have enormous influence over the political process while their lobbyists determine much of what goes on in congress. any member of the united states house or senate who is prepared to tell you the truth, will tell
you exactly that. now in 1944, in his state of the union speech, president roosevelt outlined what he called a second bill of rights. you you are all familiar with our bill of rights and what roosevelt outlined was what he called a second bill of rights. this is, in my view, one of the more important speeches ever made by a president's. unfortunately it has not gotten the attention that it deserves. so, i am i am going to give it some attention today. in his remarkable speech, this is what roosevelt stated, and i quote. >> we have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot
exist without economic security and independence. men and women are not free men and women and of quote. in other words, real freedom must include economic security. that was roosevelt's vision 70 years ago, it is my vision today, it is a vision that we have not yet achieved, and it is time that we did. [applause].
in that speech roosevelt described the economic rights, rights that he believed every american was entitled to. the right to a decent job at decent pay. the right to adequate food. the right to clothing, and time off of work. the right for every business, large business, large and small, to function in an atmosphere free from an unfair competition and domination by monopolies. the right of all americans to have a decent home and decent healthcare. what roosevelt was stating in 1944, what martin luther king jr. stated in similar terms 20 years later, and what i believe today is that true freedom does
not occur without economic security. people are not free, they are not truly free when they are unable to feed their family. they are not truly free when they are unable to retire with dignity, they are not truly free when they are unemployed, underemployed, or when they are exhausted by working 60, 70 hours per week. people are not truly free when they don't know how they will get medical help when they or family member are sick. so let me take this opportunity to define for you simply and straightforwardly what democratic socialism means to me. it means building on what franklin delano roosevelt said when he fought for guaranteed
economic rights for all americans. it is built on what martin luther king jr. said in 1968 when he stated, and i quote, this country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor, and of quote. [applause]. my view of democratic socialism builds on the success of many other countries around the world. who have done a far better job than we have in protecting the needs of their working families, their elderly citizens, their children, their sick, and their
port. democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system which is corrupt, that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy. democratic socialism in my mind speaks to a system which, for example during the 1980s -- i want you to hear this, allowed wall street to spend $5 billion over a ten-year period in lobbying and campaign contributions in order to get deregulated. they wanted the government off of their backs, they wanted to do what ever they wanted to do, spent $5 billion over a ten-year
period on lobbying and cut campaign contributions. then, ten years later after their greed and recklessness and illegal behavior led to their collapse, what our system enabled them to do was to get bailed out by the united states government's which through congress and the feds provided trillions of dollars in aid to wall street. in other words, wall street used their wealth and power to get congress to get there bidding for deregulation. then, when wall street collapsed they used their wealth and power to get bailed out. quite a system. then, to add insult to injury we
were told that not only were the banks too big to fail, we were told the bankers were too big to jail. [applause]. and this is the system, young people who get caught possessing marijuana, they get police records and many hundreds of thousands of them have received police records which have impacted their lives in very serious ways. on the other hand, if wall street ceos who helped destroy the economy, they don't get police records, they get raises and their salaries. this is what doctor mount luther king junior meant when he talked about socialism for the rich and
rugged individualism for everyone else. in my view it is time we had democratic socialism for working families, not just for wall street, billionaires, and large corporations. it means we should not be providing welfare for corporations. it means we should not be providing huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country or trade policies which boost corporate profits while they result in workers losing their job. it means that we created governments which works for all of the american people not just powerful special interests. it means that economic rights must be an essential part of what america stands for.
among many other things it means that healthcare should be a right of all people, not a privilege. [applause]. there are some people out there who think this is just an ink credibly radical, if the united states of america all of us having healthcare is a right. i hope all of you know this is not a radical idea, it is a conservative idea. it is an idea and practice that exists in every other major country on earth.
not just in scandinavia, denmark, sweden, it exists in canada. i live live 50 miles away from canada. not a radical idea, it exists in france, germany, taiwan, all over the world. countries have made the determination that all of their people are entitled to health care and i believe the time is long overdue for the united states to join the rest of the world. [applause]. for all single-payer program which i support would not only guarantee healthcare for all people, not only save middle-class families and our entire nation significant sums of money, because all of you should know that our healthcare
system is by far the most expensive per capita of any system on earth, but a medic carried medicare for all single-payer program would radically improve the life of all americans and bring about significant improvements in our economy. think about it. people who get sick will not have to worry about paying a deductible or making a copayment. radical idea, when they are sick they can actually go to the dr.. and not and up in the emergency room at a much greater expense to the system. think about it, business owners will not have to spend enormous amounts of time worrying about how they'll provide healthcare for their employees. think about it. we don't talk about this very much, you got millions of
workers in this country who are staying on jobs, in jobs, which they do not want to stay in but they are there because they have a decent healthcare program for themselves and for their families. think what it means, when young people or anybody else can say you know what, this is the job that i love. this is is what i want to do and i'm going to get out and start this business and do this work. i don't have to worry about healthcare because all of us in america have healthcare. [applause]. by the way, what a medicare for
all system would bring about is ending the absurdity of the american people pain by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. now when i talk about democratic socialism what that means to me is that in the year 2015, a college degree today is equivalent to what a high school degree was 50 years ago. what that means is that public education must today allow every person in this country to have, who has the ability, qualifications and desire, the right to go to a public college or university to for free. [applause].
this a radical socialistic idea? i don't think so. it exists it exists in many countries all over the world. you know what? it used to exist in the united states of america. he had great universities like university of california, virtually tuition free. democratic socialism means that our government does everything he can to create a full employment economy. it makes far more sense to me to put millions of people back to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure that to have a real unemployment rate of almost 10%. it is far smarter to invest in jobs and educational opportunities for young people who are unemployed then to lock
them up and sit in jails and incarceration. [applause]. democratic socialism means if someone works 40 hours per week that person should not be living in poverty, that we must raise the minimum wage to a living wage, $15 per hour over the next several years [applause]. it means that we join the rest of the world and pass the very strong paid family medical leave
administration now sitting in congress. [applause]. i want you to think about this, i really want you to see what goes on in our country. it is not only that every other major country, virtually every country in the world, poor countries, small countries, reach the conclusion that one a woman has a baby she should not be forced to be separated from that newborn baby after a week or two and have to go back to work. make it so moms and dads can stay home and get to love their babies. it is a family value that we should support.
that is why i want to and will fight to end the absurdity of the united states being one of the only countries on earth that does not guarantee at least three months of paid family medical leave [applause]. democratic socialism to me means that we have government policy, strong government policy which does not allow the greed and profiteering of the fossil fuel industry to destroy our environment and our planets [applause]. it means to me that we have a
moral responsibility to come back on training combat climate change and leave this planet healthy and habitable for kids and grandchildren. [applause]. democratic socialism means that in a democratic civilized society, the wealthiest people in the largest corporations must pay their fair share of taxes. [applause]. yes, innovation, innovation, entrepreneurship, and business success should be rewarded, but greed for the sake of greed is not something that public policy should support. [applause].
it is not acceptable to me that in the last two years, 15 of the wealthiest people in this country, 15 people, saw their wealth inc. crease in this rigged economy by 170,000,000,000 dollars. and $70 billion. got it. two years. fifteen people, $170 trillion that is more wealth than is owned by the bottom 130 million americans. let us not forget what pope francis has so elegantly stated. we have created new idols, the worship of the golden task of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of
money and dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking in truly humane goal. in other words, we have got to do better than that. it is not a political issue, not economic issue, it is a culture issue. we have got to stop worshiping people who make billions, billions, and billions of dollars. while we have the highest rate of childhood country entrée poverty in the country. when people put their money in the caymans to avoid it is not acceptable that hedge fund managers pay a lower effective tax rate then nurses are truck drivers. it is not acceptable that billionaire families are able to leave virtually all of their wealth to their families without
pain a reasonable estate tax. it is not acceptable that wall street speculators are able to gamble trillions of dollars into the market without pain a nickel in taxes on that speculation. democratic socialism to me does not just mean that we must create a nation of economic and social justice and environmental sanity. of course it it does mean that. but it also means that we must create a vibrant democracy based on the principle of one per person one vote. it is extremely sad and i hope all of you will pay a lot of attention to this issue, it is extremely sad that the united states, one of the oldest, most stable democracies in the world has one of the lowest of voter of any major country and that
millions of young people and working people have given up on the political process entirely. in the last midterm election, just one year ago, 63% of the american people did not vote. 80% of young people did not vote. clearly, just under and despite the effort of many republican governors who want to suppress the vote to make it harder for people of color to participate in the political system, our job together is to make it easier for people to vote not harder for people to vote. commack it is not a radical idea that i will fight for this as hard as i can as presidents, to
say that everyone in this country who is 18 years of age or older is registered to vote. end of discussion. [applause]. so, the next time you hear me attack a socialist, like tomorrow. [laughter] , remember this i do not believe government should take over the grocery store down the street, our own means of production but i do believe the middle class and the working families of this country, who produce the wealth of this country deserve a decent standard of living on their
others a pathway to citizenship and a better life. [applause]. while i'm on that subject let me just mention a word of concern. this is what i've been hearing from the republican candidates. people can have honest disagreements about immigration or anything else. it's called democracy. but people should not be using the political platform to inject racial criticisms into the debate. if donald trump and others referred to latinos and people
from mexico as criminals and rapists, if they want to open that door, our job is to shut that door and shut it tight. [applause]. this country has gone too far, too many people have suffered, and too many people have died. we don't want to continue hearing racist words coming from political leaders. i do believe in american idealism. one of the real pleasures and joys that i have experienced on this campaign so far, being here with you, is seeing the huge numbers of young people who are
coming out, who want to make this country better and use their intelligence and their energy to address the many problems that we have. i want to thank all of the young people here and all over the country for their idealism, and do not, do not, do not become cynical. i am not running for president he cuts it is my turn. i come from a working-class family in brooklyn. i've got brooklyn, i've got vermont and by the way i visited california. [applause]. in seriousness, it is not quite my turn. that is not why i am running for
president, but i am running in order for all of us to be able to live in the nation of hope and opportunity, not for some, but for my seven grandchildren and for all of you. nobody understood better the connection between the american strength at home and our ability to defend america around the world. that is why he proposed a second bill of rights in 1944 and he said in that very same state of union, america's own rightful place in the world, depends on large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world. i am not running for president
to pursue reckless adventures abroad but to rebuild america's strength at home. i will never hesitate to defend this nation, but i will never send our sons and daughters to war under false pretenses or pretenses about dubious battles with and insight. with no end in sight. >> as we discussed, all of you shared with me your shock and horror about what happened in paris and you sent with me your condolences for the families who lost loved ones in your hopes and prayers that those who were
wounded will recover. also those same thoughts go out to the families to those who lost loved ones in the russian flight that we believe was taken down by an isis bomb and also those who lost their lives to terrorist attacks in lebanon and elsewhere. in my mind it is clear that we must pursue policies that destroy the brutal and barbaric isis regime. we must create conditions that prevent extremist ideologies from flourishing. we cannot and should not do it alone. our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. it begins with the acknowledgment that unilateral
military action should be a last resort, not a first resort. [applause]. and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilization of global regions for decades. [applause]. it begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past, rushing to war, regime change in iraq, and in
1953 when they got rid of the president to protect british petroleum interest, iran came in with the brutal dictator and he was thrown out by the islamic revolution and that is where we are in a rant today. in iran today. decisions have consequences. whether it was saddam hussein or the brazilian president in 1964, the chilean president in 1973, this type of regime change, this type of overthrowing governments we may not like often does not work, often makes a bad and difficult decision even worse. these are lessons we must learn.
[applause]. the european nations after world war ii, we est. nato, the north american treaty organization. an organization based on shared interest and goals and the notion of a collective offense against a common enemy. it is my belief that we must expand on these ideals and solidify our commitment to work together to combat the global threat of terrorism. we must create a new organization like nato to confront the security threats of the 21st century. an organization that emphasizes cooperation, collaboration and
to defeat the rise of violent extremism, and importantly, to address the root causes underlying these brutal acts. we must work with our nato partners. we must work to expand the coalition with russia and we must work with members of the arab fleet. but let us be very clear, while the united states and other western nations have the strength of our militaries, and our political systems, the fight against isis is a struggle for the soul of islam, and countering violent extremism, and destroying isis must be done primarily by muslim nations with a strong support of their global partners. [applause].
now this has been my view long before paris and i am very happy to tell you that these same sentiments have been echoed by others in a speech just on sunday in which it was said that terrorism is the greatest threat to our region, the gulf region, region, the middle east, and that muslims must lead the fight against it. he noted that confronting extremism is both a regional and international responsibility and that his incumbent on muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and the religion with generations of intolerance and violent ideology. let me congratulate him not only
for his wise remarks, but also for the role that his small country is playing in attempting to address their horrific refugee crisis in that region. [applause]. a new and strong coalition, erecting power and muslim nations and countries like russia must come together in a strongly poor needed way to combat isis, to seal the borders that fighters are currently flowing across, to share counter terrorism intelligence, to turn off the spigot of terrorist financing and to and support for exploiting their ideology.
we must ask more from those countries in the gulf region. while jordan, turkey, egypt and egypt and lebanon, in their own ways, have accepted their responsibilities for taking in syrian refugees, other countries in the region have done nothing or very little. of equal importance, and this is a point that may make some people uncomfortable, but it is a point that must be made. countries in the region like saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar, countries of enormous wealth and resources have contributed far too literal in the fight against isis. that must change.
[applause]. king abdullah is absolutely right when he said the muslim nation must lead the fight against isis and that includes some of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the region who, up to this point, have done far too little. saudi arabia, turns out has the third largest defense budget in the world. instead of fighting isis, they they are focused more on a campaign to oust iran back to rebels in yemen. kuwait, a country whose ruling family was restored to power by the united states driving saddam hussein out of kuwait, has been a well-known, people in kuwait
have been well known sources of finances for isis and other violent extremism. it has been reported that qatar will spend up to $200 billion on the 2022 world cup including the construction of a large number of facilities to host that event. $200 billion to host a soccer event but very little to fight isis. worse still, it has been widely reported that the government there has not been vigilant in stemming the flow of terrorist financing and that qatari individuals and organizations funnel money to some of the most extreme terrorist groups in the region. all of this has got to change. wealthy and powerful muslim
nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the united states, our young men and women and our taxpayers, to do it for them. they have got to come up to the plate. [applause]. as we develop a strongly coordinated effort, we need a commitment from these countries that the fight against isis takes precedent over the religious and ideological differences that hampel the kind of cooperation that we need. further we all understand that ashad, president of syria is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered many of his own people. i am pleased that we saw last weekend diplomats from all over the world, known as the international serious support
group set a timetable for a syrian led political transition that would open a fair election. these are the promising beginnings of a collective effort to end the bloodshed and move toward a political transition in syria. the diplomatic plans for a sod's transition from power is a good step in a united front, but our major priority must be to defeat isis. nations all over the world, world, who share a common interest in protecting themselves against international terrorism, must make the destruction of isis the highest priority. nations in the region must insist that instead of turning a blind eye, they they will commit their resources to preventing the free flow of terrorist financing and fighters to iraq. we need a commitment that they
will count on the violent rhetoric that fuels terrorism and that often occurs within their borders. this is the model that we must pursue in order to address the global threats that we face. while while individual nations, obviously have historic dispute, the united states and russia now have very strong differences of opinion on some very serious issues, iran iran and saudi arabia do not like each other. but the time is now to do everything possible to put aside those differences, to work toward a common goal of destroying isis. sadly as we have seen recently, no country is immune from attacks by the violent organization called isis, thus
we must work with our partners in europe, southeast asia and other areas, asking the hard questions whether their actions are serving our unified purpose. the bottom line is, isis must be destroyed but it cannot be defeated by the united states alone. a new and effective coalition must be formed with the muslim nations leading the effort on the ground while the united states and other forces provide the support they need. let me conclude by once again inking all of you for being here today. all across this country there is a significant alienation from the political process. people look to washington and they throw their hands up and they say what in god's name is going on.
why aren't our senators and congressmen paying attention to our needs?? why are we developing a rational form policy rather than talking again about getting involved in a quagmire in the middle east that could lead to potential warfare? let me conclude by saying this. the problems that we face as a nation are indeed very, very serious. i talked on some but there's a lot we haven't even touched on. by and large all of these problems were caused by bad human decisions. if we, together, if we stand together if we do not allow ourselves to be divided up by race and weather were gay or straight or born in america or not born in america, weather whether were male or female, if we stand together and if we
focus on how we can create foreign policy and how we can rebuild the middle class, how we can combat climate change, how we can create a nation in which we and racism and homophobia, if we are prepared to do that, if you as young people are prepared to engage in the political process, i have no doubt that there is nothing, nothing that together we cannot accomplish. thank you all very much [applause].
[applause]. >> senator again, we can't think you enough for being here today. the institute of politics and public service invited all the major candidates and it's a testament to your vision that you were the first to accept our invitation. thank you for being here it's clearly you have a lot of friends in this room. let's get right into it. we received a lot of questions from students as they were waiting in line in the rain this morning. you covered a lot of ground, not
surprisingly, the questions are very good. i'm not adding to these questions, i'm going to group some together though where they were on a common theme. let's begin with the central premise with the first part of your remarks. that was a discussion of democratic socialism. your remarks, you did a a very good job of describing what it means to you, what as you know senator there is a lot of confusion just around the word. robert frantz, a freshman from brooklyn who specifically asked me to shout out brooklyn, asked why do you choose to identify as a socialist when it seems in your platform you are more in the middle of the spectrum between capitalism and socialism. a freshman from paris france in the school of foreign service says, in france there is no
problem with the word socialist. i consider myself a socialist and i feel the culture pushes you to call yourself a democratic socialist although i can't see the difference. these two questions alone shows some of the differences in how people view the word and you. i'm wondering if you would comment to that and maybe discuss that confusion and clarify just a little bit. >> i think the reason that i have always, way back when i was mayor of burlington, define myself as a democratic socialist is that in fact is my vision. my vision is not just making modest changes around the edge, it is transforming american society to make it into a much more vibrant democracy and an economy which works much better for working families. by the word socialism, what is
implicit in that she to me is that it is imperative that if we are serious about change, and a lot of people want change but at the end of the day real change does not take place unless we have the courage to take on the very powerful special interest that control our country that's my view. not everybody here may agree with me and most people in congress would not. but i think at the end of the day, what we have got to recognize is not just that we are experiencing mass income and wealth inequality or declining middle-class, but a small number of people have extraordinary power and if we are not prepared to take them on and to tell them that they cannot run the government for their own interest, the real change that many of us want will never take
place. when i use the word socialist and i i know some people aren't comfortable with that, i think that is imperative that we create a political revolution that millions of people get involved in the political process and that we create a a government that works for all, not just a few. [applause]. >> staying on this topic for at least one more question, david, a sophomore from quito ecuador rights when margaret thatcher once said that a socialist always run out of other peoples money. how will your policies create wealth policies so that their long-term sustainability rather than depending on the redistribution of wealth westmont. >> given the fact that we have
seen trillions of dollars being transferred in the last 30 years from the middle class to the top 1%, we start from a position that there is already a lot of money out there. that is an important point that has to be made. we are not a poor country. we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world and we should be doing a lot better for our working people and we should not have 47 million people living in poverty. but how do you create wealth? wealth has to be created. one of the points that i made in my remarks, i believe that we significantly strengthen our economy by having a medicare for all single-payer system which will free millions of people to get involved in creating businesses and in creating jobs which today are trapped at work only because they get the health insurance that that employer is now providing.
i think that if you have a a trade policy, not designed by corporate america to shut down plants in america and move abroad, but a trade policy which works for the american worker, you can create, over a. of years millions of decent paying jobs. i believe that when you raise the minimum wage to $15, which is only the right thing to do, as roosevelt talked about in the 1930s, when you put money into the hands of people who have no disposable income, they will take that money, spend it and create jobs. i think the policies that i am advocating will in fact create wealth and strengthen the economy. these are diametrically opposed and opposite so this trickle down theories that say if we give tax breaks, somehow or another that will benefit the middle-class middle class and the poor. history has been very clear that
is a false doctrine. it hasn't worked. [applause]. >> i think i probably be run off campus if i didn't move to this cup topic next and it's one that you touched on in your remarks, and that is the cost of college tuition. julia friedman, a freshman from albuquerque, new mexico, asked under your plan to reduce the cost of college will attacks on wall street speculation be sufficient to cover the cost of the plan. and a freshman in the business school from tallahassee rights, as many of us know, one of your main policies is to make all public universities tuition free. in the united states many of the greatest universities are private universities. how do you plan to combat the hype price of private universities? >> that's an excellent question.
first thought, the answer to the first question is yes. the legislation i have introduced does a number of things. it makes public colleges and universities free and addresses the significant crisis in this country where millions of people are paying high interest rates on their student debt. i suspect some of you will be graduating deeply in debt. i see at least one person. i suspect there are many more so what we do are two things we also say it is a little bit crazy that today you have many people out there who are paying interest rates on their student debt at six, eight, 10% and can refinance our homes at three or 4%. how legislation does is allow people the ability and the freedom to get the lowest possible interest rates on their
debt that they can get and that will save people all over this country many, many billions of dollars. now if the ad goes together, free tuition and lowering interest rates, it cost about $70 billion a year. yes it can be paid for by a tax on wall street speculation. second point about private universities. of course we know that georgetown and many other private universities do an extraordinary job and we are proud of the quality of education they provide. our legislation includes substantially increasing pell grants to make sure that working class and lower income families, middle-class families can get the help they need if they choose to send their kids here to georgetown or harvard or anyplace else. we also significantly increased student work programs so that universities can have funds
available to employ students on campus. your point is well taken. our legislation also makes our private colleges and universities less expensive [applause]. let's move to the second portion of your speech. >> a junior from denver asks with your strong belief in pacifism how would you address the recent and escalating violence of isis as being at democratic state entail opening orders to refugees? and a freshman from bethesda asked, more generally, how will you ensure the safety of the american people? >> first let me respond to the first question. i have a lot of respect for people who may be pacifists. i am not a pacifist.
what in fact i voted against the very first gulf war. i think history will record that as the right vote. then in 2002 after listening to bush and cheney and donald rumsfeld, and listening carefully to what they had to say, i concluded they were not telling the truth and i voted against the war in iraq. [applause]. but i did vote for the war in afghanistan because i thought that osama bin laden should be held accountable and i did vote for president clinton's effort to end the ethnic cleansing.
no i am not a pacifist. i think that war should be the last resort, but we have the strongest military on earth and of course we should be prepared to use it when it is necessary. in terms of where we are right now, i think the main point i tried to make it my remarks is i think it would be a terrible mistake for many reasons for the united states virtually unilaterally to get involved in the war in syria were re- involved in the war in iraq. the nightmare is that we send our troops in there in combat and they come back in caskets. we send more troops and the plane gets shot down and we send more planes in. twenty or 30 years from now we are still talking about how we get out in that region of the world. i agree very strongly with king abdullah who is absolutely right what is going on there is a struggle for the soul of islam.
there are millions and millions and millions of muslims who detest and are disgusted with what isis and other extremist groups are doing but now they are going to have to get into the process. it is their troops that are going to have to be on the ground. we should be supportive and i support president obama's efforts with airstrikes and special forces, but the leadership must come from the muslim nation. in terms of how we protect our country, obviously we have got to be super vigilant against terrorist attack. i know there is a lot of discussion about refugee. let me say word on that. i am not happy to hear what i have heard in recent days about people who are talking about going into or maybe closing down mosques in america. i am not happy about hearing that we should close our borders
to men women and children who have been displaced and driven out of their homes because of terrorism. i believe that yes, after thorough screening which we have the capability of doing, working with the rest of the world we should accept refugees from that region. that is the moral thing to do. excepting refugees is what america has always done and i think it's improper to turn our backs on those people now. >> the next couple of questions grouped together come from something that i think created a lot of buzz. it's something you said in the debate. it's about climate change and specifically it is linked to terror and terrorism. jonathan, a freshman in the business school writes about
elaborating on your plan to address it? >> obviously, as i hope i made clear this afternoon, organizations like isis and terrorist organizations are a major threat. threat. they have got to be destroyed. but if you look into the future, this is not bernice sanders, this is the cia in the defense department and countries all over the world. this is what they are saying. if we do not get our act together, if there is more drought around the world if there is more flooding, if there are more extreme weather disturbances, if sea levels continue to rise and flood coastal regions, there will be a massive displacement of people
people need water. people need land to grow their crops and if they do not have that land they are going to migrate. they are going to be in competition with other people for limited natural resources. when that happens, according to the cia, according to our own defense department, that lays the groundwork for international conflict. in my view it is not debatable. of course climate change is a major inducement for international conflict and also to terrorism. for example, right now, in, in syria as a result of a sustained drought, people have left the rural areas flooded into the cities causing more instability and becoming people who can succumb to extremist propaganda. so what we have to do, do, and
by the way, when i was your age the challenge of my generation was civil-rights. all over this country, and when i was at the university of chicago, young people stood up and said were going to and to segregation in america, and those of us who were northern schools and our brothers and sisters in the south were getting their heads busted open but we did what we could where we were. one of your great challenges today, continue to fight against racism and sexism and homophobia, but also understand that we are fighting for the future of the planet. if we do not move aggressively, i'm on the energy committee and i talk to scientists all over the world. what they are telling us is we have a small window of opportunity to transform our energy system away from fossil
fuel into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. we need to take on the fossil fuel industry who are looking at short-term profits ahead of the future of this planet. i hope you will be involved in that effort to transform our energy system. [applause]. >> senator i know you have to leave momentarily so i want to close with one last grouping. i think it's an important one because it gets very much at the whole notion of why our institute exists in one of the big points you brought up at the conclusion of your remarks is how do we get this done? us sophomore says, with the republican majority in both houses, would you be willing to compromise to get your most important plans past and a
freshman from san francisco asked how do you plan on implementing your social program given the immense opposition in congress? >> great questions when you are in congress i definition you compromise every day. you all should know that when i was in the house of representatives, i was there for 16 years i ended up getting more amendments passed on the floor than any other member of congress. when there was an issue out there that i could work with republicans on and they were the majority, we put together a pretty good coalition. just two years ago i worked as chairman of the u.s. senate committee on veteran affairs. i work with people like john mccain in the senate and people like just mill miller to put together the most comprehensive
bill passed in recent history. so the point is yes i can compromise. on many of the issues that i have talked about, but virtually all of them, these are not radical extremist ideology. i'm not coming before the american people saying i am this radical, wild eyed socialist with crazy ideas and listen to me. that's not the issue. look at the issues. we want to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. raising the minimum wage wisely popular. we want to create 13 million jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. making public colleges and universities tuition free and lowering student debt, widely popular. combating climate change, there are some republicans who still don't accept it but most
americans do. asking the rich to start paying their fair share of taxes. vast majority of americans think that is right. here's my point, the real question is sure, you have a compromise, but the more important point is why is congress so far out of touch with where the american people are at? the republican agenda is among other things to cut social security, medicare and medicaid and give huge tax breaks to billionaires and ignore the planetary crisis of planet change. how many people believe in that agenda? truly a very small majority of people. when i talk about the political revolution and i talk about transforming american people is bringing in the voices of millions and millions of people have given up on the political
process. to have their views and needs being heard by congress. when that happens, everything that i talked about will be passed. if that does not happen, virtually nothing will be passed. so what this campaign, from my perspective, perspective, is about, it is not just electing bernie sanders to be president, and i do appreciate your support, but it is much more than that because no president, not bernie sanders or anybody else can implement the kinds of changes we need in this country unless millions of people begin to stand up and fight back. i think right here, on college campuses all over the country we are beginning to see that fight back.
we are beginning to see that fight back among low-wage workers were going out into the street saying we can't make it on eight or $9 per hour. raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. we are beginning to see that movement develop and i hope you will be part of that movement because if you are, we can in fact transform this country. thank you all very much. [applause].
refugees. this. is 30 minutes.tion >> it's clear that the american people are concerned about the administration's ability to properly that thousands of individuals from syria. more than half of our nation's nation's governors, governors of both parties, have demonstrated their concern. any members in congress, members of both parties, have raised concern as well. given all of this and all that has happened in paris, it simply makes sense to take a step back for now to press the pauseen button so we can determine the facts and ensure we have the correct policies. and screenings in place. that is the most responsible thing for the administration to do right now.o that's the most reasonable and balanced thing for the administration to do right now.u
you should also not lose sight of why we are in this position to begin with. the syrian people are fleeing syria because of a brutal civil war. the ultimate solution to this problem is to make syria a place for syrian people can return to. the administration has never had a coherent strategy to settle the conflict. t every single one of us knows that ices presents a threat to our homeland and it is not contained. if the administration is serious about starting to turn the situation i around, it needs a serious and workable strategy that can win strong bipartisan support. >> we all know the federal government has many obligationsi the primary responsibility is to
protect the american people from harm. ices continues its threat ofcomm terror across the entire world. the united states is committed to combat terrorism. in this fight against evil icesc it is critical we asri americann not lose sight of our principles. m i can remember taking my family forn the first time. here's what it says.
that of course is directed to the united states. all across europe and the middle east there are masses of syrian families who definitely o desperately need to find refuge somewhere. there are about 300,000 who have been killed since the civil war started. the crisis in syria continues to worsen and people are forced to take refuge. on a daily basis the borders are being flooded by people in search of safety and a better life.
others have taken on an enormous influx of refugees as safely as possible. the united states has a rigorous screening process. only 2% 2% of the refugees are men of military age. the majority are women and children. 2% of those are of military age. the united states has a proud history of providing refuge. that history includes my father-in-law.they his family were refugees.
i've been disgusted with the president in recent days who cannot show compassion. i've been disappointed with the bigotry. we cannot repeat the dark dayss of the 1930s when many americans resolved to turn away the helpless refugees from nazi many germany. or the imprisonment of innocent japanese-americans during world war ii.ple those mistakes were based on these kinds of fears.be how manyca people died because f unfounded apprehension? i don't know, but far toon many. it seems like many are willing to go down that same path agains
two of my friends serve in the house of representatives. their religion has made them other people. we are suggesting thats on we should reject them based on the grounds of their religion. that is not america. it is up propaganda bonanza crisis. christian groupsre have respond. we've heard what the pope said. isth blasphemous. we are urging supporters to come back to elected officials on behalf of these victims.n
we must pause and think about what they have been through. les think about who are these refugees. they're not our enemies. they are expelled from their homeland by the same evildoers we're fighting. all they want is to find safety to restart their lives. these people have been persecuted and that's an understatement, by president assad and isis. the syrian regime, i repeat, has barrel bombed their own citizens, unleashed chemical weapons against their own citizens, rapes, justifying the rapes of these hundreds and hundreds of women in the name of their religion. murdering women and children. these refugees hate assad.
they hate isis. that's why they're trying to get out of that horrible situation they find themselves. the department of homeland security has verified that not one of the 1,800 refugees already admitted to the united states has a single confirmed tie >>ttacks, t >> the appalling attacks the wht president of france isday -- qu- refusing and this is what welcod this good man and what the president of france said. that it is a moral thing to
do and sound policy. former secretary of state condoleezza rise agreed to those fleeing persecution and here's what she said. we have done in a very careful way the animal -- madeleine albright had an op-ed for "time" magazine. she herself was a refugee and how she came into the country during world war ii. to respond with compassion to defeat isis. this is no way to win the war here is what she said. madeleine albright with the
muslims and non muslims by making it the assyrian refugees the enemy. to murder innocent people to be insured of revalue every human life where we stand''. as secretary rice said that is right reprocess those refugees and a careful way. we are not the nations of europe. if we have an ocean between us and them. deal mantic ocean. united states refugee screening process will before it comes to our borders.
survivors of torture and violence of women and children. so these serious refugees are real people. it should be so visually apparent in our minds. that we saw around the world to be washed up on the beach whose body was washed up on the beach. all the tv programs but then democrats and republicans call compassion in action. we must help or we can. we coming to the defense of the defenseless.
right now we are a nation of freedom. we should not forsake our duty or obligation. >> i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of the s to 47 the senate proceed to amend it in -- immediate consideration. for the basket re-read a third time and passed. the motion to reconsider the may debate upon the table. >> is there an objection? >> on behalf of the ranking member and myself i do object. >> the senator from texas. >> basket as consent of the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration s230 to the senate proceed to the immediate consideration. i asked it re-read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider will be
laid upon the table. >> is there an objection? >> it is heard. >> the senator from texas. >> moments ago i asked this body to pass common sense pieces of legislation in response to terrorist attacks in paris. first in this legislation from over a year ago the democratic party bloc that provides any american citizen to take up arms against america to wage jihad forfeits her or his citizenship providing for revocation of citizenship this would add joining terrorist groups like isis to those grounds.
unfortunately the democratic party has just objected to passing that common-sense legislation. because of that, it means the americans estimates are they have joint isis right now to page jihadi against america. that means they can come back to america using a u.s. passport to wage a. [applause] against this country with attempts to murder innocent men and women using a u.s. passport that is a profound mistake. the second legislation stops president obama in hillary clinton to bring in tens of thousands assyrian refugees to the united states. in light of the declaration of war of the horrific
terrorist attacks and in light of the admission from the director of the fbi said it administration cannot get these refugees if they all have the data on which of the assyrian refugees are involved with isis terrorism they can create a database but there is no information in the database baking query again and again but they don't have the information. unfortunately the democratic party have chosen to stand with president obama and his absurd political correctness to utter those words radical islamic terrorism. from the president refuses to say those words hillary clinton refuses to say that word but to support a policy
to bring tens of thousands up of refugees into this country knowing full well they cannot get them to determine who is here to wage jihad. it is my hope we should stand as one. this should be an area of bipartisan agreement. if it includes the exception of the persecuted minority. the small minorities facing genocide in response is a different response to attack me directly to say it was an american to protect this country from terrorist to help persecuted christians. yesterday the president attacked again from manila to say it is offensive and i in so many other want to
keep our children safe. it is neither an american or offensive to believe to stand up to radical islamic terrorism and it is an astonishing statement that so many democratic senators to is to stand with a president who will not confront radical islamic terrorism. that terrorist attack to save his understanding -- -- understandable why the attack charlie hebdo. i would say any official to bear responsibility of consequences for their actions. the intent to murder as many
as possible. but the common-sense legislation will help to protect the nation alliance sorry to say to protect america first unfortunately my friends on the other side of the dial or blocking better for. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> their seven 1/2 minutes remaining on the democratic side. what those to change of very
nature their ideas are wrong to be anti-american. with maya and italian grandparents they heard this rhetoric into the united states. they are opposed to the rule of great britain that they stood up to fight against great britain. fidelity stand by quietly with the victims of terrorism to be demonized.
does the senator introduced one hour ago. to be from the refugee protection. with the gang rapes and whores we cannot even imagine a few weeks ago the world came together stunned over the image of a three year-old syrian child like this body washed up on the turkish beach. to focus the attention it is
these humanitarian issues of today or the proud history of a land of refuge as i have heard so many as well as commentators but those that eat them properly vented syrian and other refugees the people that are shut out of just weeks ago. of course, we're horrified by what happened in beirut. with a terrorist organization that is what we should be debating. we should be talking about how more countries should be involved in this fight. people fleeing isis are not.
we have a discussion among other things to be separated on the terrorist watch list to go to the gun show to break no lot. daybreak the lot. one of those that face the oklahoma city bombing to buy the components of the bomb they break no lot. >> reserve my time. >> i yield the floor. >> three minutes on each side three minutes on the democratic side to minutes of the republican side.
>> the assisted democratic leader. with unanimous consent request made by the junior senator of texas was a bill pending before the senate judiciary committee today he did not attend that meeting that i wish she had. if we wanted to take this up to debate i objected on behalf of myself and other senators who never address that issue. we will reflect in years to come that what happened in this world. on the terrible tragedy that occurred in paris france that was led by the isis terrorists. with those poor victims that died as a result any also
reflect on acts of terrorism to re-emerge from this terrible tragedy on the ground in paris for those who defied the terrorists and those who risk their lives to bring those responsible to justice. show by leaders around the world the president of france announced his country received 35,000 refugees after the attack he made it clear he would not hold those innocent helpless refugees accountable. when they said they would accept thousands of refugees even after the attacks asia the wisdom and good sense for those helpless victims of terrorism around the world for those who perpetrate terrorist attacks. listen to the debate on capitol hill.
the unanimous consent request made this morning it is not consistent with those values. to say we only accept refugees your the victims of genocide the closed doors to cuban refugees coming to the united states of what it meant to their families and close the doors to be persecuted looking for freedom in coming to the united states as refugees. i can list callous others for the victims' of persecution. there were the victims of terrorism and getting rates. listen to what was said on the other side of the rotunda. it does not merit the kind of appreciation of american values when we make these
critical decisions. sometimes rash decisions are made. the i did that in the course of history in the senate and house of representatives. we hope there will not prevail. >> your time has expired. >> the senator from texas. >> the senator from vermont spoke against overheated rhetoric and in the next breath accuse me of being anti-american heckling the attack president obama gave. let me say speaking the truth of not terrorism my democratic friends invoked the irish and italian grandparents coming to this country they did not pose a terrorist threat they're not looking too innocent citizens he is not a terror
threat to murder innocent citizens with the democratic party the vehicle to acknowledge qualitative difference. because the leader of isis in 2009 the obama administration released him as he was released he turned and said ceo in york and the democratic party cannot distinguish between irish and italian and cuban emigrants then they are ignoring reality. i would now be expatriate terrorist act is very similar to legislation introduced 2010 by democratic senator lieberman and senator brown both are an american as well. at the time clinton --
senator clinton said united states citizenship is privileged it is not a right. those foreign terrorists are clearly in violation up of the health the base floor when they become citizens. to now consider this statement to use the american. said the commander in chief should protect the safety and security of this country president hollande. >> your time is expired. >> we should protect ourselves every bit as much. >> your time is expired. >> i ask unanimous consent to call what might amendment 2844. >> is there objection? >> the senator from kentucky >> reserving the right to
object to over 1,000 meriden's have called out and are concerned about the people of the middle east but we're not sure of their intentions for the boston bombers were here in the refugee program to iraqi refugees came to my state with the intent to buy missiles to attack us for i have asked for a simple amendment placed for a vote that lets the american people vote if we want to bring more people if we're doing an adequate job screening these people. it is a reasonable request i will have a vote until the american people are clamoring for continued to object. >> i object. >> unanimous consent to bring forward my amendment to limit and end the subsidized housing from the
2843 and i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to set aside the current business to bring the amendment forward. >> on behalf of myself and the ranking member of the subcommittee, i object. we're in a process where we're trying to clear amendments and making good progress on this bill. i and a stand senator paul has raised an important issue if it does not belong on this bill and to not progress. we're trying to get back on the appropriations process with full cooperation i am
confident that we could finish the important appropriations bill today. we can show the american people that we can govern and to the fund transportation to have the programs that are included in this bill. we have had excellent bipartisan cooperation. i was hoping we could move to the amendment offered by the senator from texas with the republican leadership by the senate democratic leader the amendment that i believe we could dispense with quickly and you would continue to work through the amendments. so because the senator from kentucky amendment would grind this bill to a halt
halt, there will be other opportunities to deal with this issue because the house will be passing legislation this week dealing with the issues raised by the senator said kentuckians will object said kentuckians will object >> your objection is heard. >> i agree with the senior senator from maine that senator paul has raised with the adequacy of the screening process for refugees coming to our country is a serious matter and one that will be voting on today and my prediction is there is broad bipartisan support for the additional security measures in that bill. but this is a transportation bill and it is important to
impossible to predict the people of america but to combat isis to except the refugees that the terrorists have destroyed. we're during a screening process most refugees as we have learned we're accepting mothers and children. with 2 percent of the refugees. it is a long proud history and would be shameful to turn our backs. the senators will address other measures like a loophole something that senator feinstein has pioneered.
like the background check. it is outrageous dangerous individuals can waltz in with a weapon because republicans with the nra is with these deadly attacks. yesterday at our briefing we heard one of the most urgent things we could do is to lead the efforts to do a cut off funding to the terrorist organizations. and we should be concerned as soon as possible. the president's chief of staff has been attached -- has been in touch with us to continue to strengthen these programs
meanwhile about 250,000 come to the united states each day. a third of them come from visa-free countries, visa waiver countries and they come today states that eventually filling out a form. there are is no fingerprint check before they get on an airplane. there thinks they can be done and should be done to make sure that we are safer to the tennis shoe bomber -- using the visa waiver program. you should be a wake-up call that if we are going to make america safer that is one of the things we should include as a higher priority rather than these refugees. let me also add that i report -- support with jen senator feinstein is doing when it comes to keeping guns out of hands of those that are expected of being terrorists. to think that we have this gap in the law is unimaginable.
this man who went to the concert hall in paris used in automatic women -- weapon to kill so many people. wouldn't we want to make certain that kind of person would never be able to buy a firearm and there are the things we should include in this as well and one point i would make, a foreign national with the user waiver program country can buy a plane ticket on line in five minutes and come to our country without submitting any biometric data like fingerprints. that's a change we should make and by the way of foreign national united states visa waiver program can legally purchase a handgun or assault rifle. the law blocks visa holders from other countries from buying guns in 38 visa waiver countries. if we are going to keep america safe we have to move beyond the conversation on refugees to the real vulnerabilities we face.
>> thank you in person want to thank my colleagues here. they are doing a great job of missing on finding real solutions to problems posed by the terrorist attacks. all of us on the stage are focused on two critical goals. first we have to keep terrorists out of the united states. second we need to keep guns and explosives out of the terrorist hands. we need to focus our response where it matters on individuals who are coming here to do us harm. we need to have tough screening for every refugee from syria who is coming into the united states but at the terrorist is going to try to come into this country they are much more likely to use loopholes in the visa waiver program to do it. instead of waiting two years to go through the refugee screening process. senators feinstein murphy cadwell cardin and others are looking at ways that we will tighten up these loopholes, ensure the passports can't be
fake and that terrorists who want to exploit the system can't slip through the cracks. we will talk more about that in a few minutes. we also need to crack down on the indefensible dangerous and frankly ridiculous loopholes that allow people on terrorist watch lists to purchase guns and explosives. senate republicans have dropped their bill to close these loopholes for years recently introduced by the late senator lautenberg. senate republicans are doing the bidding of their special interest friends in the nra instead of keeping the country safe. and if you say well is this real , over 2000 people have attempted, i'm sorry over 2000 people on a terrorist watch list have attempted to buy guns and 91% have gotten those guns so i
have a question for our republican colleagues. why should terrorists are the ones perpetrating, who perpetrated the heinous attacks in paris be allowed to buy a gun when senate republican leaders were asked about this bill earlier this week a the bill senate democrats have tried to pass for years they shrug their shoulders. not good enough. our republican colleagues need to start focusing on the real problem and dangers posed by isis. we urge them to move quickly to work with us close with polls in the visa waiver program and keep guns out of terrorist hands. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you very much leader and thank you to my colleagues for being here and being part of the team that wants to put together new policies for this country. as has been said simply put we must do more to protect the homeland against any possible
terrorist attacks like we saw in paris, beirut and egypt and today has as been said we are talking about just to common sense steps that both political parties should agree on, strengthening the visa waiver program, ensuring that terrorists cannot buy firearms or explosives here in this country. regarding the visa waiver program, this program is important to the business community and the tourism industry and i have supported it but i also believe it is the soft underbelly of our national security policies. 20 million people each year from 38 countries including france and belgium use the visa waiver program. this means they don't need a traditional visa to travel here and therefore undergo less scrutiny. this means terrorists could exploit the program, could go
from france to syria as 2000 fighters have done, come back to france, use the visa waiver program and without further scrutiny comment to the united states. considering there are 45 million lost or stolen travel documents on the global black market today, many of them passports, it's clear we need to reform the program. the bill we are working on, all of us together, would make several changes. first, anyone who travels to syria or iraq in the last five years cannot travel to the united states using the visa waiver program, period. they can still visit that they need a traditional visa, a process that includes an in person interview at the u.s. embassy in or consulate. second, the bill requires additional information from
travelers before they arrived in the united states, to include fingerprints and photographs. each step along the way we want to know the individual traveling here, who is he or she and who do they say they are? third, the bill would require all individuals using the visa waiver program to have a passport within each hip to store our metric data. this e chip is more secure and harder to tamper with and contains an individual's biometric information. a this is the logo which says it is an electronic passport as well. when i travel, i will present this, which has my photo such as it is, well.
[laughter] it has my photo and i will show it to whomever, tsa, homeland security, whoever asks and they can bring up this passport which has my fingerprints and my actual photo. this prevents this passport from being tampered with and these are not traditionally given out in the last five or so years so anyone they get a new passport, it will be with this ability. countries in the visa waiver program also must do more to enhance security. this means reporting lost and stolen passports to the united states and interpol as well as screening against interpol data, sharing intelligence about foreign fighters. some of this is already happening in sharing biometric information collected during the
refugee or asylum process. our bill will be a straightforward solution that can make a real difference. i wanted it to be a bipartisan bill as well. senator flake has agreed to be the lead republican on the bill and we look forward to working with him. we plan to introduce the bill after thanksgiving. the second issue we are addressing is closing a gaping loophole that allows known or suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms or explosives in our country. in other words they don't have to bring it with them. they can buy it once they get here. i introduced a bill in february which is senator schumer said had been introduced by senator lautenberg to close this loophole. the bill is also introduced in the house by republican congressman peter king. the bill would allow the attorney general to block the
sale of explosives are firearms if a purchaser is on a terrorist watch list and they use the firearm in connection with terrorism. i think this is a no-brainer. if you are too dangerous to board a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. language in this bill is identical to language supported by george bushes justice department in 2007 so it's been around for a long time and it is not a partisan issue. many of us were surprised as chuck has said, to learn how often this loophole is exploited from 2004, 2014, over a ten-year period the gao known as the government accountability office, took a look at this and they report that of the 2000200 33 people on the fbi
terrorist watch list, who went through a background check to buy a weapon, of those, 2043 pass that background check and likely purchased a firearm or explosives. now that means that 91% of people on the sei's watch list who try to buy weapons in this country are in fact able to do so. to me, this is just a shocking statistic and one which might he addressed. so these are two common sense steps that our team wants to go ahead with and we very much hope that republicans will agree, at least enough of them, to get it passed and signed by the president. they both will make a difference. thank you very much leader.
[laughter] >> there are everywhere. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> a great segue to talk about technology. [laughter] i am here to say that i believe too that we need to reform the visa waiver probe ram. in 2004 as part of the senate version of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act, i sponsored legislation
along with several of my colleagues including senator schumer to implement the biometric visa standard distance borders at. grade that legislation was passed by the united states senate and later removed in conference. the impetus for my sponsoring that legislation in washington state where some had entered france through algeria and made an identity with in france to canada, made a new identity showed up with a carload of explosives on his way to lax. that language while taken out some progress has been made with homeland security and getting biometrics but we feel that more standards need to be put in place. one, we think there should be a phased-in requirements for pre-departure from visa waiver countries, facial recognition standards and fingerprint standards. require all u.s. -- to have the
capability to conduct one of the their facial recognition or fingerprint and a store digital photo of the visa waiver countries and faith in the ability to be able to read fingerprints from these visa waiver countries. we are only as strong as the biometrics required by these countries and who they let into their country before they can travel on. it's also important for our country to work with canada. the same issues exist and we would like all of our partners to be using the same kind of digital recognition in visa waiver programs on state-of-the-art technologies. we should also give homeland security the ability to upgrade every five years the requirement of technology as technology improves. and i also believe that we should require visa waiver
countries to share information with us so that we can share information about our watch list and who is on our watch list so that everybody is tracking the same information. i plan to work with our colleagues here today and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and getting reports as to information and how it is shared with other intelligence agencies. we want to make sure those who are protecting our borders, particularly the customs and border control, have the most accurate information about people who are coming across our borders and the day to have the ability in case of mr. rouson presented information that was not -- that wasn't on a terrorist watch list and customs and borders racist vision only one big -- only because someone had suspicions and because they had suspicions pull them aside
but not based on his immigration papers they were able to look in the truck and find explosions in his car. it's time that we go back in the senate to get in into law before we close the loophole and require better cooperation of all of our countries working together and sharing information so that we know who people say they are and if they are making up new identities we have the ability with good technology to track that and track them and their travels. >> senator cardin. >> thank you mr. leader. first we'll stand with the people of france with regards to this horrific tragedy that occurred last friday. as the senior democrat on the senate foreign relations committee made clear our mission is not only to degrade that to destroy isil and to keep americans safe so homeland security is protecting the homeland. it's our top rarity.
i want to thank the administration. the briefing we received last night confmed for many of us the importance of our refugee resettlement program. it's part of our international leadership but also pointing out that we have the most rigorous screenings for those who enter our country as refugees than any other group of people who are not americans. it's an incredible screening process. it's not only screening as to any connections late could have had with terrorist organizations. it would establish that they are at risk of being harmed or killed. the refugees are the victims of terror, they are not terrorists. that came out pretty clearly in the briefing we received last night. obviously we want to make sure that process is as strong as it needs to be. her colleagues have very talked about the visa waiver program.
why are we focusing on back? because of the concern about foreign fighters. these are individuals who have traveled to the areas of conflict trained by terrorist organizations such as isil. many of them come from countries and carry passports that are eligible for the visa waiver program. we need to do is my colleagues are suggesting and draft a procedure on screening those who come from visa waiver countries to make sure that they are not terrorists and they will protect our homeland. that makes common sense so we have to redouble our efforts. in the foreign relations committee at the want to mention there are 28 nominations mr. leader that are on hold. these are noncontroversial appointments that we can't can get done. affects our national security such as tom shannon to be
undersecretary. this is a person or place wendy sherman. and david robinson was the assistant secretary for globalization operations. these are examples of republican holds that compromise our national security priorities. >> senator blumenthal and then we'll take some questions. >> when i go home tonight i'm reminded of my obligation to keep the country safe. reminding me and all of us have those responsibilities. that's why i am glad to talk about to meaningful ways in which we can protect this country. first, it speaks to common sense that those on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy
guns. shame on us if we can't find bipartisan common ground to make sure that terrorists are on the same list as criminals of those who are prohibited from buying guns. we also learned last night about the rigorous methodology we used to screen the relatively small numbers of refugees in places like syria. it simply stands to reason that instead of focusing on 2000 highly vetted immigrants we should be focusing on the 20 million likely vetted immigrants to come to this country every year. i am pleased to join senator feinstein to work on legislation on the visa waiver program. there are a number of important information sharing agreements that are pending. the safe harbor agreement, the umbrella law enforcement agreement and those agreements
and to be signed in order for the visa waiver program to continue. we need to know that the no-fly list has the best information available to protect americans and the last thing i'll say is this. the notion that we can't both protect americans from terror who have been the victims of terror suggested smallness about america but violates the dash of this country. i believe in american exceptionalism and is able to secure arab orders and rescue others who have been victims of horrific terrorist attacks. those are the individuals that the refugee program targets. that's why 92% of the refugees that have come in the last year or not single males. they are women and their
children, the sick and the frail , those that have been battered, raped and tortured. we can at the same time protect our country and help rescue others who are the victims of torture in terror. >> i want to thank my colleagues for listening and leading. we have been listening to the hundreds of calls and contacts we have been receiving over this past week and we have attempted to lead, and to look at what is really the challenge and the problem, the loopholes and gaps in our present screening process that must be improved. i'm going to continue working to improve the screening and bedding for refugees across the
globe but also to focus on the gaps in the visa waiver program had a net many many more times the numbers of people and potentially dangerous individuals. and we should keep in mind that our obligation here is not simply to respond to the fear of the moment. if there were a religious test applied to refugees coming to this country i wouldn't be here nor would many of my colleagues and yet that is the kind of rhetoric we have seen over the past few days. i think americans are ready for these kinds of rational commonsense solutions that
target terrorists who pose a danger to our country and i'm going to work with my colleagues and i believe there will be bipartisan support. [inaudible] >> i think the appropriate place to focus as the visa waiver program and the ability of terrorists to buy guns. what they showed us this, that there have been 2000 refugees who have come from syria over the last four years. none have been arrested or deported, none. the overwhelming majority of them are children, women and the elderly. only 2% are single males of military age. on the other hand the visa waiver program has many more
people going through it, millions. it takes virtually no time as opposed to 18 to 24 months and there is much less bedding. we need to really tighten up that program so the best way to do it as the tighten up the visa waiver program and close this awful lot that leftover 2 million people who were on terrorist watch lists i guns. >> has the president been slow to recognize -- and whether he planned on having at least one among the group and does not also pose a threat? >> everyone is checked thoroughly in the refugee programs, everyone, men, children and elderly people so the refugee probe them is really
tight. i think the president has done a very good job. i think the way it has to get out as to how good a job he has done both in terms of trying to make a secure but also in terms of progress that we have made in the middle east. a map of territory over the last i think year, the last one year that isa had a year ago in isil has now is considerably less. it has had a good effect and will continue to on trying to take them myself. i think these things should be publicized so the american people feel secure but i think they have done a good job. >> the language in the hospital candidate fbi --
[inaudible] can you put the language in the house bill? >> the problem is not with refugees. [inaudible] >> don't worry, it won't get past. >> senator want to ask about what secretary johnson said yesterday. he said some reforms have been applied to the visa waiver program including interpol working with federal air marshals. i'm wondering how you would respond to the secretary. >> is done terrific job and we
will discuss any changes we think are appropriate with them. >> yesterday secretary johnson had a briefing and will have input from us and just as we said on that -- that are collected today we think they should be upgraded. we want the facial recognition to happen and we want the data and information shared by all countries so that we know where people have been traveling. just so people know, this is what the u.s. system for refugees is. it requires a fingerprint standard so we are already requiring it. we know who these people are and we can check them. we want to check them against other documents and information. we need people in these visa waiver countries to actually collect biometrics on those people entering the country. that will happen with refugees.
>> right, i know there's lots of different avenues to try to get at this incredible problem. well, thank you, i think you all have made a powerful case as to why it is important that we be tena crrk i know dedicated the chairman is to this issue. if that page sinks, they're going to go quietly into the night. they are sadly mistaken. >> mr. chairman, again, i want to maybe give another shotout to another organization. a culture that needs to change within that subset and they are
doing a terrific work, as long as there's demand, we are going to find next generation. we need to be on top of that as well. senator, and i think the chairman and ranking member, as we looked kind of going forward, we're looking at things that we can do today. i want to talk about maybe a couple of ideas that put ad to the -- you know, to the effort here legislatively, and i think in your testimony you testified that current federal law deafs entities of electronic
providers, that they are being made aware of. so that's federal laws. but the same requirement doesn't exist for parent instances of child sex trafficking. why do you think that is? do you think it would make a difference if that law were to change if it were to include sex trafficking and has this issue been raised before congress and has there been a broader location? >> historically it was not in the official statutory requirement that you referenced. it has done wonders to address that problem.
you know if it's a child parent farn graphy or not. it would -- we had stuff on hill regarding that gap. that small gap and reporting statute. they are no obligation to report it would not only increase to provide through assist families and victims in the process. it would go very far to assisting in prevention measures. we would see more content and develop prevention measure that is would address the context that we are seeing.
>> legitimate actors would air on the side in. >> correct. >> people that would care care about the problem, welcome the opportunity someone that's a partner to stop this from happening, right? >> absolutely, yes. >> i want to thank all the groups and all of you who have been on the front-end of this and we know that this isn't just a problem for our country but as we work through these as a defender of the first amendment and as we work through that balance, the work that we do here is work that will have pepercusions. i want to thank the members to making this priority. i want to thank you for your testimony. it's been great to see you all again, and if there's anything more that we could do or think of, i hope that you will reach
out to the committee or individual members that have been working on this issue. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your leadership. all of my colleagues have an intense interest, what we have been been able to find today specific ways to deal with the online issue. ms. sarous in particular, certainly will hope in finding missing kids, prevention and law enforcement and prosecutions. there are also thing that is can and should be done with regard to sex trafficking. we did pass legislation that was signed earlier this year. you were involved with that. most vulnerable to trafficking. but also the demand side issue, we want to be able to make progress in the federal level in
15 years and finally we were able to change some of the federal -- the bias in the legislation to say that these young women and men, girls and boys who are involved are, indeed, victims and we should deal as victims so we can deal with the trauma. it's long-term and sometimes life-long. it's an opportunity to talk about this, also their unwillingness to cooperate more generally with this issue, it's also a chance to talk about efforts that we can take forward to combat sex trafficking and to try to put an end to sex trafficking in this country. we thank you very much both of you for your testimony this morning. i know you will keep it up nationally. the national center, thank you
for your leadership on this and to all the groups who are out there in the trenches working on this every day and shutout to those who are embracing the victims and helping them to get through this trauma having met with victims in ohio some of whom are only recently, you know, going into a treatment and recovery process and others who have been add it for years. this is the most heartbreaking and difficult part of this whole process and so thanks to all those groups who are involved and individuals. we would excuse you and now we will call the second panel.
i would like to call the ceo of back-page carlos ferrera. we hoped mr. ferrera to be here but he has refused to come. terrific practice that goes on sadly here in the 21st century. one of the great human right causes of the century. we have talked about the fact that we haven't receiveed about back-page. but this -- at this point in the hearing, we had planned to hear testimony from back-page's ceo
ferrera. he has been under legal obligation to appear since october 1st and the subcommittee notified him that his appearance was scheduled for this morning. the same day we sent schedule we called lawyers to confirm that mr. ferrera should plan to appear. lawyers did not mention any conflict of interest. last friday, less than a week ago mr. ferrrera, did not appear. subcommittee denied on monday. a witness has a right. it is appropriate to require
witness himself to appear and exercise his constitutional right not to answer any questions. he believes in good faith. again, as i said earlier, the subcommittee would assert fifth amendment privilege. yesterday afternoon around mr. ferrer's lawyers wrote informing that mr. ferrer would not appear because he's on an international business trip. this is truly extraordinary. in his many years on this subcommittee, he has never never seen a situation where a witness refused to appear. it's not acceptable for witnesses under subpoena to announce that he will be out of the country and refuse to appear. senator are conferring about
next step. i now like to turn to senator and she would like to add a few points on this point. >> well, the laws of this country should apply to everyone and we should take all steps necessary to make sure that we fulfill all of our obligations under the law and you should the law the senate is entitled to ask witnesses to appear before it and for them to answer questions and provide information. so i think it's important that we be stead-fast in our resolve to get the information that we need in order to make sure that the public policy in this country is effective when it comes to children -- children being victims.
this isn't exercise in having a hearing, this is an exercise in making sure that we have done everything in the law to protect children. it's not anymore complicated than that. and any witness who refuses to answer the lawful requirement of testimony and providing information must be held accountable for that, and so we will be careful and cautious about using procedures available to us, but we will use them to ensure that this effort is robust and informed and that ultimately the result is that more children and more families feel the comfort that their federal government is doing everything it can under the law to protect them. >> i thank the ranking member,
as you see, we are partners in this effort and we will not be deterred. i would also like to thank the chairman of this committee, the full committee, homeland security, government affairs, and ranking member for their help. senator johnson and harper, have not just supported our efforts, they released a joint statement which commends psi efforts in this regard and i'd now like that statement to be made part of the record. they are supporting us not just on the important work that we are doing to combat human trafficking, but also with regard to any actions we might take with regard to back--page and unwillingness to cooperate. we begin this bipartisan investigation to inform how to combat it through smart reforms, including legislative actions.
we will not be deterred from that inquiry. if back-page fails to change course and complies with subpoena, the appropriate next step is proceedings. this is a step senate has not taken in 20 years. this is extraordinary. and psi is not taken for more than 30 years. but regrettably their conduct has invited this very unusual action. when dealing with a party acting in good faith, we would be incline to civil contempt, bring a civil law enforcement to compel back-page to comply. this case appears to be more serious than a good-faith disagreement. it's not about questions of privilege. as i noted back-page's lawyers
the company has not searched for or identify it had documents responsive to the subpoena, with no lawful excuse ceo refused to appear before today. these are not actions of a party act if good faith. he could have come and pleaded the fifth. he chose not to even come. it's evidence of the senate's process. for those reasons after consulting with our staff, senator believe referral to the department of justice for criminal intent. i would like to thank the witnesses and my colleagues for participation today for this very important hearing. with that, this hearing is
how law enforcement conducts surveillance, report that ranks the states on how they deter and punish corruption. your phone calls, tweets and facebook comments. >> today forum of housing institute. starts at 8:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> c-span has the best access to congress. watch live coverage of the house, watch us online or phone at c-span.org. listen live on our c-span radio app.
stay with c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org for your best access to congress. >> next a look at how isis uses internet to recruitment and u.s. efforts for radicalization. >> thank you, i'm so pleased to introduce the members of my panel. we have an excellent group from a variety of backgrounds. to my immediate left is asim, she now works in private capacity in the same realm. to her left is asim ha for iz, islamic religious adviser to the
uk military evidence. has long history in british military, certainly please to have him today given a little bit more international flavor to our panel, and then at the end we have humera khan. i'm pleased to have my colleague here to talk about important issue of radicalization. >> so i prepared several questions by the questions of panelists. we are going to start with the very basic question, a wealth of research included that conducted by start indicates there's no single pathway to radicalization. people become radicalized in a variety of ways.
usually with combination of push factors on their personal life, but also factors and recruitment factors drawing them in. i would like to ask each of the panelists to briefly discuss based on their experience and their work what they see as the most important drivers of radicalization that government and civil society and private sector needs to be concerned about starting with cristina and making our way down the line. >> thank you very much, amy. thank you all. it's a pleasure to be here. when it comes to radicalization and what drives individuals, i think, what amy said is spot on. there is no one pass, there are sectors that play in and it could be government corruption, police brutality, a lot of individuals are always searching for a sense of self-worth.
i think that's a common feelings that all humans have, that they mean something and that they are contributing something and a role of identity plays into this. people want to be able to identify about something that truly relates to them. they want to be part of a group but statement social dynamics play a part here. if you look at the groups that have committed atrocities most recent in paris, a lot of the attackers knew each other in some form or fashion, they were brothers or they were friends. and so you can't understate the power of your network. you feel marginalized. they become black and white, more black and white and more extreme, as you as a group start
moving to a more polarized outlook. >> thank you very much. i'm very grateful to be the talk -- [laughter] >> also the one that provides the uk flavor. i hope you like it. thank you very much for introducing that question which is an important question because that's the starting point to a lot of the challenges that we're facing in the world today, and like honorable john said we are not comfortable with the new space and the new space is stateless, the new space doesn't have boundaries and doesn't have boundaries, and in that environment, radicalization is stateless, has no borders, radicalization recognizes nobody
else's space and authority. and so it's an important question that needs to be discussed but at the same time i agree with the previous speaker that there's no one single. if i try to put a finger of something is identity which cristina mentioned. i may be talking about a uk perspective and radicalization that we are seeing happening there, and it's the question of a sense of belonging, where do i belong, who amia, where am i going, what is my purpose, am i being treated fairly or not being treated fairly. is the simple question that the part of radicalization start at, and one thing i've been saying to the uk ministry of defense is keep it simple.
we tend to have this idea of looking for something more deep and darker when it isn't there. so let's try to keep, understanding of rra radicalization start and why it start and some of the questions i've mentioned here are -- are in my opinion radicalization. as the individual goes further down the path of radicalization, in no part becomes a ideology and when i look at the white working class far right extremist that we see rise in the uk, those individuals are also asking the same questions, who am i, am i being treated fairly, is justice being done, are these people a threat to me, are they not a threat. you find out they're all asking
the same questions in order to find a solution to this we need to be able to address these questions both locally, regionally and nationally. so radicalization start from social, emotional, psychological enfranchisement and i explained this in three categories. the first one being that when people approach radicalization they ask the simple questions. the second approach is where those who have become radical ized go out and look for individuals. if it's not stopped at that point, it would be worse. and who interviews first will win, and so people go out like in the uk we have an individual who lives in the city, he goes out looking for individuals and
finds that gap and finds that space and intervene and grows them in. once individuals are drawn in, anything can be said to them which increase and enhance the radicalization that is taking place, and where this radicalization is when all of a sudden you can't talk to girls, you can't go to cinemas, you can't talk with people of other faith and your world becomes smaller and smaller and you're meeting the same people, same kinds of people every single day in the lebanese coffee shop. and then that then leads onto the extreme form when initially this was about becoming more religious, this was about becoming more ideology and taking kind of an arctic
approach to life. all of a sudden, that becomes a very strong religious motive and religion becomes a hook on where people can hang their thorns on. and when it gets into that realm of being religious duty and anybody else in here who is religious and devout would know that we want to be devote today our faith but when that devotion is twisted and manipulated for other means then we get in some kind of very dangerous ground. so thank you very much. >> good morning. i would like to start off by thanking the state department and also congratulations on your 30th anniversary. thank you very much very having me and certainly for everyone who is attending.
i would like to start off with disclaimer. i'm not a lawyer but i've been in this very long. i must speak on behalf of any government, not the u.s. or otherwise. so with that said, let's start with just radicalization. radicalization in our country is not a crime. now, violent extremism is a crime. in other countries radicalization in and of itself is a crime. but when i'm talking about radicalization, i'm only going to be talking about radicalization that leads to violent extremism because there we are talking about potentially crossing criminal lines which are prosecutable under our laws. it has made my life easier that my panelist have mentioned already. no one has found a single profile, a single pathway, it doesn't exist. it's extremely localized.
we know that there are things that are appearing. issue of identity, sense of belonging is coming up in a lot of cases. what we also know is that -- now focusing a little bit more on isis daesh and people who are drawn into that space, one of the prime motivateors started from -- for several years now has been helping the syrians so we need to deal with injustice and get rid of injustice and oppression. it's actually a very start part of grievance narratives. for what they might be experiencing luckily for various reasons. when we talk about factors, we talk about factors that increase
the propensity to violence. when you talk about countering violence extremism, we have to deal and address all of those drivers which can deal propensity from the get-go. we also have to deal with issues of ideology, but one of the things they we have to recognizt ideology is rarely the starting point for most of their journeys. ideology shows up somewhere along the way but it's almost never the starting point. but there are lots of other issues that increase that vulnerability, so when we talk about responding to it and issues of counternarrative, counternarrative will only work or -- are only designed for a particular intervention space but they're not necessarily -- they're not sufficient for dealing with the pure prevention
space because there's a lot of factors we have to deal with. this is why the need for having public partnerships is hijack because they're part of the space where government cannot and should not be judging. hopefully we will get to some of those as we go along. >> that is precisely where we are heading now. [laughter] >> so given what you have learned about radicalization processes, violent extremism, can you each talk a little bit more about what is the space for countering violent extremism. this is a relatively knew space for many people. do we have a good sense of things this works or perhaps things that create backlash and whether there are gaps in our knowledge that need to detail. this tiled i will let asim go
first. >> that's a shame. [laughter] >> what works, what doesn't work, i think what's really important if we want to do prevention work, what's really challenging is when it false under the security. we need to try take prevention and intervention out of the security space to communities can feel comfortable with it, i think the state must be involved. i think the government has to be involved, has a responsibility to be involved even though many people don't want it to be involved in the space but we can't do it without the state, we need money from the government to be able to run the projects, we need to definitely give communities the lead in
this. it's the people at the gross-roots that can do prevention the best. we need to stop politicians coming out and telling people how they should think and feel and what they should do and shouldn't do. like communities take responsibility for this and begin to develop programs that will help address some of these issues. the other thing we should bear in mind and we should have a countereffect in a sense, sometimes we work with the state or the government or the sector within the government that is dealing with prevention. sometimes by engaging with certain groups who have credibility with the community by engaging with them we -- we
damage their credibility. and so we need -- we also need to be careful who we work with and we need to protect communities too, for example, with some of my work in afghanistan, we used to engage a particular mosques and what we didn't realize was the second order effect of that engagement because the following day that would be dead or the mosk would be blown up. how do we ensure that we support the prosk from a distance to ensure that these -- these interventions are successful, and again, i go to the issue of keep it simple. we want to look sophisticated, we want to have pie charts and big powerpoint presentations, keep it simple. reach out to the human aspect of the being to be able to really
reach out to these people. make it human, humanize the issue. one thing that i always talk about is trying to put, trying to get people to meet victims of terrorism of violent extremism. how can we get their word out into the society and community, i just lost my 3-year-old child or my wife or son and this is how i feel, how can we get that message out to people that if you don't -- if you continue to be radicalized even though you might not carry out acts of violent extremism, someone might for hearing what you say pieght go unsupervised and do something really silly. >> we approached programming
from a particular -- we actually have our own framework that we use, so within any policy or strategy landscape, because that's the world you work in, we talk about the four sectors which have been covered, there's prevention, raising value to entry, there's intervention, which is if someone has started to be how you stop them before they commit a crime. so prevention and entire vengs are about protecting the individual. if someone has mobilized to the crime you have to deal with introduction, it's more important that you protect society than about that individual concern, the individual in question, and the last think which we feel is important the concept of reentry. we have many young people who are going to prison for short terms that are going for support. if we actually do not deal with their ideas, why they're in prison or support them when they
come back out and they end up going back to the environment that created them, we have just delayed or deferred the problem. we are doing a lot of advisory service and try to push government to create the legal framework to allow this to happen. that's the framework that we do of programming underneath. some of the things that are necessary to make any type of programming effective, it has to be local. we talk about the -- we used to talk about national strategies or national policies. those are great, but and yet they don't translate into anything meaningful unless you don't develop a local strategy and implementation. anything which has worked and we can take lessons from many of the sectors where there's gang violence reduction, a variety of other sectors. it's always about the local, what is happening at the local level and how to make the local initiative succeed.
because programs are domestic, what we do internationally is actually training and training of trainers because what we can do and what e we can teach others and help others with is actually developing the skills, they create their own programs, so when we work with youth and we work with women's groups, that objective is how do you create your own programs to help your own communities because they know the problem, they know the factors, which are involved and they also have some really innovative solutions. i'm now going to switch to the part of narratives, we always talk about counternarratives and alternative narratives. there's three aspects to any sort of narrative, right. you have the message, you the messenger and medium. you also have to take all three
into account when you're building out the counternarrative space. even the language counternarrative, if you go into the world where we are only responding to the recruiting material, which is being put out by terrorists groups, we have already failed. if we use a counternarrative paradigm, we have failed. we have to establish the norms. it's clear what the recruiters are using, that's the thing which is already wrong by itself. and so there is a need for the alternatives but also the space where we need to have the narratives which establish norms and values and we have to establish those and prove people those from the get-go. it's not just about the language we use, it actually has to reflect what is happening on the ground and it actually has to
translate into better environment on the ground where people live. thank you. >> any time you look at a problem and you start proposing solutions to it, i think the first natural or starting point would be to look at the numbers, what's the scope of the problem. so in this context radicalization or recruitment is not happening in mass numbers. so i think a common mistake is that cve programs specially for counternarratives they are distributed to a mass population and that doesn't work. going back to individual factors that play to it, someone radicalizing and recruiting and being recruited. in fact, so we know that recruitment often happens before radicalization ever does and
using again, not the hit on counternarratives, but using as an example so many counternarratives try to put emphasize on ideology and trying to promote more moderate trends of islam when, in fact, it's not reaching the grievances as people hold. cv programming has to understand that and acknowledge that and not dismuss the population that we are working with perceiveed greaf answers and a lot of times people put them in a group called them crazy. there are national factors that play in here, and so humera layed out the spectrum of environment. thank you for that.
and a lot of focus happens on the prevention aspect coming and trying to provide opportunities for individuals whether it's things as small as after-school programming. limitations is identity. this is not a role for government. the message does matter. it shouldn't be promoting certain strands of ideology or certain type of programming. so and another issue here as well when it comes to governments attempt to go
promote cv programming is that everything is reliant, it's very reactive and the attack happens and everybody wants to know, what are we doing to engage and how are we going to respond, radicalization is responding, we need to involve the youth, the problem is that these are all short-term commitments. everybody has a very short attention span. governments do as well, they're also respond to go populists. at the end of the day t -- the greaf -- grieve is not going to be solved over night. it's the need for stake holders that this has to be a long-term engagement and you're not going to see immediate result. u.s. congress needs to understand as well.
i would like to draw a point about victims, victim's voices of counternarrative. a lot of organizations like to put together psa's on victims. from my time in government, i've seen there's a lot of videos out there but then there's never any fall-through. this is something where i think the private sector needs to come in, once you have have a counternarrative, how are you ensuring that it's getting to the right population. it's not just putting together a video and leaving it at that. >> sure. >> i've been -- i add -- i had
permission to add a few words so thank you very much. i will definitely urge people of different faiths to actually contribute to prevention work. the whole basis of the radicalization we are seeing now is about dividing communities, it's about building walls, it's about creating and the more that we can do in the face whether it's here in the country or international space and organizations that you run, i think they can be nothing more positive and nothing more powerful than a demonstration of people of different faiths and cultures. so don't feel not capable of being able to engage in this space, just standing side by
side with another face leader, someone with another face, campaign in the uk which was called cup of tea, it was showing people different cultures, sitting together having cups of tea. that wonderful image of different faiths and all cultures having tea resinated with the community. we have to understand that we are in it together. one of the most powerful things i heard from an army general when he was speak to go an audience which is battling radicalization is where he had to help you, what i'm trying to say is we are all in it together. let's not point fingers that you need to do more, where the victims or you are the victims and we need to do more, i think we need a partner -- a triangle
of partnership, those communities are probably suffering of radicalization even though you can't really define that. so this triangle has to exist and once we can get over that triangle of cooperation and partnership, at the moment where pointing fingers, it's the state's job and that community's job, government isn't doing more we need to stop pointing fingers at each other and get together and say this is a problem that's common between all of us and let's deal with it. the last thing i would say it doesn't matter which level we are working at whether it's local or international, the key is this issue is global and we have to equip our people who at
prevention stage who are dealing with this issue on front line with the ability to deal with global issues. i'm tired of people saying this is regional problem or this affects only this part of the world and tries to -- tries to categorize and divide the issue up in different segments. this is a global issue and we need to be equipped to deal with the global narratives which i was talking about. i need to equip people to engage with globalize world where we can communicate with each other we cannot say this is a uk issue or u.s. issue or iraqi issue. we are dealing with a global phenomena that we need to be equipped to deal with. >> thank you.
>> attacks in paris are still fresh in our minds. could each of you maybe respond as to what is the power of those attacks as far as driving for the radicalization or the dangerous inherent and responses to attacks and perhaps creating backlash for the radicalization and we would start with humera. >> well, one of the reality which we are -- we have to deal with is that we are facing a very sophisticated enemy, and one which is quite open and once in that direction, that is part of their own strategy. and the reason is that one of the first responses that we have seen which post the paris attacks has been the issue of
refugees, right? if europe start shutting doors to refugees it's actually playing right into the hands of what isis daesh has said is what they want. in fact, a few months ago when the body of the 3-year-old child washed up on a turkish beach and that gained international media attention. it became a big media issue, look at this, what's happening to refugees. within a week isis had put out directives. you should come because we will protect you from assad. every refugee who is leaving syria is actually left to religion and now, you should be killed. we have the right to kill you. and so they don't want syrians to be leaving syrian.
that's one of the objectives. the attackers, most of them are french, but they said that they found one syrian passport. what the french news media was reporting yesterday was that the syrian passport belonged to a soldier, part of assad's army who was killed, the fact that he was killed passport of a dead soldier was missed direction, while the investigations are happening, we have to be careful to not just respond with fear but actually make sure that we have a cool-headed response to what we do. in terms of responses, overall we have the option of -- you know, everyone has a role to play, it's not just government. every role sector of society has a role to play. so we talk about what our cve,
counterviolence extremism, cve relevant responses. cve relevant responses are things that will help change the underlying environment but might not be directly addressing the issue of extremism head on. every community needs both cve specific and cve relevant. private sector specially equipped or ready are they are very enable to be a platform for cve relevant issues because they have the ability to actually work in the world of awareness, of education, of diversity and building inclusion. we talked about belonging, issues of identity. those, in fact, the staff, clients, every part of your world is impacted by this and also looking on -- looking on
issues of exit. if someone is twieg to get -- trying to get out, how can you help them. let me talk about c vu e specific. specially for technology platforms and technology companies out there, you have a tremendous role that you can play in cve specific work. >> it's always tough following humera. she makes excellent points. the concept of resilience is important here specially after the attacks on paris. we need to understand these terrorists will break us and government is promoting
resilience and it's very, very important so that you don't get very conservative responses that end up exacerbating the problem. a lot of these responses will end up with intel and that's where it needs to stay. for cve efforts there are things that can be done and i will give you an example. in montreal they opened up a center for individuals who are suspected of being on the path to radicalization. it's a center that allows their families or their friends to report them in a safe space, and they've only had very few instances in which they had to involve the law enforcement, but such a center allows individuals
with concerns or they themselves feel conflicted or on the path they can come and speak on the safe space. i think those types of programs integral in the situation. i'm sure you'll speak to the uk's prevent and the way they handle sensitive issues. it's important to not immediately prosecute all those who might start on the path but also allow opportunities to disengage before they engage to violence. >> having said that, i wanted to take advantage of other people's comments. i'm not used to going last too. yeah, i would like to reinforce cristina's and humera's points about resilience. they can be nothing but more powerful than ensuring at the time that these maintain the value that is we hold so dearly
and we show in the face of atrocities very strong resilience. the attacks in paris can have a variety of affects. what i said years ago was it's going to get bad before it gets better, it's going to get worse before it gets better and no doubt it id and it got worse and very worse, i would like to potentially see the attacks in paris as a turning point where from this point onwards things get better rather than worse. it's unfortunate that so many people have to die for it to get better. it's a bit like british she sol,
was beheaded in the strengths of london. it's unfortunate that he had to die for people in our community to stand up for our armed forces. a lot of people whether you believe it or not we don't have the similar relationship that you might do in the u.s. it was unfortunate that, you know, a soldier had to die on the streets of london for people to begin and support armed forces and values and principles for which they stand to defend and protect the values of our people. at that time, one of the most powerful was from prime minister david cameron came down with number ten above his head and he said this is not a representation of islam, this is a betrayal of islam. that really brought our community together. and so i think positive
responses carefully thought-through responses by some leaders are crucial at this time. and so the paris attacks, i think, and i wish and i hope can be a point where people realize the brutality of this ideology and realize this is not the path we want to follow. i hope they prevent response to this, prevention response to this which nobody has to do anything about in order to persuade people. you have seen responses around the uk and around the world. people cheered the attacks and in the sense encourage people and renewed a sense of confidence in these group of people that this is -- this
ideology, look what it can do and look where it can get to. it's kind of a double-edged sword. i say war on terror. with obviously france, you know, carrying out rates in northern iraq and syria. and we really need to be careful as to how we -- how we present ourselves in the aftermath of these events. we don't -- we don't want -- we are just growing over the toxic word of war and terror. i don't think we should create another statement where people feel that they are now the
region, how do people view that? and we want to also ensure that, you know, this is not seen as a kind of a, a kind of a religious war and there is potential for that to happen as well. and the last thing i want to say is, alongside the military action that's taking place whether it is effective or not effective, what we're dealing with is an ideology and you can't bomb an ideology. we were in goon fan for 15 years. one of our main efforts in afghanistan to destroy the taliban. the taliban are stronger today than they were 15 years ago. they still exist and still causing problems within afghanistan. so an ideology can not be bombed. an ideology can not be destroyed. the only way to destroy the ideology is big global hearts