tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 12, 2015 9:00am-7:01pm EST
i'm often asked what does an ombudsman do. i'll borrow a very simple but very on point definition. he said, ombudsman are useful people when it comes to make mistakes -- to making mistakes right. if you complain to an organization and they don't sort things out then an ombudsman might be able to help. they are the people to whom you can turn for help when all else has failed. our work would not be possible but for the professionalism, integrity and grit of our ombudsman staff. they embrace problem solving, they embrace our mission, and they welcome open dialogue with all of you. i'd like for all the folks in the ombudsman office who are in the audience to please stand. some of them are outside working. thank you for your service.
i'm very honored to work with all of you. you are one dedicated bunch. and i'm very proud to work alongside all of you. thank you. but the but we don't do this work alone. every day we work and they work with dedicated ucis officers here in washington, d.c. and also around the country who share in our goal of providing high quality immigration services. i'd like to recognize our ucis colleagues in the room. please stand. i know you're there. we know you're here. thank you for all of your hard work. [ applause ] associate director of ucis, public engagement and customer services director, i got all that backwards, welcome and thank you for your support and for your commitment to the work that you all do. ombudsman work is hard work and it's often done quietly and very effectively.
sometimes even without recognition. and while we need steadfast advocates for much needed comprehensive immigration reform we also need to keep our commitment to improving the delivery of services in the immigration system that we have today. this is critical. it is critical in part because we have seen a sharp increase in the number of request for our systems made to our office over the past year. it has more than doubled since i was appointed to this position in 2012. there is still a lot of work to do. why is our case work important? because cases not only represent a family, an employer, an individual seeking benefits or relief, but they also signal to new or continuing systemic issues that require the agency's attention. for example, recently our office noticed a spike in the number of applications for change of status to that of student.
delays prevented some of these applicants from starting classes, from accepting campus employment, some even faced losing teaching and research positions and fellowships. given the good number of cases coming to our office showing a trend, we contacted ucis and they worked to resolve these delayed cases. more importantly, they immediately started working on addressing the operational costs for the delays. in some cases our office intervenes to address a clear error or quality issue in the actual adjudication of a case. that includes monitoring the use of templated request for evidence and other notices. we do that to ensure that customers receive adequate notice of evidentiary deficiencies in their filings and an adequate opportunity to address them. other cases that we've seen this year involved individuals facing delays in renewing their employment authorization
documents. while the vast majority of employment authorization applications are adjudicated by icis within the required 90 days statutory time frame, every year, especially in the summer, thousands of individuals encounter processing delays in renewing their work permits. similarly, over the past year we received requests for case assistance from applicants seeking to renew their deferred action under the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. while some had timely filed their applications they face delays in renewing their documents and also accompanying work permits. so we continue to try to understand the operational constraints that prevent timely adjudication of employment authorization documents as well as applications. and we encouraged the agency to be true to the posted processing times and to recognize the
negative impact of a lapse in having a valid employment authorization document. it impacts individuals, employers, families. on the humanitarian side next month our office will issue formal recommendations addressing trends, our case work has uncovered relating to special immigrant juvenile policies and procedures. we also continue to advance our mission through public engagement on issues that matter most to those who come to ucis for immigration benefits. this year we participated in over 100 stakeholder engagements in 20 different states and we continued our teleconference program hosting important conversations, some with ucis on important topics including provisional waivers, many revisions we've seen lately to ucis forms and longstanding problems in the employment programs. but though we are an office charged with focusing on
problems, sometimes that makes us unpopular, we recognize ucis' many successes and efforts to modernize our immigration system and to implement the president's executive actions. i don't want to steal director rodriguez' bragging rights later. i'm sure he will talk about some of the good work they are doing at ucis but i'd like to congratulate him on the agency's guidance and the launch of two very important humanitarian programs. the haitian family reunification program and the in country refugee parole program for central american miners. and i also commend the agency for its planning and preparation to implement the president's executive action initiatives. before i close i'd like to share that in addition to my role as citizenship and immigration services ombudsman i have the privilege of serving as the chair of the dhs blue campaign. the blue campaign is the unified voice of the department to combat human trafficking. the campaign was created on the
idea that we are at our best only when we are all working together to fight the crime of modern day slavery. this year the blue campaign celebrates its fifth anniversary. that's five years of raising public awareness of human trafficking. five years of working with our government and private sector partners. five years of training law enforcement both here at dhs and also around the country. and five years of working and coordinating department policy to support investigations and, more importantly, stabilize and provide relief for victims of this terrible crime. i am grateful to secretary johnson for his support of our office and for his leadership. i also wish to thank deputy secretary for his relentless commitment to the immigration work of this department. i'd like to again thank my staff for putting together an incredible and ambitious agenda today and i'd like to thank our panelists for what i'm sure will be a day of great conversations and, again, all of yours once
again, for joining us for this fifth conference. thank you. now, secretary johnson has challenged us here at dhs to bring together our talents, our rich experience and department's resources into one whole of dhs effort. now, his vision for unity of effort is reflected in how we have worked together to respond to the president's directive to do what we can to fix our broken immigration system. i am very honored to work under his leadership. please join me in welcoming secretary jeh johnson. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you, maria, for all the terrific work that you do as our ombudsman. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here today. i recall addressing this
conference last year and welcomed the opportunity to come back here. let me provide a few thoughts about where we are, particularly with the implementation of our executive actions. let me begin with something that i said at westminster college in missouri in september. i was honored to give the 56th annual green foundation lecture at westminster college in missouri, in fulton, missouri. the most famous green foundation lecture at westminster was given by winston churchill in 1946. the famous iron curtain speech.
in 1954 former president harry truman went to westminster and gave a green foundation lecture. his lecture given during the mccarthy era, the red scare, was about what hysteria does to us. i decided in my green lecture to use that as the basis for my own remarks. at westminster in september i said, all of us in public office, those who aspire to public office, and who command a microphone hold the public calm, responsible dialogue and decision making, not over heated, over simplistic rhetoric and proposals of superficial appeal, in a democracy the former leads to smart and sustainable policy. the latter can lead to fear, hate, suspicion, prejudice, and government overreach.
this is especially true in matters of homeland security and it is especially true in matters of immigration policy. at that speech i commented that i know this both as the secretary of homeland security and in a very personal way from the experience of my own grandfather. i talked about testimony that my grandfather gave before congress in 1949 to the committee on un-american activities of the u.s. house of representatives. the lawyers here will appreciate this. this is the q and a. question, are you now or ever
have been a member of the communist party? johnson, i am not now and never have been a member of the communist party. mr. chairman, i have been asked by this committee to state my views as an educator regarding the loyalty of american negroes. in one sense it is like asking if tennesseans are presbyterians or foreign born citizen or american women are persons with freckles are loyal. where there has been resentment, this is in the year 1949 -- where there has been resentment, it has been not against the form of government but against those who misinterpret or seek to abuse the purpose and power of government and cherished freedoms. all of you here know that around immigration policy there is a lot of emotion and a lot of misinformation.
i like to note a poll taken by pew research two years ago that asked the following question in its survey. two years ago. just your best guess, compared with ten years ago do you think the number of immigrants entering the u.s. illegally today is higher, lower, or about the same? a majority surveyed, or 55%, said that they thought two years ago the number was higher than it was ten years before then. when, in fact, as i think all of you know the opposite is true. the high of apprehensions on our southern border was 1.6 million in fy 2000. in fy 2013 that number had dropped to 414,000. in fy '14 the number was 479,000. the spike in the rio grand
valley of the children and families. this past year, fy '15, the number has dropped to 331,000, which with the exception of one year is the lowest number of apprehensions we've seen on our southern border since 1972. notwithstanding these lower numbers there is more we can do on border security as a sovereign nation, we must protect our borders from illegal migration. but as all of you know, building more walls is not the answer. more technology, risk-based strategy, not more walls is the answer. one of the pieces of advice i got last summer when we were in the midst of the crisis on the southern border was from the u.s. conference of catholic bishops that you have to offer people an alternative way, hope, you can't put a padlock on a burning building. so we have established in-country processing in central
america so that parents here can petition to have their children come to the united states. we'd like to see wider use of this program. in terms of building a wall, one of the best commentaries i've ever heard from a border security expert was and is, if you think someone is motivated enough to leave their home in central america, travel north across the complete distance of mexico and climb a 10,000 foot mountain, are they really going to be deterred by a ten-foot wall? or as janet napolitano used to say, show me a ten-foot wall and i'll show you an 11-foot ladder. so more technology is the answer, not more walls. there are 700 miles of some form of fence across the southwest border now built pursuant to the secure fence act of 2006. longer-term we need to invest in root causes.
the poverty and violence in central america must be addressed, which is why this administration under president obama has requested $1 billion for guatemala, el salvador, and honduras in aid and investment in those three countries. today i want to review with you the progress the homeland security is making on our executive actions announced a year ago. congress has not acted as all of you know on comprehensive immigration reform. we are disappointed by that. the senate passed a bill in 2013 but the house has failed to act. so the president and i have acted on our own within our existing legal authority to do what we can to fix the broken immigration system. overall the president's policy are new policies, are smart, common sense uses of the
resources we have to focus on threats to public safety, felons not families, quality of our efforts over quantity, giving people an opportunity in this country to be held accountable and to be accountable if they been in this country for years and have roots here. in terms of the deferred action for adults program that we announced last november, we are disappointed that this important program is in litigation, in the courts. we are disappointed that the district judge has enjoined the program and the expansion of the docker program that we announced. but we will fight on. we will defend the program. we will defend the case in the courts on appeal.
we are anxiously awaiting the decision of the fifth circuit following in the oral argument on july 10th. deferred action aside, we are moving forward with the other nine of ten executive actions. the most significant of which is our reprioritization of how we use our resources for removal. we're focusing more on felons over families, quality over quantity, as i said, and threats to public safety. the nonpartisan migration policy institute has noted with respect to our new removal priority which we announced last year. these prosecutorial discretion changes which have received significantly less public attention than the deferred action program make it unlikely that unauthorized immigrants who would qualify for daca or dapa will be deported. the overall impact of the new memorandum is to describe dhs
enforcement priorities more precisely and more narrowly than was the case under the 2010-2011 guidance. while broadening the circumstances under which dhs personnel should exercise discretion, including reasons department personnel may choose not to deport people who generally fall within the enforcement priorities. overall the new enforcement policies and i can continue to quote, have the potential to substantially transform the u.s. deportation system, particularly within the u.s. interior, end quote. so as all of you here know in fiscal year 2012 i.c.e. removed 409,000 people. fiscal year '13, the number q$ñ dropped to 368. fiscal year '14, the number went
down to 315,000. we're still counting but in fiscal year '15 i anticipate that that number will be significantly less than 315,000. why is that? well, first of all, simply, there are fewer people on the intake side because of the lower apprehension, fewer total attempts to cross the border illegally that we saw fy '15. second, however, i.c.e. is doing what i told them to do. in terms of reprioritization and the focus on convicted criminals. of those deported in the period march to september 2015, 83% of those deported in that period are in my priority one for removal, criminals, criminal gang member, those at the border. at large arrest of those convicted of felonies and misdemeanors is up 22% from last year.
bottom line of all of this is fewer deportations but a greater percentage of those are convicted criminals and threats to public safety. that is the direction we want to go. that the direction the president directed, and that's what we are doing. other reasons for the lower deportation numbers frankly was the politically and legally controversial secure communities program, which we have ended and replaced with the priority enforcement program. as all of you know, under the secure communities program, municipalities, states, counties were enacting limitations on their levels of cooperation with immigration customs enforcement, leading to a number of detainers that were not acted upon, including detainers on people who are convicted criminals and threats to public safety. we are changing that.
with our new priority enforcement program we have replaced detainers with requests for notification on a defined list of crimes and removal priorities. not simply going after people who have been arrested and arrested or convicted of minor offenses. we have received a good reception so far to our priority enforcement program. of the approximately 340 noncooperating jurisdictions that were out there, nearly two-thirds are now working with us on the priority enforcement program. and this is a work in progress. of the 25 largest which account for 83% of previously declined detainers, 15 of those 25 are now working with us again. more will be coming online soon, including big cities. and preliminary indications are that the individuals being transferred under this new program fit within my priority
one for removal to an increasing percentage. we are doing these things for public safety. so in terms of our other executive actions, let me announce and say again as i've said several weeks ago, we have issued a proposed rule to expand eligibility for provisional extreme hardship waivers of the three- and ten-year bars to all persons who statutorily qualify for that waiver. a comment period for this change is closed and we are now reviewing the 600 comments we received and are preparing to issue the final rule. second, and to encourage broader use of this waiver on october 7th we published new guidance for public comment on the extreme hardship requirement. up until now no clear guidance
on what extreme hardship means is out there. for decades, there has been confusion and inconsistent application. this guidance will provide the needed clarity for this benchmark. the comment period on this guidance is open until november 23rd. we encourage all of you to send us your comments and reaction to this proposed guidance. and help us publicize this guidance once it is final. third, on september 25th, state and dhs made changes to the bisa bulletin to enable certain families to apply for green cards sooner. fourth, we have almost completed guidance to assist the families of those defending our country in the u.s. military, to obtain work permits. on october 15th, we provided public notice of a proposed rule to strengthen the program that
provides optional practical training for students in stem fields studying at u.s. universities. on may 26th we finalized a new rule that allowed spouses of highly skilled h1b workers to apply for visa. we're working on a regulation now and guidance to support high-skilled businesses and workers by enabling these businesses to hire and retain talented foreign workers while providing these workers with increased flexibility to advance with current employers or seek new opportunities elsewhere. additionally we are working on a regulation to enhance opportunities for foreign inventors, researchers, and entrepreneurs wishing to conduct research and create jobs in the u.s. we're promoting and increasing citizen access to citizenship under the leadership of director rodriguez, who will speak next,
during the week of september 14-21 we launched citizenship week and constitution day and ucis in that one week naturalized 40,000 people. and we are now permitting payment by credit card of the naturalization fee. we continue to assess a partial fee waiver of a naturalization fee. an idea championed by a number of organizations represented here today. in terms of our deferred action program, as i mentioned earlier, the dapa program is enjoined but we are defending the case on appeal, along with the enhancements and enlargements of the daca program. we are defending the case on appeal. we will continue to fight for this program. to those who say we did not have the authority to create the dapa program, without a change in law, i say, well, then, you should change the law.
we must account for these people. we must encourage them to be accountable. they are not going away. we are not going to deport a population of people the size of new york city and chicago put together in anybody's administration. there are sound and good law enforcement reasons why we should encourage deferred action. it is also in my judgment simply the right thing to do. it should be no second class people in this country. the most striking thing about this population is something like over half of them have been here for ten years. they live among us. we know them. they work among us. they study among us. there was a documentary on a couple weeks ago on pbs, "front line" and immigration reform. i suspect a lot of people here
saw it. i'm proud that two of the people in that documentary, esther and david, now work for me as immigration and legal advisers. esther had a couple of bit parts in the documentary. one of the -- i had to watch it twice before i noticed esther sitting behind senator edward kennedy at the end of the documentary. it was kind of hard to recognize her. it was eight years ago. hair was a little darker then. but it was the speech in which senator kennedy announced the end of the effort then at immigration reform. and he said then in 2007, and i quote, this is a message of hope, hope for those of you who
recognize the need for immigration reform and deferred action. it is now clear we are not going to complete our work on immigration reform. this is enormously disappointing for congress and for the country, but we will be back and we will prevail. the american people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems and they will not accept inaction. i have seen this happen time and again, america always finds a way to solve its problems, expand its frontiers, and move closer to its ideals. it is not always easy but it is the american way. in that vein, let me tell you something that my grandfather who had to testify before the house on american activities committee said in 1949 -- in 1956.
this is a man who had to testify and deny he was a communist before our congress in 1949. in 1956, a month before he died, he wrote something in the "new york times" magazine about a southern negro's view of the south. this is september 1956, before the civil rights movement had taken off, before the civil rights act of 1957, before the civil rights act of 1964, the voting rights act of 1965, and all the other things that have occurred since that time. he died a second class citizen in a train station in louisville, kentucky, in october 1956. this is what he said about the african-american's plight in the south in september 1956. very much in line with what senator kentucky had to say in 2007. it is variously expected that
negro southerners as a result of their limited status in the racial system would be bitter or hostile or patient or indifferent. bitterness grows out of hopelessness and there is no sense of hopelessness in this situation. however, uncomfortable and menacing and humiliating it may be at times, faith in the ultimate strength of the democratic philosophy and code of the nation as a whole has always been stronger than the impulse to despair. so to those of you who champion immigration reform, fixing our system, and caring for those immigrants who are in this country seeking a better way, i say that the road is long. it can be bumpy. but in the end, we always do the right thing. we always get there.
the arc of history is long. so for those of you who work with maria, who want to build a better system and build a better life here for immigrants, i say keep at it and don't give up. and don't lose hope. thank you all very much. >> thank you. thank you will appreciate it. >> i'm sorry i can't stay and take questions. i do have to get back to my palatial headquarters uptown in nebraska avenue. thank you all. and have a good conference. >> thank you. >> leon, are you ready? leon rodriguez, director of ucis is a colleague who joined us here at dhs over a year ago. and he probably feels about ten years in experience to him at this point. he assumed an incredible challenge but also i think
amazing opportunity to lead ucis in executing the president's directives on executive action. it's a pleasure to work with leon. it's been a pleasure to watch you run with that incredible charge and watch your staff over the past year preimposed injunction to work to make that happen. and i appreciate ucis' partnership, i appreciate the incredible commitment of your staff who work with the ombudsman daily to help fix problems that sometimes require everyone's attention and i appreciate that we all share the same goal of making the system better. so please join me in welcoming ucis director leon rodriguez. >> good morning, everybody. it's good to see a lot of familiar faces and some new
faces. so since i have a little bit of extra time you're going to indulge me because it means i get to tell a couple of stories. and i'd like to start by talking about how i go to work every morning. i live in montgomery county, maryland, probably a handful of you here do as well. and over probably the last eight or nine months i have made a habit of passing through the corner of university boulevard and new hampshire avenue on my way to work. those of you who know the area well know that to be langley's cross roads. and the reason i go through there is because i realize that in my mind i do what i do for the people of langley's cross roads and people like them all over the united states and all over the world trying to get in
to the united states. because if you look at langley's cross roads it is an amazing melting pot of people from all over the world. you see korean supermarkets, you see salvadorian restaurant, indian restaurant, you see african clothing shops. it's really -- it's a really united nations. what you also see every morning at around the time that i go through is crowds a crowds of people going into the metro, crowds and crowds of people lining up at the bus stops all working to pursue their little piece of the american dream. this morning that route was ill advised. not because it wasn't yet again inspiring to pass through langley's cross roads but rather because the traffic was horrific
on the way downtown, via north on the new hampshire avenue and north capital street. that gave me time to think and time to think is sometimes a little uncomfortable. and it was uncomfortable because i started thinking about the meeting when i saw all of you last year and that would have been just a few months after i had become director of ucis. maria was kind enough to facilitate my discussion with you. and you asked a number of questions about a number of matters. and what i don't know is how well i have done in the past year in resolving the issues that you raised. and that calls to mind really a second thought. i have been in government for most of my life and i have grown through that time to become very interested in the behavior of organizations, whether they are government organizations,
whether they are companies, whether they are non-profit organizations. and have grown interested in what makes organizations act, what makes organizations change, what makes organizations improve. and actually what we do in ucis is very interesting case study in that sort of question. what makes an organization move, improve, and change. we're a very large organization. we're 18,000 people. we have an annual operating budget of approximately $3 billion, if you take into account all the fee accounts. and so we're not necessarily the most easily movable object. i view my job as director to make wise and smart decisions about how the organization moves and changes as it moves forward
into the future. and there are a constellation of inputs that go into how those decisions are made. obviously there are a couple of fix points. one is our basic annual budget. even if we do a fee revision, the basic size of that will be the same. the basic size of our workforce will probably be about the same. so those are our in and of themselves pressure on what we can do and how we can do it. but then there are a number of other forces that act on us to make a change. two of those very important forces are in this room right now. and so as stakeholders of different type, a number of you are immigration lawyers, others are advocates, others play other roles in our system -- thank
you. i'm audible, though, right? >> yes. >> okay. so i'm going to eventually start walking around, then i'm going to walk off with the microphone. so as i hear from you, that, in fact, has a very significant influence in how i make decisions as director. and particularly when i hear something from you not just one time but when i hear things from you one, two, three, four, five, and six times. that starts being a signal that somewhere in that 24-hour day i'm going to have to find an hour to actually do something about that issue that you've raised. that means that we've now hit a certain critical mass. another critical actor is sitting right in front of me, and that is maria odom in the office of the ombudsman.
they play i think a very, very critical and very special role. actually i think probably most government organizations should have an institution like this ombudsman. and that is because they are built in resistors to inertia. so they are -- they have a very special charge. one to facilitate correct outcomes on cases to act on behalf of our customers in case where's the system may not have worked or certainly where those customers are not satisfied with the outcome. and then to also look for opportunities to systemic improvement. they have done so, i think, in a very constructive, very orderly, very thoughtful, very evidence-based way. i'm really grateful to them for playing that relation. i'm also -- being in a relationship with you as icis.
i also want to congratulate them on the work that they've done in the blue dhs blue campaign in combating human trafficking, which is something that is near and dear to my heart. so i do that all to really set the stage to say this is a very important interaction which in little strokes and little strokes and little strokes will actually, in fact, eventually has the outcome of modifying the work we do based on the reality of what is happening to immigrants out there every day. now, i want to talk for a little while longer, give you some updates that you will probably be interested in hearing. actually the secretary did a good job of sort of giving you the outline of what i will be discussing in detail. and then i'd really like to open to questions and questions for me are when i open for questions it's questions, comments,
concerns, whatever the case might be. let's dig in first to where we are with respect to executive action. and i want to -- for those of you who don't know her. she's not here today but i just want to introduce you indirectly to an individual by the name of jennifer higgins who actually was supposed to be on your panel this afternoon. she has served since the inception of the executive actions as my senior adviser on the executive actions. she was then and is now dual hatted as the deputy associate director for the refugee asylum and international operations division of ucis. in fact, her role will now be sort of multiplying geometrically because of our
increased targets for refugee admissions. so i just wanted to let you -- let everybody know about her leadership role. unfortunately she's not able to participate in the panel for which she was scheduled today but i'm still hoping that all of you get the opportunity to get to know her. the way i've seen the executive actions, there are basically three key pillars to the executive actions. and they really speak to the three sort of key ways in which our immigration system has been take your pick, broken, damaged, at least susceptible to improvement as the case might be. so the first of those is, as the secretary discussed, the taking
the first steps towards some sort of permanent resolution to the condition of undocumented people in the united states. this is another one of those, you know, we're just talking about how institutions move. there will never be enough public will to remove 11 million people. nobody will want that enough. many people of course don't. and nobody will ever want to spend the kind of resources to do that that that requires. meanwhile, those 11 million people are not just 11 million people. they are husbands, they are sons and daughters, they are sisters and brothers. they are quite typically part of families, part of communities, that, in fact, con ina united states citizens, contain legal permanent residence.
and so the impact were we to actually go down that road of 11 million people is not an impact of just those individuals alone. in fact, would have a devastating impact on families, on workplaces, on communities, on institutions of faith. all of which would be terribly, terribly undermined were we to make that decision. and meanwhile at the same time whether we admit it or not, many of these folks are actually contributing quite substantially both economically and in many other ways to our society the most sort of notable, most obvious example is the daca recipients who any time you pick
20 of them to meet you will find young people who are studying, who are working, who are building families. some of them are telling us if you give us a shot, we'll join the armed services so we can serve our country. a perfect case study of people who in many respects are actually still on the margins of our society saying, not with standing that fact, i'm ready to participate. i'm ready to come in and to make a difference. so we had taken the step of instituting the dapa, daca expansion programs. i think everybody has good understanding of where the legal process is with respect to those initiatives. we are now -- i would call attention to this. we are now 3 1/2 months past the oral arguments in the fifth circuit. in circumstances where two out
the three judges who heard the case were the same two or three judges who had heard our appeal of the denial of the motion to stay had issued very promptly a decision. all facts worth noting as we think about where this process stands and what the -- when and how we will have the opportunity to stand up these programs which we believe were not only legal but, more importantly, or as importantly, were good and critical policy to address these issues. but the one thing that i always hasten to remind people when we talk about this, executive action can never have been the end game for immigration advocacy. executive action needed to be understood, deferred action in particular, needed to be understood the best that we could do, given the failure of
the political system to act. there is no question that the political system needs to act. it needed to have acted a long time ago to address this issue and in the given its failure, we took action. the fact is that everything that is going on right now in terms of the legal process, in terms of a lot of the dynamics of our current election further dramatized the fact that our country's leaders, i'm one of them so i have to take this responsibility just as much as everybody else, our country's leaders need to take responsibility as a political system and find a real solution to this situation. so as we churn in court, as we churn in the election, all of
that is calling further and further attention. and i do believe that that tipping point will come and perhaps it's not as far off as we may fear that it is. i also call attention to the fact that about 90,000 young people are in daca every year. we are committed to encouraging those young people to make the choice of requesting deferred action and to take advantage -- excuse me -- of those opportunities. but we do continue to work as a whole of government to try to push these goals forward. i would point to the extreme hardship guidance that will provide, i think, the clarity that it offers along with the
regulations that expand, the categories of individuals that can seek extreme hardship waivers, that that does promise for some families of at some po illegally, that that will provide some concrete relief to those families as we move forward. i'd like to talk a little bit about our work in the task force for new americans. as all of you know, this is a -- an integrated strategy for immigrant integration. along civic lines, linguistic lines. one is to proleadersh ee eer -- provide leadership.
we are the chairs of the task force for new americans. but also then to promote civic integration, particularly through citizenship. we have been learning some interesting -- some interesting things about why people don't naturalize and what it's going to take. because we really have to ask both those questions. why aren't they doing it and what is it going to take to get them to do it. why those 9 million legal permanent residents, many of them lprs for a long time, are not choosing to naturalize. we learned that we need to really speak very concretely about what is gained through citizenship, what the rights and responsibilities of citizenship are. and we're doing that through a number of means. first is through the citizenship public education awareness
campaign. key elements of that campaign were -- have been launched in the last couple of months. multi-media campaigns on the internet, in print and on radio to really talk in very encouraging terms both of the benefits of citizenship but then also to underscore the resources that are available to people in order to prepare for the civics exam, in order to meet the language requirement and in some cases also to be able to pay the fee for naturalization. and, in fact, we found a lot of support for our efforts from just about every major city is
interested in some way in advancing immigrant integration, not to mention a number of other middle-size cities that are really enjoying rebirths in many ways as a result of their immigrant communities. part of that is being accomplished through what is called the welcoming communities campaign in whi we have entered into very strategic agreements with new york, with san francisco, nashville, tennessee, atlanta, to use municipal resources in order to promote access to naturalization. we have also, as you know, taken the very concrete step of now offering credit card processing to individuals. at this point the pace seems to be about 2%. we're sort of inching up.
our expectation is that over time, this will become a more and more attractive option to applicants for naturalization, especially i think when we reach the point where the entire experience is electronic. and i think when we reach that point, we're going to see more and more people, taking advantage of the electronic tool, but also the option of credit card processing. additionally, we are very actively, as part of our fee review, looking at expanding fee waivers, particularly looking at the option of a 50% fee waiver between those of 150% and 200% of poverty. so that process is very active. i would, of course, be staying tuned in the months to come as there will be a number of significant developments in the area of our fees that i think
will be particularly important to this community. we continue our work in the area of visa modernization. working closely with the department of state to update, improve and clarify immigrant and non-immigrant programs. i know that there's been a lot of back and forth about the visa bulletin. i am hopeful that as we have now issued the october 2015 visa bulletin that we are entering a period of at least more clarity. that now reflects revised procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file employment-based or family status applications. i talked about the waivers before. you are all familiar with the work we did with the l-1-b
guidan guidance. that is meant to ease the process of enabling multi-national companies to transfer employees with specialized knowledge consistent with that organization's interests. we have had a lot of utilization of our h-4 dependent spouses employment authorization regulation. as you know, ice is working on the opt stem rule. we continue working on clarifying the availability of the national interest waiver by which foreign nationals in the eb-2 immigrant visa category, including inventors, researchers and entrepreneurs can take advantage of that waiver. we are working quite actively right now in developing a regulation for parole for certain entrepreneurs subject to
certain circumstances. i know that's been an area of great interest. we're hoping to have that as an nprm before very, very long. as well as a proposed regulation to implement the ac-21 and provisions, governing adjustment of status processes and employment based and immigration provisions as well. so those are lots of work going on in that front. i think most of which you will start seeing coming to fruition in the weeks and months to come. i want to talk a little bit about where we are on refugees. the president, i think, took great leadership by directing us to raise our targets to 85,000 for this year, 100,000 for next
year with a very specific target of 10,000, which incidentally is a floor. 10,000 admissions of syrians. i have spent a lot of time, particularly since june of this year when i was in turkey visiting our resettlement center, really digging into the situation in syria which is devastating. this is a country of 22 million people. the last i checked -- i have a feeling this number has probably grown even more. 11 million of that 22-plus million is displaced in some way. about 4 million -- that number has probably grown -- that number by itself has probably grown, are refugees now in jordan, in turkey, in lebanon and egypt and elsewhere. certainly, in europe. and then another 7 million are
actually displaced internally within syria. with the russian bombing, all those numbers promise to grow yet further, not to mention the devastating loss of life, destruction of communities, disruption -- complete disruption of life in syria. and that will continue to mean a lot for us to do in the refugee and asylum corps. we are working very carefully to make sure that we do -- we meet all of our obligations. meaning, that we will certainly meet our targets with respect to refugee admissions. a lot of those resources are the same resources -- it's the same pool of resources that we would use in the asylum world. so we are busy looking for efficiencies to continue to do
our credible fear and reasonable fear processing in an efficient manner compliant with the law to eat away at our affirmative asylum backlog and also to meet these tremendous challenges that we face in the middle east knowing that as we look at the worldwide refugee situation, there are 19 million people -- 19 million refugees in the world right now. so we're not just talking about syria. we're not just talking about iraq. but we're talking about kenya. to some degree we're talking about the americas. the humanitarian crisis throughout the world has just continued to grow and grow. i want to thank those of you who
in some way, either as individual counselors or as advocates, supported us this summer as we worked to comply with the court's order to retrieve the work authorizations under daca and to replace them with two-year work authorizations. would that we had never to have done that. but the fact that we're able to successfully conclude that effort we thought was critical to the overall stability and survival of the daca program itself. so to those of you who supported that effort, we are very grateful. a lot of activity going on in the special immigrant juvenile front. during the first months of 2015, we saw a 69% increase in the number of filings. back in june, we published updated guidance on the
implementation of the paris settlement agreement governing special immigrant juvenile adjudications. these are case s in some cases that were denied. a number are being reopened and reconsidered based on that settlement. we have centralized the adjudication of special immigrant juvenile petitions. one of the things that we discovered is that any given place where we were seeing these petitions, we're not seeing that many of them. so we were not developing the level of expertise and depth of expertise in this kind of work that we thought was optimal. we believe that by centralizing this work, that will result in a higher kwaquality of adjudicati and go a long way to addressing the concerns that i know that the ombudsman has expressed.
they requested we centralize that unit. a well taken recommendation. other work with populations is our u visa, t visa and vawa work. important to know that we use supervisory quality review when we make a final decision to deny a petition. these are challenging cases because for those individuals who need them and qualify them, they are essential from a humanitarian perspective that they have access to these visas. but at the same time, there have been concerns of fraud in this program. so the premium on our doing this work in a professional and thoughtful manner is quite high. we are continuing to move forward to do this work in the best way possible. finally, i want to talk a little
bit before looking out for question about the continued importance of combating immigration services fraud, which includes but is much broader than the unauthorized practice of immigration law. i actually got to go to my professional birthplace a couple of weeks ago, to the brooklyn district attorney's office where brooklyn, like all the four new york -- five new york area district attorney offices have -- has a crimes against immigrants unit that is combating the sort of fraud that we have seen, a number of other scams that are targeting immigrants. we want to continue as uscis to support those kinds of efforts, to continue putting out information on how individuals
can avoid scams, and to generally pull together the combination of government of the advocacy community, of the legal community and really making sure that when individuals get immigration help, it is, in fact, competent and honest help. i look forward to our partnership on that front as well. i had the opportunity just a few weeks ago to take my children on a ranger-led tour of ellis island. and i learned something that i think i knew in the back of my mind, but that was really dramatized by the information the ranger gave us, which was until 1924, if you were from euro europe, you could come to the
united states, period, unless you were sick, you were an anarchist or criminal. that was it. those were the only restrictions on immigration in that period. obviously, we live in a far more complicated world which is where a lot of the work that we need to collectively do to re -- one, move toward immigration reform, but two, to do the best that we can do given the hand that we have been dealt as a system, that that continues to be important. i've actually generally become more interested in immigration history in recent months. and read a speech given by the then president of the president -- the then president of the daughters of the american revolution back in the 1960s. and the title of the speech was,
why we need immigration quotas. and one of the arguments proffered for why we need immigration quotas was the prospect that -- the question of how can we effectively screen refugees who are coming to the united states. this was 1960s. so the refugees that they were talking about were actually my parents. refugees from cuba and refugees from our communist countries who were coming at that time. and we were wondering how we could screen them effectively. well, i think the story has sort of told itself. because the refugees of that era have, in fact, come to the united states, have built businesses, have gone to school,
have really told the story of the american dream all over again. i fully expert that this next generation of immigrants will do exactly the same thing. meanwhile, plenty of work for us to do, plenty for us to talk about. so i will open for questions. who is first? >> i have a mike here. there we go. >> director rodriguez, i wanted to ask you about the ability to improve transparency and
stakeholder input. i'm an immigration lawyer. last june, i asked you that at a public forum. and i urged you when you do draft guidance not merely to publish the final guidance but to let us who -- the public stakeholder community see what reaction had you kction you hads that were made. you said you would take it under advisement. we haven't been getting any feedback on the comments that the public makes as to how the agency considers those changes. it would have been helpful with the simeo memo. it would have been helpful with the changes to the visa bulletin. and we get that when you public rules. it's very frustrating to see,
for example, the visa modernization proposal -- announcement that came out of the president's directive of 11/20/2014. state and dhs didn't give us any feedback as to why certain other ideas were rejected. and what can you do to make that work? because it's not working right now. >> i appreciate that feedback. and that's -- i appreciate for being willing to say it a second time, probably a third time at this point. i think you said it last year. it tends to stick. a point to a couple of things. one, i think you can all appreciate that we are trying to do a lot right now. i think what the president is doing in the executive actions is very ambitious. i can let you know that my staff has been working very hard. i think one thing that we have
found has been very effective -- it's not exactly what you are suggesting that we do. i can't see a reason why we wouldn't do what you are suggesting we do. is we have have had more and more stakeholder gatherings as we roll out is it whether it's new policies, whether it's -- that gives a lot of transparency to what different stakeholder communities think about what we're doing. it gives us an opportunity to give some more feedback. i actually think we probably can do even better along the lines that you are suggesting, at least certainly for the big policy decisions that we make, to be able to articulate why we -- why we're not doing something. so i said i would take it under advisement and i will continue to look at ways to do what you are suggesting. i think it's good advice.
>> can you hear me? >> yeah. >> hi. good morning. i got a little eager to ask you a question. i want to thank the office and you for being here today. it's a great opportunity. my question is about the u vi program and the wait list. at the vermont service center we were informed there's 95,000 cases pending, 45,000 of which are on the u visa wait list. that currently in this fiscal year, dis is look at applications filed in 2013. so this causes lots of different problems, but one that concerns us is the delay of family reunification for wait listed for those abroad. cis is under a directive to provide parole to these wait listed clients. we have worked with -- brought this issue to the attention of
ombuds staff. we wanted to check on the procedures and confirming that they can use deferred action in similar ways that other folks with deferred actions are able to use advanced parole. >> i will ask we make sure that we fully answer your question sometime before the end of this conference. i've been in a few policy discussions exact to move these options forward. i'm just not sure the status in some of the specifics. i'm going to make sure we get that information to the group before we conclude here today. over there. there we go. >> hello. my name is jacqueline. i'm not a lawyer or anything. just a stakeholder. i started a group africans for
immigration reform. i have, like, three different questions. the first one i heard a secretary talking about immigrants that have been here at least ten years. there's no way to deport them. my first question is if you've been here at least five or ten years, why isn't there an option to self-petition? why do you have to wait on a spouse or a son to petition for you? what if you don't have those aven avenues? >> yeah. there are very limited avenues for people. obviously, there's extensive in the employment context. there are limited options under the diversity visas that really just leaves the family visas which that's the legal design of the system.
whether we can talk about a different design to the system, that's something worth advocating about. we're basically -- rest on the legal -- the legal system that we have been given. it's what we are administering. i think what the secretary was speaking to was that basically, the way that our deportation priorities work, unless you are a recent illegal crosser or you are a criminal or you are a threat to national security, then you don't fall within those removal priorities. and i think what the secretary was recognizing that, in fact, if you look at our undocumented population, many of those people have now been in the country upwards of five years and ten years. i think that's what he was trying to talk about when he said that. >> okay. now my next question is, if you are a spouse of an lpr and have
already been in the country for that same specific period, why do you have to wait until your priority date comes up to get a visa? >> again, that's just the basic set -- the basic legal setup of the system. it's how it has been structured over a long time. >> thank you. >> hi, director rodriguez. i'm a private attorney and i'm a retired military officer. i wanted to ask you about some of the comments you made in your terrific opening remarks. not a day goes by where i don't get a call from an immigrant who is interested in applying for citizenship and who is massively confused by the forms. that uscis has generated. the citizenship form has gone from ten pages to being over 20 and there's a new one coming out that's 28 pages that asks all kinds of interesting questions
that cause immigrants to be concerned they will not be able to get citizenship and their green cards are going to be taken away from them if they should take steps to apply. an example, every day i get two or three facebook messages from somebody in the military asking how they should answer the question, have you ever belonged to an organization that tried to kill people. they tell me that uscis officers at interviews tell them to cross out yes and they say i belong to the army, the army does try to kill people. your examiners are telling them to change the answer to know because the question doesn't apply to you. these forms are getting not a single one has gotten smaller under this administration. in fact, i notice the other day when i was trying to do a change of address for an alien sponsor -- immigrant sponsor that they have to file nine pieces of paper with the government in order to change their address now. seven years ago it was one piece of paper. now it's nine. we had a sensing session a few
weeks ago. we raised these issues and the paperwork reduction people was the point of the act is not to reduce paperwork. >> what did he say? >> this is in your minutes. he said it's to reduce the burden on the public, not to reduce paperwork. i was left wondering how the burden on the pup lick is being reduced. >> here is the tension. this is a dialogue i think we're going to continue to have. i hear this much more in other context than in citizenship. but i think it speaks to the challenge. we are often criticized for overly burdensome requests for evidence. to many of them, they are not well tailored, they don't seek the evidence. so part of the intent as
these -- whether we accomplish it or not, let me just acknowledge that we need to hear whether we accomplish it or not, as these forms grow more and more complicated, it's to actually avoid having to go to a request for evidence at a later time. to ask all the questions up front so we don't necessarily need to end up asking them later on. and also to make things more clear to people. again, i think we need to have a constant feedback as to whether it has that affect. the one thing i can assure you is that the intent is not to make people's lives more complicated. that's why we seek comment on these forms. in fact, do make changes based on the comments that we get. either because it's not understandable, it's not relevant. i think the needbafeedback is
important. i want to give you sense of why the forms are growing in the manner they have. thank you. you can have mine. >> one of the things when i talk to examiners, they are not offered any opportunity to give feedback. they're being generated by somebody higher up and then sent down and said, implement. the impact -- the second and third order side effect of the longer is significant. it doesn't appear that people who are making the decision to implement the forms are necessarily aware of the impact that longer and longer interview that has to take place versus a ten-page form versus 21 pages. i would hope to make the helpful suggestion that it might be good to perhaps beta test the forms before they are rolled out and that maybe a small focus group attempting to use the forms watch them go through the agency process, have an interview done with them, see what the glitches
are. it didn't seem the cost benefit a naturnalysis will fly if the t is to avoid an rfe. you are getting worse results on the front end and deterring a lot of people from applying. >> i appreciate both the suggestion and the feedback. i like in particular the suggestion of beta testing. i know we're certainly doing that as we build our electronic filing platform. we are doing that. it's an interesting suggestion to consider for other parts of what we do. got one up there. over there, over there. coming. >> thank you. i'm with the national immigrant justice center. wasn'ted ed i wanted to raise delays in the affirmative asylum program. i know it has taken on a lot of responsibilities, an increasing number in terms of certainly credible fear interviews
happening in greater numbers, for families at the border as well as the affirmative asylum interviews and with the increase in refugee processing with the possibility of asylum officers being detailed to those programs as well. i understand that there's going to be and has been an increase in hiring of asylum officers. given at present i understand in chicago where nigc is based, it's two years delayed. i understand there are some four years. with the hiring you are expecting, are you expecting to bring the interviews down to a particular goal? do you think the hiring that's happening will address and bring back to some sort of normal status quo for the timing of affirmative asylum? >> i would say -- i think the intent to attack the backlog is there. the hiring is part of what we're going to be doing to address that.
i think you have correctly observed and i think i have been transparent that there are a lot of things pulling at those resources which means that the other thing that we need to be doing and are doing is looking at different kinds of efficiencies to also make the process work a lot better. so i wouldn't necessarily talk about a target or time line. but all of these issues are being actively worked at the same time noting, you know, we have certain targets what we need to immediate in the fear world. we have knew marry cother targe. >> if i may add a recommendation. >> please. >> as you are talking with your other agency colleagues within dhs, in terms of efficiencies especially, since i know that such a high percentage of those families are passing their
credible fear rates 85%, 90%, you know, there's an opportunity to not place those families in expedited removal and place them in 240 proceedings so this additional burden and waste of resources. >> that's a suggestion that is noted. >> thank you. >> sir. how are you? >> good. how are you? >> i will let you have mine. >> first of all, i want to specifically thank maria odom because she does have a way of bringing agencies together to solve a problem. she does it quickly, actually. we took part in a teleconfere e teleconference. this has been going on and on and it's growing. it costs a family -- wife shows up at an interview in a country and she thinks she's going home with her husband and she's not. it's not necessarily going to be a month, two months, three months -- i had a case that was three years.
maria brought together all of the parties. we heard great progress. just the fact she was able to bring the parties together, cis is actually doing great things now and the nbc is doing great things and u.s. embassies will come along, too. i thank you for bringing it, because i see light at the end of the tunnel. so thanks. [ applause ] i also wanted to thank you, because what you have done for citizenship is just great. i practice in new jersey. we have phyllis and john and the citizenship units are great. this is a transition year. it's an election year. there's usually a spike up. we have never been able to hit the 9 million people you talked about. question number one for the bigger picture was the electronic platform you talked about is great. do you have any idea of when? the second and third is, this is the time that we need to grab ahold of the attention of
people. what did you with the ambassadors is great. have you thought of doing other groups for ambassadors? the other thing is, my parents ran to become citizens. they ran from germany. the first minute that they could become citizens they ran. it's different now. you have to sort of -- usa said the -- u -- you were talking about enhancing ceremonies. other ideas? now is the time. thanks. >> i think -- thank you for pointing to the ambassador program. i think that goes a long way. i was in your neighborhood about three weeks ago now. we had a naturalization ceremony at the javitz center in partnership -- actually, hosted by people in he espaniol.
we did something that has been going back to the time when emilio gonzalez was director but i would like to see more of, which was we gave two american by choice recognitions. the ones we gave that day were to talia. those of you who watch telanuevela will know who that is and mariano riviero. and lhow he spoke of citizenshi was inspiring. he spoke a little bit in spanish. the beauty of this event -- i think we need to be doing more of this -- was that because we were in the middle of a big expo. it was noisy. it was not your typical courtroom naturalization
ceremony. there were 1,000 people who were watching what we were doing. as i started working the crowd, people wanted to take selfies, pictures. i said, well -- i probably sl t shouldn't have done this. are you an lpr? i probably shouldn't ask questions where the answer is maybe not one i'm supposed to know. right? in fact, many of them were. and i think to see 100 people who had just naturalized, to see mariano who could not be a more decent human being talk about his life experience had a tremendous impact on the folks who were there. i think we need to do more like the ambassadors program. i think every time we talk to a celebrity, particularly an immigrant celebrity about working with us on this, they're like, just tell me where to be and what to do.
jose has been very active and working. we are going to look for those opportunities. a lot of are willing to spend cash to promote citizenship as well. thank you for that question. sir? >> thanks. good morning. i'm with the university of massachusetts amhurst. from the academic side of the house, the change of status sort of meltdown this past cycle has been obviously a very devastating sort of event for the academic community. it's really had repercussions not only for the students but you find it trickles up through admitting departments and faculty. if somebody is not able to be here, i'm not going to admit an international student to be a research assistant or whatever. i know there are a lot of
systemic issues. but i thought it would be worthwhile to mention that like many -- so many other things that this doesn't just directly impact the individual. it has such a knock-on affect. i'm wondering if there are some tacit ideas you have to improve the i-539 line and that product in particular. >> you know, one part i always have to hear the bad news. i think it's important to bring these things to light. we're looking at improvements on every front we can find. i think a lot of these issues are issues that are going to require -- as i said, the political system to take responsibility. and to make some changes. meanwhile, we're trying to make more efficiency. thank you for that feedback and bringing those issues to light.
>> thank you. thank you for this wonderful opportunity. i know you know a lot of things have do with the law -- with changes in the law. for example, with the provisional waiver for more families to be able, do you think maybe at one point you will think about provisional waivers for people that have been working for a long time for one company? we have people asking us sometimes, you know, i've been working for my employer for ten, 15 years and he would like to help me. but there is no waiver for that specific. it's based on skill. it's based on work. they work. they have been paying taxes. i think there is -- the congress to do this or something that could be done administratively. >> yeah. i will assume that the scenario you are talking about is basically somebody who is
undocumented, who has been working for somebody for a long time and presumably doing a very good job, paying taxes, being very productive and can we consider provisional waiver for that person. i don't know there's a specific category for that individual in the law that i'm aware of. i think it's part of where we were going in terms of what we were trying to do with deferred action. what i will emphasize about deferred action is that helps us help people right now. so we have done that with a lot of the daca kids. we have been able to help them right now. we're still going to need to work for immigration reform, because the ability to really give that individual you just described a real permanent solution is really going to require the political system to step up. i got one. >> if i may interrupt.
if we can take two more questions. then your folks say you have to go. >> okay. if you have time, i can do maybe about five more. if it doesn't mess up your -- six more? i see about three hands up. [ applause ] >> sounds great. thank you. >> what's that? five questions. i saw somebody up there. i don't know if there's a mike up there for them. there you go. there. i will get you and i will get angelo. >> good morning. we are coming from north carolina. we work in a non-profit protect and promote immigrant rights. my question is about the comment that you are focusing on the immigration flood. this is one of the biggest issues we are facing in north carolina.
my comment is related to immigration fraud involves crimes, forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. one of the biggest challenges we have at the organization is when we are representing victim of immigration fraud in u visas based on the qualifying criminal activity of perjury or obstruction of justice. we see that is very difficult to plead the cases, to fight for cases because we feel like the burden is very high on uscis and they are challenging the harm or the qualifying criminal activity. so my comment or my question for you is how uscis can coordinate or develop a policy to kind of keep working on immigration fraud and at the say the time people the victims. because this is a kind of crime
that no just impact the individual, the person. but it's against the system. >> yeah. i think the main thing is for us to keep hearing the feedback. i this i you see that we're always introducing new policy changes. i know, for example, we're doing some thinking in terms of other ways that we can help victims of different offenses, not just criminal conduct but people who have been victims of labor abuse. you know, hearing this feedback from the community, that's helping these individuals, is important for us to continue to look at options of how we can do things differently. i guess i will take actually two more. angelo, you will get the last word. i will take that one up there. >> okay. thank you. thanks for being here. i have a question regarding
processing times. before i begin though, i just wanted to commend you for all your actions in terms of expanding immigration benefits. we have seen a lot of positive outcomes this year. i'm just interested if you could speak a little bit to processing and how uscis will be tackling additional filings in terms of speeding up processing time frames and more importantly transparency in terms of the reporting that uscis is providing to the public about their processing times. currently on websites we're seeing reports from august 31. we want to help -- i speak from the private practice as an immigration attorney, how we can better relay to our clients what they can expect to see out of uscis so we can work together. >> so two things. one, we're always hiring. we still have plenty of actually
head room. big development is the patomic service center across the river. i think we have 100 people hired in there but more to come. so as we add more people, that should have a positive affect. the issue that you just presented is not an issue with a short-term solution. it's hopefully an issue with a long-term solution, which is the way that we present cycle times is basically based on the sort of confirmed end of month data of a month earlier. our technology and our business systems right now don't enable us to do better than that. as we fully automate, it's part of that is we are able to deliver more real time predi
predickibility. >> i would like to suggest th that -- ask why this would not be feasible. the changes in the visa bulletin are really changes to allow a filing and a receding process, initially, to help for people who are not going to get adjusted in a long, long time. and i really don't understand why you can't accept those filings at an earlier stage, put the money you get in an interest ba bearing account for the things you don't have to do and let people go on with their lives. work permits and travel permits and be free of their employer's yoke after adjustment portability kicks in in six months. it seems it would advance the
president's agenda to allow for po portability. >> i like the idea. i'm certain that you have been in the immigration system longer than i have. if you go to one of our service centers, which i assume you have been there and you have seen the acres of paper files in all kinds of buckets and bins. i would be nervous about doing what you are suggesting until we are automated in a way where we really could manage the kind of thing you are describing. i don't think it's a bad idea. but we need to have the business systems to support that what that could mean for the agency. i think it's one we should keep talking about as we hopefully move toward a more efficient system in the future.
>> you had to have been prepared if the senate bill passed, you would have had a huge number of people having to file. those plans should have been in place. >> those plans were certainly being built as that was going on. you know, you don't actually get the money and the bodies to do that until you actually have an actual plan, which meant, for example, when we were sort of planning for expansion, it was going to be on our existing business platform. it wasn't going to be some sort of dramatically new super automated plan that we were going to have for the future. and also knowing we were going to be doing it in an abbreviated time frame. i think in the future we could get to something like that. my view is i think -- i would be nervous about doing something like that right now. >> thank you. >> okay. i guess i am being kicked off the stage, folks. it's always good to see you guys. [ applause ] >> thank you.
>> i'm going to call attention -- my press secretary has one of the toughest jobs in the world. i love people. and i hate saying no to people, which is a terrible quality i guess in a director of immigration services. so he is always having the really difficult job of dragging me off. so thank you. >> thank you, leon. thank you very much. you have been very generous with your time. it's always good to have you. i have a few announcements. so don't go. is that on? can you hear me? great. thank you again to director rodriguez. thank you all for your good questions. i thought it was a very rich conversation. i look forward to more today. i want to also thank you for the compliment on consular returns. i don't take all the credit.
fred as well as alisa were the leads getting us ready for that teleconference. they pulled a good miracle of having all the folks at the table. we will continue to track the issues regarding consular returns. i want to recognize alison who is our chief of policy and, of course, you have heard from stacy who is our acting deputy director. this concludes our open press section of this program. so thanks to the members of the media who are in the audience. we appreciate that you took the time to come this morning. this will be our time for us to say good-bye. we take this opportunity as well to take a break before our next panel. let's take a 15-minute break. we have a little bit of wiggle room here. so let's convene back here by 11:05. thank you.
the federalist society is hosting a discussion today on the impact of supreme court chief justice john roberts. he has been leading the court for ten years. you can watch that conversation live at 12:15 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. tonight on c-span, race and the criminal justice system. speakers will discuss community interaction with police and other ideas. that discussion starts at 8:00 eastern on c-span. republican presidential candidates are heading to florida for what the state gop party calls the sunshine summit. tomorrow morning live at 10:30 eastern, you will hear from marco rubio, ted cruz, ben carson and mike huckabee. on saturday, bobby jindal, chris christie, rand paul, and carly
fiorina will speak. the saturday session is 10:00 a.m. eastern. c-span will have live coverage. all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. a signature feature of c-span2's book tv is our coverage of festivals with non-fiction author talks, interviews and call-in segments. live from the 32nd annual miami book fair, november 21 at 10:00 a.m. authored include john lewis, discussing his book, a live
call-in with peggy noonan, who talks about her book, a journalist judith miller to discuss her book and news man ted koppel on his book. on sunday, speak with the authors live. first p.j. o'rourke takes your calls on his book, then joy ann reed will take calls about her book. join us live from miami on c-span2's book tv starting november 21. follow and treat us your questions @booktv and @cspan. defense one held their third annual summit on defense and national security issues. national security adviser ben rhodes gave the opening keynote.
then the director of national intelligence and house armed services committee chair. this is about 90 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. this is our third time. when we first launched defense one, our tag line was that this was about the new era of defense. the future of defense. so we really focused on trying to define what that meant coming out of the big war years, out of iraq, out of afghanistan. it seemed like the u.s. was starting to go in different directions at once. i think a theme was established then we had secretary hagel at the time that said, the military is not going to have any limits. the military has to be able to
answer the call of the president, whatever it's going to be at any time. by the second year of our defense summit, we had general dempsey who had written for i think the back of the qdr. he had a line in there that said that the u.s. needed to do a better job of defining the purpose of the military. a little different than the boundaries. we explored that last year as well. what should this military be designed to do? where should it go? this year, i really wanted to blow things up bigger. clearly the u.s. is at a stage where it doesn't say no to anything. the su.s. is the global leader. in the '90s when we would hear, should the u.s. be the global police? the new conversation today is about the age of everything, from kabul to chattanooga, from
hunting down terrorists to figuring out how to check down putin in the chess game of old to cyber to intelligence threats, all the way to law enforcement. there's really no end to it. and i think behind the scenes, i think the american public doesn't get a good appreciation, a good view of how much these groups all work together at the inter-agency level like you do, what a lot of our audience does when we hear about the syria strategy and how much troops in iraq or the islands in china or the opm hack. a lot of disjointed threats coming at the united states but part of the same metric. matrix. whatever. with that in mind, i really look forward to getting things kicked off with jim and ben.
ben can start hopefully have a great day of conversation. hopefully make news and come off from this day better informed, better educated and maybe well fed. we will have a good time. without further adieu, let's bring out jim and ben and get things started. thank you and welcome to the defense fund summit. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. i can begin with good news that we have dissected the mets lost last night. full discloser, i took a 3:00 a.m. train back from new york. there were tears on the train. will admit to that as well. that's behind us. >> maybe behind you. i'm still working through it. >> you thankfully gave us news last week with the announcement about 50 special forces, special operators going to syria.
at last count, russians have several hundred on the ground. the iranians 2,000 or so. hezbollah, add that in, that's thousands more. in that 200. were in that picture, what do 50 special operators on the ground make for u.s. objectives in syria? >> so, jim, when we have been looking at the strategy as implemented the last year or so, we looked at what works and what has not worked. what has worked is when we have the ability to strengthen a partner who is in the fight on the ground in syria. and we have done that in different ways. in kabani we were a able to develop relationships with people on the ground, with and provide them with with close air support. what was not working is taking oppositionists out of the
country, trying to train them out of the fight and send them back in. this contingent of special operators will be very much in the line of how do we help facilitate the success of partners on the ground. they will not be out fighting side by side with forces inside syria. they are going to be able to work with them to facilitate their operations, to provide them with advice. we are going to be doing more direct equipping of forces on the ground. they are intended to be a force multiplier that will allow for those on the front lines on the fight against isil to be better equipped and hopefully have better results in taking back territory. >> will they be on the front lines?
they are not out into the fight but staying some space back andation advice for the fight against isil. >> two weeks ago master sergeant was killed there was a mission. they were not meant to be in the firefight. but wheeler, and i believe one of his unit mates, the kurds were overwhelmed in the impound. he was shot and he died. it start as a combat mission. but they ended up in combat. and his commander made a decision on the ground. by any other definition of the word, that's a combat role. isn't it? >> well, look, jim, the mission -- what they are sent to do -- is not to go out and be
engaged in combat. however, look, these are dangerous places. and in any case, someone may make a call that they have to engage in. that's true of people who are going out and a accompanying on a raid like that. that's true of a force protection mission associated with our facilities they were operating in iraq. so the distinction, jim, is their mission is not one of combat. several years ago we had guys who were out on patrol. their job was to engage the enemy as necessary. these troops, not just as special operators in syria, but frankly all the troops that are currently deployed in iraq and syria is a facilitation advise and assist. >> i'm aware there is great agents here. they are going kicking doors down as their first role. but also, let's be fair. this is not force protection behind the wire if you come
under attack. they were dropped at night from hilos into a protected compound. under the umbrella of assist, they assisted their kurdish partners in a firefight. if a commander -- and we know delta force operators, they're not going to sit back. and if their guys, guys they trained, they're going to get in the firefight as the commander made the decision. they may not have started in the tig tightest in a combat role but it is combat -- whatever you want to call it. it may not have been the starting mission but it was part of their job that day. if you are going to have 50 on the ground, this is something you need to be aware of. >> the fact of the matter is the norm, that's not their mission.
we need a capacity to essentially have guys who can go on a series of targeted raids. that said, again, we have great confidence in our special operators and they will make judgment calls. and if he they make a judgment they are under a threat that requires them to engage. again, the thing i think people have to understand is the purpose of this mission, just like the purpose of our presence in iraq is not to have a constant raid capacity in the country. it is to facilitate the operations of these partners. that doesn't mean always going out with them on a raid. what took place in northern iraq, that more the exception than the rule were. a determination was made because there were a significant numbers of hostages that were held. and it was worth the risk. so that is the nature of this
conflict we're in. which is it's not large u.s. ground forces who are responsible for the security of the country, responsible for reclaiming territory from isil. it is very focused u.s. capabilities. some of that is ground capabilities. some of that is intelligence sharing that has as its purpose helping partners on the ground be more successful in taking back territory for isil. >> could this be one of their missions there. if it's not the principle one. might they be called into a similar role with kurdish forces. >> look, i'm obviously not going to run anything. we had special forces trying to rescue hostages in syria. but that is not their principle function.
we have been willing to under take limited operations as it relates to hostage rescue or, you know, substantial leadership target. but that is not what they are being deployed to do. >> when the president said repeatedly he would not have ground combat troops in syria and iraq, he didn't make this distinction.
he was very clear and expansive in his seem to go roll it out. did he go back on his rule? >> the limiting principle that he absolutely is sticking to is the notion we're not going to take back ownership of security in iraq and syria. for that matter, in afghanistan. but we need to find ways to support these other partners on the ground. he is not going to be rigidly bound by a principle that will never have anybody going to syria. if we have an interest with this type of presence he is willing to make that call. some people i think have almost equated this as if it's a
full-scale return to the iraq war or something here. the fact of the matter is, the scale and nature of the u.s. mission is drastically different. let's talk about iraq for a moment. is the u.s. concerned that russia is going to take a military role in iraq, military action? >> no. if you look at -- the fact of the matter is if you look at what russia is doing inside syria, it is not principlely focused on isil at all. it is helping to prop up assad and focused on a range of opposition groups with assad. so they show their cards through what they are doing. what they are doing would lead them to be focused on a specific geographic area that is the remainingen clarify that is protected and governed by the a assad regee. they have been reluctant to project power into eastern
syria. >> there is a little bit, we have to admit, of poking the u.s. in the eye or the perceived poking the u.s. in the eye. what is your answer to the criticism that russia is boxing the u.s. out in syria and iran is doing the same in iraq? that they are filling if not complete vacuum aches partial vacuum by diminished u.s. participation? >> we think that is just not borne out by any reasonable analysis of what has taken place. if you look at the spaces that they are filling, it is the spaces that frankly they used top fill with with greater -- with less risk to their sps. so, for instance, the assad regime has long standing relations with russia, long been a client with russia. they can count on that as a transit point. now the space they are filling is the very small and diminished
remaining piece of syria that is controlled by the assad regime. the iranians, ever since the u.s. invasion of iraq, have had significant influence in the shia areas of iraq. that should not come as a surprise to people. so the notion these companies are operating in places where they have interests, again, should not be -- it should not take people by surprise. i think if you look carefully at it, they're under pressure in other places where they have interests. frankly, to some extent, the one shared interest that we all have is isil. and they need to roll them back. and that's what keeps the president's focus. he doesn't see this as some, you know, tight for tat on the global stage to prove who has a certain set of capabilities. i think everybody knows the united states is far superior to
russia militarily, has far more extensive operations taking place across that region, most of whom are deeply upset by the russian engagement. so, if anything, we think russia has purchased itself even greater isolation, even graeter budgetary needs at a time when their economy is squeezed. >> there is a certain element, speaking to the administration officials of knock yourself out russia apartly the u.s. response. you want to get involved in this quagmire, that's fine. but there was an editorial a couple of weeks ago with a theory that both can't be true. is it possible, yes, russia may be getting into mess there. you when you see diplomats who see diminished u.s. influence, they complain about it. some are worried about it.
isn't it true that both are true? putin isn't "the master" strategist necessarily. but it is not mutually exclusive that you have actors, whether perfect or imperfect, that are moving in spaces, that were occupied by the u.s. >> well, the question is what is in the u.s. interests? i'll be blunt here. you know, if u.s. influence is measured by the united states doing everything other country would like us to do in their neighborhood, that should not be the measure of our influence. the fact of the matter is, the united states could spend every last resource we have in the middle east. there could be a justification for that. there could be a justification for us to take complete ownership of events in syria, of events in yemen and events in iraq. the question is, is that a smart strategy? does that make sense in the age of everything? and the judgment is, it doesn't.
we have poor sinterests that ned to be protected. we need to protect the security and sovereignty of our key allies and partners. we have a longstanding commitment to the free throw of commerce there. but the notion that we are going to do social engineering on the ground and rebuild countries from the ground up, i think we have seen in iraq if you spent a trillion dollars in iraq over a decade with 150,000 u.s. troops serving there and iraq is in the situation it is today, what leads you to believe that there is some resource allocation from the united states that it is going to put syria back together in the near future? that is a recipe for us going down rabbit hole to rabbit hole. when in fact, we have huge and in asia-pacific. we have enormous interests in other emerging regions. and we cannot see the rest of the world because we're so focused on demonstrating a
degree in the middle east. >> i want to get to china, trust me. you decapitated the libyan regime. that's a mess. you stayed disengaged in syria. they are going into europe. you can hearken back to 2003, that decision. but what do you, what does the presidency in the reason today in libya, syria or iraq that he is happy with as a result of his policy and strategy? >> well, one thing is that we don't have 150,000 troops there or not taking 100 casualties a month. >> we are sending more troops back. not 100,000, but they are on their way back. >> jim, that is a very real distinction. the fact of the matter is your question suggests a degree of u.s. agency for events in that region that is not borne out by
history. so the reason there is a conflict in soryria is not becae it is the united states. they have been at war with his own people the last couple of years. what can we do to protect our core interests? when you look at what the president is focused on, again, we have to sort out in this region what are the things we really care about that we have to put resources against? counterterrorism. the security and stability of our allies. we put more resources into the humanitarian challenge. but we have to understand we are not going to be able to quote, unquote fix these places that are going through seismic transform aeub transformatio transformations. one of the things we're focused on over time is how do we develop better share capabilities with our gulf partners so they are better able to deal with the asymmetric
threats taking place in the region. if you just take the most unstable country on any given day, that can't be the metric of u.s. policy. that is frankly what will be the situation for many years to come. >> with limited time, i want to get to two other places, ukraine and south china sea. china very much in the news. the u.s. has flown over the man made islands. i was lucky enough to be there when it happened. now they have sailed within 12 miles. are there going to be more demonstratio demonstrations? >> absolutely. there will be more demonstrations of our freedom of navigation. that is our interest. it is not to say one country has an appropriate claim and the other doesn't. we will uphold the principle of freedom of navigation.
>> how does that issue resolve itself, though? the chinese response, as you well know to the sail-by, has been threats. i know the goal is to turn that around. i mean, you know, realistically, you don't see china tearing up these islands. what's the goal? to keep them from deploying military aircraft on the air strips? or putting in artillery pieces? >> the goal is to have a multilateral and diplomatic framework to resolve these issues. one, so you have a code of conduct between china and the southeast asian countries to avoid inadvertent escalation, to have dialogue. and, two, that you move the disputes over territory into international forums that can resolve maritime claims. as a part of that, frankly, the u.s. presence in the region is a stabilizing presence that -- you talk about vacuums. if the u.s. were not able to
project power in the way we do in the asia-pacific. that could create a vacuum where, again, there is a suggestion that international law is not going to be upheld. that nations can bully other nation. again, we have a responsibility to demonstrate through our military and partnerships. and through the military-to-militarien tkpaeupblgment that we are going to be there. the way these can be resolved has to be through peaceful means. >> there has been talk about navy ships. we know how they can progress in a dangerous direction. >> that is absolutely the balancing act here, which is we have to demonstrate in this part of the world a bigger nation can
bully a smaller nation on a on the other hand, we don't want to develop conflict yourself. i think when you look at what we do, it is very stkhreudeliberat measured. you need to keep a dialogue. at the same time that we have been very focused on building our network of partnerships and alliances we have been focused on increasing our military-to-military engagement with the chinese. frankly, if you talk to the countries in the region, they very much want us there. but they very much want us to have a good relationship with china. they don't want conflict. >> goldilocks. final question on ukraine. has the u.s. conceded crimea to russia? >> no.
if you look at the pressure they are under from sanctions, exclusion from the g-8 it is rooted in the an exation of crimea. the fact of the matter is, so much of the attention for the last year or more has been on eastern ukraine. because that's where you have, frankly at times a very central conflict for the war. now, there is an opportunity the next several months to fully implement the process in a way that can resolve that. that would be a step forward to restoring the sovereignty at least in eastern ukraine and stabilizing itself. by the way, they will only have tens of billions of dollars of additional burden on rush is
that. >> it is not effecting change. frankly, i can't remember the last time i heard a u.s. official mention crimea. it is the lost cousin in this whole thing. >> well, we have been very clear that there are costs that can be imposed and then there is decision making in moscow. it takes time to absorb. the fact of the matter is you have to have the patience to stick to the strategy. if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to apply it to russia. over time, the fact that aggressive, provocative behavior in its neighborhood or beyond will bring with it a cost.
the new cycle of the day but rather the lifetime events that are going to determine what is the future of ukraine. >> i was going to ask a speed round of mets signing questions. since we're out of time, i will have to leave it there. thanks very much. >> [ applause ]. now please welcome to the stage director of national intelligence james clapper and kevin barren, executive editor of defense one. [ applause ]. >> welcome, director. have a seat on the couch. you can lay down if you would like and tell us all of your
inner most secrets. but i have a feeling you won't. >> only with my psychiatrist. i'm kidding. >> it sounded like ben and jim had a good talk. i found the director beforehand. do a little bit of high and low. we can talk strategy. i'm well aware that many of you are national security officials. we like to hear a little bit about what's going on with your jobs, as well as the direction of your country. i know i have heard you say that you don't like the question of what's the number one threat out there in the world. so i will ask you to look more internally. >> it was hard to pick one i
guess. sort of two categories. one, the obvious challenges of the external threats. i just add a year. in my half century plus in one capacity or another, i don't remember a time when we had been set by the greater number and diversity of challenges and threats and crisis around the world. so he have all of those concerns. and then sort of with respect to the enterprise, i think probably our greatest concern there is the budget uncertainty that we have had the last three or four years. hopefully this framework that
has been worked out will eventu a ate an appropriation before december 11th. we have had had to dust off our contingency plans which is extremely disruptive to say the least. >> what does that mean? on the military side they fly less training hours. >> the civilian workforce is a little different. >> they get a pass is not the case at all. we in '13 when we shut down and furloughed a lot of people, the fast majority in the intelligence community were affected by that. unlike military. >> that's right. so you just said there is a wide variety of challenges out there. i would like to ask about some
of them. the news this morning is still about this russian airliner that went down. what we know or don't know if it was a terrorist attack or mechanical or what, what does the intelligence community know right now. there are two claims of responsible for it. we really don't know. once the black box has been analyzed and recovered and perhaps more. >> does isis have the ability to shoot down an a airliner. >> it is unlikely. but i wouldn't rule it out. >> turn now i guess to follow on
to syria now. it is called the syria strategy. we're out at a place now where i think that the way the war is being fought more than changing it seems more about it. ash carter saying there will be more of these types of raid. we have seen a couple weeks ago. if this counterterrorism fight, the big war on counterterrorism not just in iraq or syria but across the world, it lives in intelligence and covert ops and special operations community. how can you start to say more about it? you yourself have said you want a better public understanding from intelligence. we hear that from commanders too. how do you get to the place -- what do americans need to know, what can they know about this war? >> it's a great question and one we have struggled with, frankly. it is clear that for a number of reasons we need to be more
transparent and have tried to be. most live having to do with the governments and oversight of the community. i was with john brennan when we rolled out the president's daily brief items from the kennedy and johnson administrations. and there will be more of that we have recently promulgated transparency for the intelligence community. interestingly enough, we must be in the sweet spot. we didn't go far enough. and then i'm hearing from lots of members of the community and formers who say we shouldn't be doing this at all. so we are doing the right thing here. the problem of course for transparency in general, for us it is a double-edge sword.
yes, it is a good thing to try to be forth coming as we can be without compromising our sources, methods and trade craft. this is particularly true with the terrorists because of revelations the last couple of years have gone to school on that and are are a lot more security conscious than they used to be. as a consequence we are having more difficult than we had. somehow we have to have more transparency and at the same time protecting our equities. i think it is worth some risk to our equities if it serves to
regain the faith and trust and confidence of the american people and their elected representatives. >> that is a hell of a bargain. just like you said, for operators and the workers not to incur that risk. does it have to come from you, the president? or is it something the ic j'6)o buy into? >> well, the administration is committed to more transparency. as are we. as far as coming down for me, i think actually all ic leaders recognize that. they are out and about a lot more with speak anything public. john brennan just sponsored at gw the third in a series of
seminars that cia sponsored on the ethos of intelligence. so i think everyone recognizes -- we have discussed this. we tried to be more open and transparent. >> when i look across the conflicts from syria, iraq, down to yemen even. give us a sense of your level of comfort. the u.s. this seems to be an area from a journalistic -- there is a lot of reliance on sources in the region. it must be the same for your world as well. >> it is. and i would never say that i am comfortable with our level of knowledge on anything.
the very nature of intelligence is in dealing with uncertainty. and in the end what we try to do, why we do intelligence is to attempt to reduce or rarely eliminate it. at least reduce uncertainty for decision makers. given the increasing use of -- the increasing awareness of our capabilities, both by nation states and nonnation state entities, that makes our job a lot harder. and just as you as a journalist, you look upon the mid east as somewhat opaque, so do we. and we have certainly our challenges. that's why i have been an advocate in the five years i
have been in this job to maintain as robust and intelligence capability as we possibly can with ava right of capabilities which we can bring to bear depending on what the local challenge is. >> >> is the u.s. too dependent on the foreign intelligence, the saudis. >> we are dependent on them. i don't know that we are too dependent on them. i think partnering is more intense. the reasons for that are obvious. it is of course mutual recognition of the threat.
that is subjective judgment. in fact, be more transparent with them as well. >> describe the partnership. we have got through the cycle of the iran deal and a pretty heated debate here in washington in the states where a lot of that was portrayed that the u.s. was fracturing its relationships with israel, with others in the region. is that true at your level in the intelligence community? >> actually not. israeli intelligence is closer and stronger than i can recall. i have been dealing with the israeli intelligence for 30
years. we have never been as close nor do i recall where we have shared with them than where we are right now. at least the intelligence level hasn't been much airspace between us. >> i'm glad you say a that. just because there is a disconnect sometimes between the high level political headlines versus national security news, intelligence news. we hear that a lot. we hear from the secretaries of defense. >> exactly. that's one of the reasons why a consistent intelligence relationship with our can often withstand the policy issues on either side. if you have that foundation, that base level of intelligence partnership, that sustain you a
lot. even though there may be policy differences. >> the last question for the region then. if we are going to see more of these raids, explain again why are they worth the risk? >> i think there is a judgment made about raids as what's the objective, obviously. and whether it is to capture someone or free up a kidnapped hostage. or in the case of the recent one, free up some partners who were pretty much headed for a terrible demise. so those are operational policy judgments that are made. and it is up to the intelligence
community to support the policy operational judgments as best we can. >> okay. so shifting north from syria into ukraine, moscow, let's talk about russia for a minute. you are one of the earlier i think folks sounding a warning about russia to come. we have seen what's happening. holding back in no way. not just ukraine but moving into syria. >> well, if you mean participating, no, i don't feel that way at all. i do think that putin has a
great vision of russia. certainly the intervention in the ukraine, that's just -- i thought he was rather opportunistic when the president left very suddenly. saw an opportunity to write when he considered an injustice to mother russia, which is the loss of crimea. so he took it back. i think it is a little first context for its intervention in syria. we can impute all kinds of motives to why he has done that. i do think, though -- i wonder whether he has a strategy for an off-ramp and whether or not he will avoid another afghanistan
quagmire. >> that's interesting to hear you say. that is the criticism of the administration. do they have an exit strategy for syria for the region. do you buy into the talk or the characterization that putin is overstretched, this is a horrible miscalculation in syria, or he is the grand master and it is owe bam a ma who is the one who is wrongfully leading from behind and is getting outgained? >> there is an old song i like to repeat. questions like this where i'm just down in the engine room showing intelligence. people on the bridge get to steer the ship and how fast it goes and arrange the furniture on the decks. i'm not going to go there. it is just whatever it is, we have to support, we will. >> thank you private first class
klopper. stick to putin then. is this -- is he a fox or clever biff half of what's going on? >> that's a great question. and endless debate. i think his first impulse would be to pour more people, more equipment into syria. i think he considers himself the man on white horseback and he is going to rescue syria. be it a savior for the region
and show his and russia's importance in the world as a great power. >> you expect him to send more troops? >> well, they have the capacity. and i think they will probably be drawn into sending more advisers than they have in the past. unlike their presence in the ukraine, which of course they never acknowledged. in this case of course it is quite overt. i think that is automotive of his is to show off the modern military. >> i wish we had a picture of him on the horse behind us.
>> bare chested. >> bare chested. well, one step at a time. so let's go around the world to china then for our remainder here. again, on the defense side we would hear in the last couple of years a that the u.s. was underestimating the pace by which china was rolling out these new technological advances. does that rise up to you? is that still the case? is there still a sense that the u.s. is a little bit behind the curve whenever it comes to china's military? >> no. i think we have pretty good insight. we are watching this evolution. certainly we are aware of the chinese intent. to modernize their forces. they, again, have gone to school on us. >> meaning. >> going back to desert storm and other capabilities.
and so they, i think, felt that they needed to compete. that they have done is impressive across the board in virtually every dimensions. they have a very aggressive military program. we had extensive resources committed to asia and china. >> we heard agents back and forth. is that still the case? >> no.
>> sticking with china and the cyber, what they know. they are going to school on what they do now. they just had an agreement with cyber theft of each other. >> we obviously are going to watch what they do to see if they do, in fact, live up to it. now, china is a large bureaucracy like us. so we will have to see how this guidance flows down through. and of course there is the
challenge i think to a certain extent the chinese have, how much hacking and deploying of information they do is actually deposit sanctions. >> inspect research was they are already tracking the same known government sources out of china. >> we have to watch this. i don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment at this point. >> that's okay. do you know who is behind the opm yet? have you said that? so close. it's been a while since we heard about the shift from title 10.
we were supposed to be hearing. we were talking about drone operations and fighting with more transparency. and also just operational control. is this discussion still going on in the administration, or has it been tabled and forgotten about? >> there is not a lot i think say about this. i will just say this whole discussion is prompted by the interest and support of being more transparent. that's all i can say about it. >> well, that is still in consideration at the administration level. >> i'm sure. >> okay. good. bring it back home. i said in my introduction
remarks part of it is expand the understanding of how national security works and the focus is not just overseas but domestically. and the rise of terrorists. you hear the stats and the stories. >> the man stat we follow is the number of americans who -- a couple statistics i suppose. the fbi would be better to speak to one of them. but main one i track is number of foreign fighters. people that leave the united states -- or attempt to leave who get to syria, who fight, are
killed. we do try to track those figures. the total is 250 or 260. the numbers are gradually growing over time. separate from that, which are harder to track are those who self radicalize or by the very sophisticated propaganda apparatus that they operate. they are very good at it. and that's a little harder to track. it almost implies what's going on in someone's mind. what is the tipping point when they become radical. >> let's hear about them in the news. should the concern match the
height. >> there are still drugs in america, automobile accidents in america, gun violence in america. a tendency to amplify homegrown terrorism. >> we'll close the last couple minutes with a little of what i meant with the coverage. that's the reality. go back to the intelligence workforce and recruiting. do you sense this divide in america we see happening so often when it comes to should we
fight, should we not fight? be on the side of intelligence. you donthink snowden is a hero traitor? >> over all, i would say we continue to attract people who want to be part of the intelligence community. >> we spend time mentoring and engaging with college students. and i think generally speaking, our recruiting is pretty healthy. not to say we haven't had anecdotal basis we would rather not have. a lot of that has to do with the
disparity and compensation. >> in the cyber world, that is an obvious one. there is a challenge there. not so much recruiting people. we have a lot of great young military people. the issue is retention. >> are you hopeful? are you going to stay to the end? how long do we have left here? >> well, i think it is 446 days,
but who is count something. >> who is counting? you're closer to one less now. thank you for come canning to the defense one summit. thank you. [ applause ]. >> all right. thank you for joining us. here of course with congressman matt cornberry. doesn't need much of an introduction. chair map of house armed services committee. we will dive right in. between my speaking to quickly. i want to start with a friday announcement out of the white house about the deployment of u.s. special operators to syria
and your response. you used some phrases long overdue. absent a larger strategy, maybe too little too late. perhaps look to avoid a disaster while the president runs out the clock. i want to dig into this. we heard a lot of criticism particularly coming out of congress that the president lacks the strategy. specifically when it comes to the war against the islamic state. what should be done differently. >> they take steps too late to really make a difference. that's the sense i get here. that our actions are behind
events. and it gets harder as time goes on. so, for example, it is very much more difficult today with the russian involvement to have a strategy moving forward than it would have been before the russian involvement. much less a year ago or so forth. and i think the real reluctance members of congress have is many of us are willing to support greater action. but we want to see a strategy and approach that could lead us somewhere rather than incremental approach. a couple weeks ago dr. kissinger had an approach in the wall street journal that outlines it. one of the things he had, we need to prioritize isis over assad. of course they are not doing
that now. they are focused on protecting assad. he and others, including secretary clinton talk about a safe haven in the north to help wi with. >> the other key thing is going to be the rules oven gauge. of engagement. >> between us and the russians, us and the syrian government. >> us and everybody. but especially us and isis. roughly a third that we drop ordinance. we hear a lot of news that is not very effective. all the restrictions placed on our bites. because we have the 50 folks that will be able to leave and go out with folks they train,
what will the restrictions on them be. we will send a-10s the plane they want to retire, we will send more there. who are they going to support? do we have the coordination we need to support? so my point is the rules of engagement for whatever we make can help them be effective or completely under cut it. we don't know the answers here. >> well, that's a lot of lawmakers that raised the criticism and the sort of criticism on the other side could be there is a little bit of monday morning quarterbacking here. >> true. >> you raised questions what the rules of engagement should be. you mentioned the restrictions on the air strikes. they are to prevent civilian casualties, for example. or to some extent, we don't have the eyes on the ground that may be able to call in sort of more
strategic strikes. how can you balance those restrictions that are in place for a reason and then kind of freeing up the military to do what they need to do. can we dig into that? >> no. it's a great point. it just reinforces the point that as time goes on and this gets murkier and murkier, without adequate intelligence, the chances of unintended damage will grow. now, the rest of the story is without taking advantage, it will be ineffectual. an ineffectual campaign against isis is used as a recruiting tool for them and part of the reason they continue to grow. i noticed at a seminar at west point earlier this spring, 97%
of the people surveyed said we are losing the war against isis. so clearly it just prevented a disaster. but i readily acknowledge that a more aggressive approach has down sides. and those down sides are growing as time goes on and continues to get worse and worse. >> it is also sort of the criticism the announcement on friday. sort of from another perspective we shouldn't be taking action for action's sake. >> which is true. >> that gets back to the basic point of the strategy. and just to go back to your question. 535 people in congress are not coming up with a strategy. only the commander in chief. like the rest of the story is you need to have a strategy, at least a wayful word that can show success. maybe not a way forward showing
ultimate success against assad and isis and all this stuff. but at least some direction that can gain confidence that we know what we are doing. and the problem is the administration has never done that. done that. one other thing, this weekend david ignatius had a great piece in "the atlantic" that detailed our history with isis in syria. i highly recommend it. we've got to learn how we got here. and the mistakes that we have made, if we're going to have that path forward i talked about. >> i want to talk about your comment that this leadership, to a large extent, needs to come from the white house. if i can play devil's advocate for just a minute here, that often is the response when you ask some of the top leaders such as yourself in congress, national security leaders, what they would specifically recommend, what they would do differently regarding this strategy. so i want to talk about that.
that's the theme of our talk, what is congress's role, what's its responded in setting national security priorities. and we're some 15 months into the war against the islamic state. senator tim kaine for example and others have called for congress to debate and authorize specifically the war against the islamic state. do you believe that congress to some extent has abdicated its responsibility to declare and authorize war, its obligation or its power to enact oversight of the executive when it comes to national security? are we seeing that now? >> i think the answer to your question is yes. and if i can back up for just a second, i think there are two basic responsibilities congress has in national security. one is to build a military. and if you look at the constitution, article 1, section 8, it has a number of responsibilities it puts on congress's shoulders on what to buy and how to regulate our troops and so forth. the other is this oversight that
you talk about. now, there is a requirement to authorize use of force or declare war as well. i completely agree with senator kaine that we should debate and vote on an authorization to use military force against isis, using the 2001 aumf and shoe horning isis into that stretches it way beyond any reasonable meaning of the words. so i do think that's right. i do think congress is negligent in our responsibilities for not having -- and part of the reason, by the way, is that there is a real fear of how that's going to come out. and the reason there's a fear of how it's going to come out, so if it goes down, what are we going to do, cut off funds, pull troops out the, wh, but the rea there's not the confidence. if i'm a member congress, you want me to vote to send troops
to possibly die, yet you're not giving me a strategy on their mission, so why should i do that? and it makes it really personal. i voted on several authorizations to use military force. you see that with families you know, people you know who serve in the military. it's a very personal thing. i still think we ought to have the vote, because that is our job under the constitution. part of the reason we have not had that vote is a lack of confidence that if we do vote to go against isis, that then the commander in chief will have an approach to be successful. >> coming from the white house on friday, josh earnest was actually asked this question. and he said the deployment of special operators in syria was authorized in 2001. he meant it as more of part of what had authorized the fight against the islamic state more broadly. but it was this comment that the specific action was authorized in 2001. >> that's why i say, the meaning of the words gets stretched so
far. twice in the past five years the house has voted to update the 2001 authorization for use of military force. the senate never followed through, but the house has. >> earnest made the point that it's somewhat ironic that russia's parliament has approved its action in syria where is the u.s. congress has not. it's a big week on the hill with the budget agreement expecting to be signed possibly as soon as today. also there's a vote set up on november 5th for the defense authorization bill. whether the house will vote to override or perhaps take a different path, reintroduce that legislation. can you talk about what this budget agreement, this at least 2-year temporary sort of certainty for the pentagon but also the congress means? what does it free you up to do, now that you're not confronted with this sort of constant budgetary brinksmanship, i believe you used the phrase
"holding the military hostage. " now that you won't have to waste your time and energy with these fiscal cliffs, what can you really dig into in terms of national security policies, particularly in your committee but in the house more broadly? >> the most important thing is it provides stability in defense funding for a two-year period. and that's something that is desperately needed, whether you're a base commander somewhere in the united states or you're running a factory somewhere or whether you're on the armed services committee trying to do our job on oversight and building the military. that two-year stability so we don't have to have months and months of debate about what the right number for defense is, is very important. you know, i think it is also important to say, however, that the level that was agreed to is not enough. it does not fix defense.
it's even $5 billion below what the president asked for, $5 billion below the congress's budget. so if you take the effects of inflation into account, defense spending was cut 21% from 2010 to 2014. my judgment was the stability that you get from a two-year deal is more important than the extra $5 billion in this case. and i think most of the folks in the pentagon would agree with that. so that enables us to do our job. as i say, building the military, dig down deeper into those tradeoffs that have to be made, where we're going to put money next year, but also try to continue our reform efforts on acquisition, on personnel, on reducing overhead, and then do our oversight with the policy issues such as we were just talking about. >> regarding specifically that $5 billion that needs to be reconciled between the defense authorization bill and the
budget agreement, can you talk a little about what are some of the areas you're looking at, what are the concerns you're looking at? people use the phrase "haircut," but that's a pretty big haircut. >> it's real money. $5 billion is real money. we're working with the senate coordinators to be on the same page about where that $5 billion will cut from. there's a category of adjustments, so for example fuel costs continue to be lower than what was expected, so you can reduce the fuel account a little bit. there are a number of programs where they are not able to spend as much money as they thought they would, for a variety of reasons. so you can get a little bit of money from those things without really costing capability. >> are you going to have to cut into any muscle here? >> absolutely. that's what i started to say. there are real programs, real capability that has to be cut to
reach the $5 billion. fewer things we can buy, things we've got to slow down. so it is into the meat, you know. there's a little bit of these adjustments, just because time changes. but there will be a substantial amount of capability that is cut because of this $5 billion. >> in terms of sort of your strategy moving forward, then we'll move off the authorization bill, do you anticipate pursuing this override vote, in the case that given that budgetary impasse, that's sort of been revolved? do you see the override vote being moot at this point, or do you think it's important to get the people on the record to have a final say in terms of the president's veto of this bill, the first in his administration? >> there's pros and cons for either path. so it is currently the order of the house to have a veto override vote on this thursday. if we -- i think we're within the ballpark of overriding. i don't know for certain what the vote would be.
but as you point out, the main reason for vetoing the big has now gone away. and that would be the cleanest, simplest way to go ahead and make it become law, even though you still have to have a separate bill to deal with the $5 billion we were just talking about. on the other hand, if we start with a fresh bill that's maybe easier for people to support, if it goes to the senate, there's the possibility people will want to add stuff too it. we can't open it back up. in the rules committee we can deal with that in the house. the senate is more complicated. i think there will definitely be action taken this week to make the ndaa become law. and again, it's a building block on acquisition reform and other things for next year. so it needs to happen. >> in terms of the acquisition reform, i know this is a major priority for you, and also chairman john mccain on the senate side, what sort of
feedback have you gotten regarding some of the reforms that are contained within the ndaa? i know it's unlikely those will change whatever happens moving forward. what's some of the feedback you've gotten on those reforms? >> generally pretty positive. there is some disappointment in the pentagon that we elevate the role of the service chiefs in making acquisition decisions, although i think we got to a pretty good balance on increasing their role, yes, but still having at&l be able to have a major role at the same time. so the most common reaction i get is, oh, acquisition reform again. you know, what's going to change, we've tried this for years and years. and i understand that skepticism. what we tried to do in the first year was deal with some of the basic things, with the acquisition workforce, with making sure -- with simplifying
the process, getting rid of a bunch of the regulations and certifications and thinning out a bunch of things there, and requiring there to be a strategy at the beginning so the work is done ahead of time and you're not, definitely, playing catch-up as the program goes. but there's so much more work to do. we've always said there will be an incremental process. we had a hearing last week in our committee about next steps for acquisition. there will be steps after next year too. so we're focused on building on that, conscious of the fact that we have to improve our acquisition process, but it also has to do its job every day while we're overhauling it. it's not like you can say stop, everything you're doing, we're going to rearrange all this stuff. it's still got to function day to day. >> i want to zoom back out a little bit as we come towards the end of our session here. i notice that you were presiding as the new house speaker was
sworn in this last week. and in the buildup to his taking -- the speakership taking the gavel, congressman ryan had a lot of sort of rhetoric about a new chapter for bipartisan discourse, hopefully moving away from some of the divisions we've seen particularly with the house republican caucus, moving forward. what is your confidence that this will be the case, that we'll see more bipartisan discourse, particularly for you at such a critical time when it comes to national security, and the still very real divisions existing within the republican caucus between the fiscal hawks and the defense hawks? >> i have no doubt paul is very sincere. and really what he's focused on is having all members be able to have more input into the
process. take the defense authorization bill as an example. we had i don't know how many hours, we went to like 2 or 3 in the morning with everybody in the committee offering whatever amendments they wanted to, we had hundreds of amendments on the floor, the senate went through regular process, passed a bill, a conference that lasted several months. so any member had the opportunity to contribute to the process. i think that's the model he wants to use in other places. one of the things that disturbandisturbs me the most, in an attempt to have bipartisanship, is what the president did with the bell. we're about to have an ndaa exactly like the one the president vetoed, but he vetoed it for leverage or as a bargaining chip for other stuff that could not happen within the authorization bill. the "washington post" wrote, it is historic, but not in a good
way. i think one of my challenges is, how can we repair some of that damage, because for 53 straight years, congresss of both parties have passed, presidents of both parties have signed this law into bill, which is one of the last vestiges of true bipartisanship with all members being able to participate. there was huge damage done by the president's veto, by using our bill as a political bargaining chip. so in the coming year, one of my biggest challenges is how to repair some of that. regardless of who the next chairman is going to be, who the next president is going to be, it's really important to the country to have that bipartisanship on national security. it's historic, what's been done just in the past few weeks. but we've got to make sure it's the anomaly, not the rule going forward. >> i want to push back on that a little bit. you and senator john mccain both acknowledged that you weren't
huge fans of the use of overseas contingency operations to increase defense spending and that you were looking for a more long term deal. so was that veto sort of necessary for the leverage to get the big four to the table, to get this kind of budget agreement? >> no. >> isn't this what you wanted? >> because you had to have the appropriations bill signed anyway. so that's the forcing function. actually this week it happened to be the debt limit. but you had the appropriation bills coming up december 11th. that's the forcing function for using oco or not. and we had a provision in the bill, section 1501, that says if the base increases, we'll just move this oco over to the base and it adjusts automatically. my point is there was nothing that could be done to the ndaa that fixed this problem. it was because of the debt limit and the appropriation bills that it got fixed. we all knew that was coming. but the president threatened 41
essential authorities including things like combat pay and so forth, which will not be authorized after the end of the year without a defense authorization bill. he threatened the acquisition reform. the personnel reform. the requirement that the dod and va have a joint formulary to treat post-traumatic stress, all of that he was willing to sacrifice in order to make a political point. and again, "washington post," "wall street journal," all said it's never happened before. so we have repair to be done because of the damage that was caused to bipartisanship over that action. >> given -- so let's talk about the damage done to bipartisanship. also both sides, the democrats and the republicans, sort of used that veto threat that eventually was made good on to accuse each other of holding the military hostage. and we tend to hear that phrase sort of bandied about a lot, that each side is using national
security and particularly talking about the spate of foreign policy crises to say, this is a critical time, we can't be holding the military hostage and so on and so forth. so not just the damage done that you're referring to with the veto, but within congress. so moving forward, now that we have this budget agreement, when you refer to the damage done, do you think this means that going forward, in the sort of waning days of the obama administration, it's going to be difficult to work together between the scuff and congress when it comes to national security? or does this sort of clear the way, get some of that bad blood out of the way, so that real action can be taken in the last year? >> that's why i say, i hope that what we've seen the last a couple of weeks is an anomaly, not the rule moving forward. my sense is the obama administration is clearly on their last year. democrats and the media and everybody else will increasingly pay less attention to them as more people focus on who's going to succeed the president.
and that gives us in congress the chance to reestablish the bipartisanship that we have always had. remember, our bill came out of committee by a vote of 60-2. and the 2 was one republican and one democrat. so that's the tradition, the way we've had bipartisan bills in the past. it's only when it became politicized in this larger political debate that it started to be more partisan. i want to go back to the 60-2 votes. and again, it's not because of me. it's because of the country. and if we're going to send men and women to syria or afghanistan or africa or anywhere else, they deserved to know that the whole country is behind them, as reflected by their elected leaders. >> i'll try and get one on 2016, as we talk about national security leadership, you mentioned people will be looking
less and less to the obama administration, perhaps looking forward. now we have america's longest war, just got longer sort of indefinitely, our presence is extended in afghanistan, we have of course the special operations troops going to syria. the war against the islamic state in iraq and syria won't be wrapping up anytime soon. all of these wars are going to be inherited by whoever inhearns t -- inhearrits the white house. do you have concerns with that? are you confident that moving forward, whoever may inherit the white house is going to be able to really shape these wars and develop the kind of strategy that you've been calling for? >> oh, yeah, i have tremendous concern about it. that's why my number one criteria is who would be the best commander in chief given the mess that he or she is going to inherit. you know, dr. kissinger testified in front of the senate earlier this week that we have never before had this many
complex national security threats facing us all at once. you mentioned certain areas where we have combat, but in addition to that, we have this general perception that the u.s. has been in retreat and that has encouraged aggression from russia, china, iran, among others. so there will be an enormous challenge for the next president, whoever is may be. and again, i think the number one criteria is who would be best suited to deal with those challenges. >> i think that's a good note to end on, looking forward here for national security leadership. thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. [ applause ] the federalist society is hosting a discussion today on the impact of supreme court chief justice john roberts. he's been leading the court for 12 years now. the conversation gets under way
at 12:15 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. and tonight, race and the criminal justice system in the u.s. that discussion starts at 8:00 eastern on c-span. republican presidential candidates are heading to florida tomorrow for what the state gop party calls the sunshine summit, beginning tomorrow morning live at 10:30 eastern, you'll hear from senator marco rubio, senator ted cruz, senator lindsey graham, donald trump will be there, along with jeb bush, ben carson, and mike huckabee. scheduled to speak on saturday at florida's republican sunshine summit, governor bobby jindal, senator rand paul, governor john kasich, and carly fiorina. the saturday session gets under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern and c-span will have live coverage. c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016, where you'll find the
candidates, the speeches, the debates, and most importantly, your questions. this year, we're taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country, with our student cam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow c-span's student cam contest and road to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, on the radio, and online, at c-span.org. all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states, are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> my fellow americans, tonight our country faces a grave danger. we are faced by the possibility that at midnight tonight, the steel industry will be shut down. therefore i'm taking two actions tonight.
first, i'm directing the secretary of commerce to take possession of the steel mills and to keep them operating. >> in 1952, the united states was involved in a military conflict with north korea. and at home, a dispute between the steel industry and its union had come to a head. >> the korean war was a hot war. and they needed steel for munitions, tanks, for jeeps, for all of those things that you needed in the second world war as well. so if the steel industry went on an industry-wide strike, that was going to be a real problem, because it's basic to the things that an army and navy need and air force need to fight a war. >> to avoid a disruption of steel production crucial to the military, president harry truman seized control of the mills. and as a result, a pending strike was called off, and steel production continued. however, the steel companies, led by the youngstown sheet and tube company in ohio, disagreed
with the action and took the lawsuit all the way to the supreme court. we'll examine how the court ruled in the case of youngstown sheet and tube company versus sawyer. joining ours discussion, michael gerhart, professor at the university of north carolina law school and author of "power of the president" and "the forgotten president," and william howell, author of "power without persuasion." that's coming up on the next "landmark cases," live monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span 3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the "landmark cases" handbook, available for $8.95.
we continue with the defense one summit and vice admiral chris aquilino. he answered questions from defense one deputy editor brad peniston about the future of the u.s. military. this is about half an hour. good afternoon, welcome back, welcome back. keep eating, don't stop. it's just me. welcome back for the afternoon sessions. i hope you enjoyed the breakouts, they looked packed, everybody was paying attention and informative, that's what we like to see. we had a great morning, hopefully we'll have just as informative and entertaining an afternoon. we have four sessions. how will the military prepare in the age of everything. we have vice admiral chris aquilino. he'll talk about what's going on
in fifth fleet and over with the south china sea, everywhere we want to hear about. after that we have a brigadier general who is the socom africa commander, a guy most of you, probably most of you haven't heard from yet. i think he'll have a lot to say about operations there. we've heard a lot about special operations forces recently. then we go on to the deputy director of the cia, andrew homan, who is running their new digital innovation directorate, so he's starting to come out and speak publicly. we had a really good exclusive interview with him on our site, you can look that up if you're interested. finally, to close off the day, the deputy secretary himself who we all know and love, right? let's get it started with the vice admiral and deputy editor of defense one, brad peniston. enjoy the rest of the afternoon, everyone. thank you. [ applause ]
thanks for joining us, admiral. we really do appreciate you coming to talk to us. this really has been an age of everything in the maritime sphere. this year we've seen russia stretching out into the arctic, more active around europe. over in the pacific we've seen china being more active around the south china sea. the chinese navy has an around the world flotilla going on, insurgents off yemen. everything's going on. what is changing fastest and how is the navy turning to meet those challenges? >> brad, thanks for the question and thanks for inviting me. on behalf of admiral richardson, our new cmo, i'm honored to be here with so many members of the national security community, and i look forward to telling you about what the navy is doing
today and how we're facing the challenges you've mentioned. if you were to ask me to prioritize, i'm not sure i could. what i could tell you, though, is from a navy perspective, we took a good hard look at the security challenge that exists across the globe. in the development of our cooperative strategy for the 21st century, we just released it in march, we took a real hard look at all of the things you mentioned. the strategy outlines kind of three key points that i think focus where our efforts are. number one is we are deployed forward. so the navy is your crisis response force. and we are forward each and every day. today, about 40,000 of our young men and women are deployed on the tip of the spear. they're ready to do a large number of things, from humanitarian assistance when needed to deterring conflict, to responding to crisis, and
ultimately to be able to fight and win the nation's wars if asked. so being forward is a key part of something -- what we do everyday. second, we're engaged all across the world. so our friends, allies, and partners are critical to what we do. we know that we're better when we operate together. so you pick the area that you mentioned. we work with those friends and allies and partners all the time. the last is, we're ready. so while we can't have all of our forces deployed each and every day, we have surge capability that is trained, ready, and primed to be able to surge if called upon for a crisis. so without giving you that prioritization, i guess what i would tell you is we're forward, we're engaged, and we're ready. >> so the fleet is also growing for the first time now in a
while, up from 270 something ships presently to a goal of 308, i believe. the cbo recently came out with a report that said it's not going to get to 308 quite as fast as the navy planned. beyond that, that 308 number was set a little bit before this recent resurgence of issue. some have said we're interesting or reentering a great period of power competition at sea. is that 308 size fleet still going to do the job? >> yeah, i think it is. again, as we develop the strategy, the threats and things that we would have to respond to were clearly a part of the cal ku could you will you say. -- calculus. we need greater than 300 ships, we need 11 aircraft carriers, we need 33 amphibious ships, and we
need ssbns to execute the missions. those are the big moving pieces that the strategy determined are about right. that keeps us present around the globe in order to do the missions we talked about. current we have five carrier strike groups that are either deployed or are trained and preparing to deploy today. so the uss theodore roosevelt is returning from a greater than eight-month deployment. they currently executed a mission with the indians and the chinese in an exercise called malobar. we have one east coast and one west coast carrier strike group getting ready to deploy. we have the uss ronald reagan just departed korea and it's doing its western pacific operations. and the shape and size of the structure, as i outlined, we
believe will meet the commitments required by the global geographic combatant commanders as the missions have been identified. >> and that takes into account russia's resurgence? >> it takes into account all the threats we would have to respond to. you know, you could pick any day of the week and you might find one of those threats being higher prioritized than the other. in response -- and what we're doing together with nato, which would go directly to your russia question, you know, last week we executed some ballistic missile defense exercise events with our nato partners and allies. we have four ballistic missile defense ships that we have forward stationed in rota, spain in order to meet the threats you describe. >> let's talk about that forward basing in rota and elsewhere in the world. there are a couple of ways to
get more forward deployed days out of a given ship. you can rotate crews, forward base it in the world as opposed to back home, you can make sure it's ready to go. and i know the navy has initiatives in all three of these areas. is it time to consider more forward basing to make sure our ships go as far as they can? >> i think our current view of how we operate forward is based on two different models, some of it being forward basing. the example there are our forward deployed naval forces. we have a group of ships that operate out of japan. we have four i talked about operating out of rota. we have submarines in guam. we also have rotational deployment. those leave from whatever base they are currently at. i think the comment i would make to you is, in viewing it with regard to our need, desire, and intent to be forward deployed, it's really not about bases, but it's about being where it
matters and when it matters. >> understood. but there are different ways that you can get where it matters when it parties. and i just wonder what kind of things the navy is thinking about doing differently in that scenario. >> so what what we have done differently is we have executed the president's task to kind of rebalance to the pacific. it's one of the initiatives that we've taken on. we currently have almost 60% of our naval forces deployed to the pacific, stationed in the pacific aor. 58 i think is the latest number. we'll get to 60% by 2020. and that's not just things. it's our most capable things. so our most advanced f-18s are out there, our most advanced bmd ships are out there. and again, it's not just about things. the rebalance is more than just
things. it's about partnerships. it's about how we think about operating. and critical is the fact that we're aligned with each and every one of the nations out there in order to, again, build a network of navies that can respond and support those in favor of the security of the global commons within international rules, laws, and norms. >> now, i realize that the rebalance of the pacific is of course a national decision to make, yet you, you said in the navy, are responsible for making sure that you can respond to whatever requests come up. a lot more stuff is happening in europe. and a lot more is still going on in the middle east, not to mention the caribbean and the other places, the arctic.
how do you make sure that you've got what you need in the pacific even as you try to execute that overall strategy? >> our global forces are balanced across the areas of responsibility, almost to the point of 30 ships in the middle east currently supporting the events that are going on there. somewhat less than that, but again, i highlighted the ballistic missile defense ships, the kier-sarge arg just left through the mediterranean. we're supporting each of the combatant commanders as required and we're meeting their needs. we're also mobile. those forces can shift as required depending on when and where the crisis might be. so again, many instances from a navy perspective deployed, and an idea that i was going to go to one place and ended up in another. it's one of the benefits the navy provides.
while we are not tied to bases, we don't need access stranded by any nation. we bring our own logistics. we can come and go and operate anywhere we need to, to support the tasking. >> as you say, what a navy does. the united states navy of course over the past decade has roger'd up for all sorts of stuff that it didn't intend to and has carried that out. you've got a new -- you're executing a new optimized fleet response plan that is trying to synchronize all the various bits that need to happen to get a fully functional, powerful navy out there. what are the challenges that you face now, what keeps you awake? what are you working to -- what are you still working through to make sure this happens? >> just finished working for emil smith, he made a comment,
that he sleeps just fine. i'm part of the greatest navy in existence, ever through time. for us to have a sustainable, affordable force generation model that provides the high end trained capability that's needed against today's threats, that's why we developed the optimized fleet response plan. so i worked with admiral gortney as a part of the development of this. he was kind of the master mind. what it did was it took a variety of different inputs, synchronized, focused, to produce a completely sustainable, affordable force that can deploy to execute that high end mission. so it took into account the hard things that go along with
maintaining our ships to keep them ready to go to sea. it takes into account our ability to train our amazing sailors to the high end fight that they would have to do. it synchronized parts. it synchronized arcti ed aircra. it synchronized the sustainment of those aircraft. it synchronized the ordnance required to do the fight. when you take all those things, it was eye-opening and a challenge, but the team got us to a good place. >> the navy announced this last year and started putting this into effect in november. now it's been going about a year. how's it going? >> the first deployment was going to be in '17. and we're on track. i'm not going to tell you we have all the answers. as in anything, we're smart enough to learn that we will probably have gotten most of it
right. but we're agile and flexible enough to understand that for those things that might need some tweaking or might need some adjusting, that we're ready to do that. again, if you take the maintenance community and figure out how to take the entire navy group of ships and align the csg with the cruiser destroyer ships, you have to align p-8s, you have to align p-3s, submarines, it's a fairly large task. the team is, again, well ahead of the schedule. the first deployment will be in '17. we'll take our lessons learned from that. i think we're on track. >> envisioning the world's largest excel spreadsheet -- >> and we call it theózgk mop, master operations production plan. >> what kinds of things are you still figuring out? >> i don't know at this point if we're figuring out anything. i think what we're going to do is see what shows itself as something that might need a little more focus, a little
tweak. again, getting back to the ultimate goal, when we take on the task of being ready to support the nation's tasking, there's really no better way to do it than this path. so as with regard to lessons learned, those will come out. we meet monthly on the status, the different communities brief to the fleet commanders, the status of their strike groups, airplanes, necc outfits, and we will continue to make adjustments to produce the most affordable, sustainable, efficient, and effective fighting force we can. >> and so how do you know when this has succeeded? are ships better equipped on station, do they stay on station longer because you're not fixing stuff? what's the ultimate measure of the success of this plan? >> i think the metric is, when the schedule is built, when you
go in on time, when you come out on time, when you deploy ready to execute the high end missions. so again, i talked about some of our missions. from humanitarian assistance, deterring aggression no matter where we go, responding to crisis, and then ultimately defeating a high end adversary of task, i think that's the ultimate goal. >> if we go to war and we win, i think you're right, yes. >> correct. >> let's go back to what we were talking about earlier, our international partnerships. we haven't that you had been the thousand-shape navy, but i think it's a good concept. certain partnerships are as important as ever, if not more so. what are the main areas that are changing in that from where you said? who is really coming along and who does the navy want to bring along a little more? >> the global network of navies
is the term. we don't talk about the thousand-ship navy anymore. the cmo has been keen on highlighting the importance of engagement with our international partners. all like-minded partners with regard to understanding maritime operations for the global security of the global commons. to be able to enhance the economic portions that go on in the world as the protector of the sea lines of communications. and again, i don't think we have a rack and stack of one is better than the other. we're all in it together. we operate across the globe. like i said, we just did an exercise in india called malobar. we've done some ballistic missile defense events in the northern atlantic just recently. we have the george washington carrier right now, is just finished completing a transit of
the straits of magellan. it's executing operation unitas with our southern partners. >> i'm sure they're delighted to have an aircraft carrier. >> i'm sure they are. we were able to do that, and clearly what a huge benefit to the south american partners and friends. and it doesn't matter which nation nations, we are better when we're together, when we're interoperable, and when we can all contribute to the global security of the maritime aor. >> so let's talk about a different kind of teaming. the marine corps team. there's a navy and marine corps, they operate probably closer together than any other service. there's always interesting things you guys are doing to help improve that. what's new and what's next for the blue/green folks? >> the navy and marine corps team, we have never been anything about extremely close.
if you go look at the cooperative strategy for the 21st century, what you'll find is it is actually tri-signed. it is signed by the cno, then admiral greniert. it's signed by the commandant, then general dunford, and signed by the coast guard. the maritime services in this day and age are more together than ever. specifically with the marine corps, we have a variety of events where we synchronize, tie together, and work war fighting concepts, our ability to operate forward together more effectively. and that's called a naval board. the naval board is a monthly event that i host, co-chaired by general walsh. we bring to that event the critical concerns and tasks that the commandant and the cno want us to get after, again, to increase war fighting capability, to increase our
engagement with our international partners, and additionally to ensure that the navy and marine corps team is ready to go ahead into the 21st century. >> can you talk about some specifics, what you're going to work on next? >> there's plenty of things. there's events with regard to enhancing and improving our war fighting events with regard to any access area denial challenges. and as you know, that's a threat that seems to be, i would say, increasing across the globe. the navy and marine corps team is working on a variety of events in order to enhance our capabilities. >> let's talk about that a little bit. there's been an awful lot of talk about a-2-ad, as it's known. china, but even elsewhere where
there are naval defenses, there are ways enemies can keep naval forces away from the fight. and it's been noted that this is itself a kind of asymmetry. it costs a thousand dollars to put a mine in the water that can keep a billion-dollar fleet away from a harbor. are there symmetries the u.s. navy can bring to this problem? >> absolutely. with regard to the anti-access denial threats, they are not new. our strategy has identified them as a key component and a challenge we've taken on and will clearly overcome. the ability for the navy/marine corps team to execute sea control, that is, go into a place, at the time and place of our choosing, in order to execute our mission, is critical to how we do business.
the marines are going to be the first to bring online the jsf, whereas the navy will be not far behind them. that capability is critical to our ability to get into and access and execute our mission inside the area assess donnenie. >> because of its stealthiness? >> clearly the stealthiness is important. the ability to execute electromechanical warfare is a critical component. there are a vast amount of things that we train and execute to in order to defeat that type of threat. >> you mentioned the electromagnetic spectrum. the jf-35 will be the most sophisticated electromagnetic
platform as opposed to a dumb bomb truck that you guys have. what's the plan for starting to exploit that, for learning how you fight that and use it in your battle plans? >> so you mentioned what's going on in the naval board. that's one of the topics. so the navy and marine corps team is working together on determining how to best employ. we're building concepts of employment, concepts of operations. again, the marine corps will employ and deploy their jsf version first. but the navy is plugged in and working towards deploying the naval portion of that asset. >> so the marines will do it first and you'll watch how they do it? >> we're working on it, the teams are working together as we speak to understand how it best supports the fight that exists in the area, how to best synchronize the effects from a marine corps standpoint, from a
navy standpoint, and ultimately, how the two teams work together to defeat this anti-access area denial threat. >> so we talked about china a little bit. the headlines in recent days have been filled with the south china sea. obviously that is one of the most contested areas in the maritime domain in the world. lots of stuff going on. the u.s. has begun freedom of navigation patrols. china has, in response, sent jets through the area. this is not the only place in the world that is so contested. from where you sit, what are you doing, what's your team doing, what's your section of the navy doing to think about how you approach this kind of problem? >> i don't think this kind of problem is really very much different than what we do each and every day. so our forward presence and global deployment plan, we execute these operations each and every day, not just in the western pacific, the
mediterranean, north things aat south america. we don't think we view it as a singular problem. we view it really as standard normal ops. the secretary of defense i think said it best when he said the navy, we the navy will operate anywhere we desire within the international normal standards rules and laws. so, you know, that team is nothing different than we've been doing for a number of years. >> okay. fair enough. how about this? this is something that is really unprecedented. climate change. we have all sorts of predictions about how this will cause unrest as resource access shifts. from where you sit, what are you thinking about? >> the climate change issue is, again, not something that recently just showed up on our
radar scope. the navy i think has kind of taken the lead. it has built in as a part of our strategy. we believe that the arctic area will open up over the next few years. and we are not waiting for that. we're doing operations each and every day as we speak to become familiar with and be able to operate unimputed in the arctic when the time comes. we've developed out of my officer, and my predecessor built what we call the arctic roadmap. and i will tell you, we do things in the arctic frequently. so not along ago the uss seawolf surfaced at the north pole. we have executed operation ice-axe in the not too distant past. we have swapped sailors with our nato partners to work navigation strategies. and we have u.s. sailors on a couple of foreign ships familiarizing ourselves with the
area that they operate probably more frequently than us. and we'll be ready for the arctic challenge. i see only our operations increasing over the next five years there. >> a little bit closer to home, congress and the president have concluded a budget deal that seems like it's bound to give a little bit more stability, two years of stability, maybe, to the military budget. and of course the navy budget. what does that do for you? >> i think the stability is the critical part that we were looking for. and i would argue the other services. the unknowns really make it hard to build a plan that is consistent. and it just impinges on getting to execute the strategy we talked about. so if you've done all the analysis to get to greater than
300 ships, 14 nuclear deterrent submarines, any time the budget impacts our ability to stay on path, just makes it more challenging. now, the good thing is, i don't have to touch the budget in my job. my friend joe malloy has to do that, and he does a tremendous job. it directly gets to impacting operations and other things when that uncertainty, you know, reduces what's required to execute the strategy. >> right. the world is certainly going to produce enough uncertainty i think for everybody coming up. the things you can foresee out there in the world, the challenges, over the next year, what are you going to be think about it? what are the big things you'll have to grapple with? >> i think it's to keep us focused. i think the plan we built is really on target. there will be a lot of pop-up things, as you know, across the globe, bright, shiny objects that will get your attention.
i think the plan for us is to remain a forward-deployed naval force. so keep our ships forward. again, as the nation's crisis responders, it's critical, we have to keep our eye on that ball. the president still asks, when a crisis occurs, where is the nearest aircraft carrier. that's our role. that's what we do. we have to keep aligned with our nato allied partners and friends across the globe. and we have to have some surge capacity, should crisis break out, to be able to respond. i think if we just keep on that path, we'll be in a good place no matter what happens. >> i think that will do it for us. admiral, thank you very much for joining us today. >> thanks for having me. [ applause ] tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, race and the criminal justice system in the u.s. a national correspondent from the atlantic magazine will join
us to talk about how mass incarceration has impacted black families in the u.s. here's some of what you'll see. >> mass incarceration is our solution for our youth employment issues in the african-american community. it's the solution we choose to use for mental health issues. until relatively recently it was the solution we used for drug issues in the african-american community. there was a piece in the "new york times" about two weeks ago, and it was talking about how heroin use was rising among white people in this country, this alarming rise of heroin use. i could not help but note the sympathetic and benevolent tone that was taken, when you talked about heroin use among white people, and compare that to the time i grew up, in the 1980s, when we were very worried about crack. when i grew up in the community,
sorting out the audio, obviously. we'll get it. >> one of the discrepancies for me was in fact when you drawback and look at the world as a whole during that period, in fact crime did not just rise in african-american communities, and it did not even just rise in america. in fact it rose in canada, it rows in england, it rose in the nordic countries. there was an international phenomenon. the united states is unique in embracing incarceration as a solution. i think very much in our thinking is the idea that if people are committing crimes, jail is the best way to address it. but that's unique. especially the draconian reliance, i'm talking about double, triple, like that. i'm not completely against the idea of jailing people who are dangerous to the community. but the draconian nature in which we do it is very, very different. how did we end up with 5% of the world's population in 25% of the world's prison population?
we have an incarceration of 700 per hundred thousand. only 40 years ago we had an incarceration of 160 per hundred thousand. how did we end up with a situation where our nearest competitor is russia? what exactly happened? and i don't think that can be separated from the fact that we have a very, very unique population in this country, african-americans, 40 million, and a very unique history with that group of people. >> and this discussion also includes sentencing reform and community interaction with police. you can see all of today's conversation on race and the criminal justice system in the u.s. tonight, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. republican candidates are heading to the sunshine summit. live on friday, 10:30 eastern, you'll hear from the gop
presidential candidates. set for saturday, governor bobby jindal, rick santorum, rand paul, john kasich, and carly fiorina. that saturday session, by the way, and carly fiorina. you'll be able to watch this live on c-span. >> all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. at town hall meetings, conference, rallies and speeches, we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone and always every campaign event we cover is available on our web site at cspan.or cspan.org. >> so to all of you, thank you your support and to the kids for just saying no. thank you.
my slope the women of the future will feel truly free to follow whatever paths their talents and natures point to. i think they thought that the white house was so glamorous and your role was so -- what you did was so glamorous, your life was so glamorous. and all they saw were the parties and the meeting people and i've got to tell you, i never worked harder in my life. >> nancy reagan served as long-time political partner, ferocious protector and ultimately as caretaker for president ronald reagan. an involved first lady, she was active with key staff decisions, policy making and campaigning. she made drug use her signature initiative with her "just say no" campaign. nancy reagan, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first ladies,
influence and image, examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their fin influenza on the presidency from martha washington to michelle obama." sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. the supreme court heard the oral argument for foster v. chapman, a case dealing with injury selection in the trial of timothy foster. the court will decide if the selection was unconstitutional because race was a factor in eliminating jurors. mr. foster was convicted by an all-white jury of killing a 79-year-old white woman. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case 148349, foster v. chapman. mr. bright? >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. the prosecutors in this case came to court on the morning of
jury selection determined to strike all the black perspective jurors. >> mr. bright, maybe you could address first the question we raised on friday with respect to which court certiorari should be directed to? >> we filed this petition originally certiorari to the supreme court of georgia and this court in "sears v. upton" issued certiorari in 2010 to the supreme court of georgia in a similar situation. it appears to us from looking at this over the weekend that r.j. reynolds tobacco company versus durham county which the court decided in 1986, the court said that unless there was positive assurance that the decision was not a ruling on the merits then the writ went to the state supreme court. and the georgia court, while it has rules and statutes and its
own opinions that are not totally in harmony with one another, the rule nonetheless is that a certificate of probable cause, which was what was denied in this case is to be granted if there is argument merit to the case. >> do you think that affects the scope of our review? in other words, are we addressing just whether there's arguable merit to the claim or we addressing the claim on its own merits. >> i think what this court has done in all these cases is apply too look through too the last recent decision and that would be the decision of the habeas corpus court. in georgia typically the habeas court rules an application is made for probable cause to the georgia supreme court and this is often denied summarily. it is denied summarily as it was in this case. >> i really don't understand that. you say we would be reversing the georgia supreme court. not the habeas court, right?
and all that the georgia supreme court held is that there was no arguable basis for its accepting review. so if we reverse that decision, we tell the georgia supreme court "you're wrong, there is an arguable basis for your accepting review." so we ought to renoon that court, requiring them accept review it would seem to me. how can we reverse them on an issue they never considered? >> well, that's what happened in r.j. reynolds. there you had almost identical situation where you had an intermediate appellate court that ruled and then you had the north carolina supreme court denied review and the question was do you issue the writ to the intermediate appellate court or to the north carolina supreme court? and this court decided and justice blackman writing for the court said "we want to give practitioners, we want to end the confusion about this."
so it goes to the state supreme court. there's no difference in our situation here and the situation that r.j. reynolds -- >> but you're saying in that case more to other cases and if so which other cases that in that situation we nonetheless addressed the reasoning of the intermediate court? is that what you're saying? >> you did in "sears v. upton" a case out of georgia, 561 u.s. 945 in 2010. that was certiorari to the supreme court of georgia but it came up in the same posture of our case. >> is there an argument that the petition for certiorari could go to the trial court? i mean, our statute says it goes to the highest court in which review could have been had, i think is the statute. which sounds like the georgia court. on the other hand, as justice scalia said, they haven't really directed their attention to the issues before us. i'm not sure to me that it's an
option to go to the georgia trial court. or that incorrect? >> well, what this court has said both in the r.j. reynolds case and that was followed in "grady v. north carolina," a 2015 case this year, which once again there was an intermediate court decision denied by the north carolina supreme court. i can remember back to 1960 there was thompson versus louisville where certiorari was to the police court in louisville, kentucky, because no court in kentucky could take the case because the fine was less than $20. but i think these cases much more recent decided by the court 1986 of this year -- >> putting together two rules that you say we've established. one is justice blackman said to end the confusion. the petition should be addressed to the supreme court.
and then you said we have cases -- look through cases, if the supreme court has said denied nothing more than denied, we look back to the last reasoned decision. those are both decision this court and that's what you're relying on. >> well, and they're not mutually exclusive. this court can look back through to the last recent decision in making its decision in this case and that i believe's what it should do. but at the same time. the court's opinions appear to us on the quick research we did over the weekend on this that r.j. reynolds in the subsequent case say that certiorari was issued to the georgia supreme court and we listed it that way and when the case was docketed here it was list eed that the lower court was the superior court. >> what if the state supreme court wrote a very short opinion and said "we're not going to determine whether there was, in fact -- the only issue we're
going to determine is whether there's any arguable merit to this. then you say that the whole issue of whether it was a correct application is the issue that we have to decide? >> i think in r.j. reynolds, think that's the court's law, yes. >> can i ask you a question about another preliminary issue before you get to the underlying question in the case? the superior court said on page 175 of the joint appendix that the issue of the batson violation was not reviewable based on the document of race jude kata. and then it said it will review batson claim as to whether petitioner has shown any change in the facts sufficient to overcome teras jude kata bar.
now you could decide that the situation was such that there could be a review of the batson claim. what is your response to that? >> well, the state doesn't argue that. and i think the reason for that is because the court said -- the court is going address step three of batson and it said fosters batson claim is without merit. >> is it a question of federal or state law as to whether or not the petitioner has shown the change in fact to overcome the res judicata war? is that a state law question? that's a state law question and here the court decided it but i would point out -- >> well, if it's a state law question they resolved against you, then what do you have to argue?
>> this is exactly like "ache v. oklahoma" where the oklahoma court had to decide to federal question in order to decide whether it had jurisdiction over the issue and this court hold in "ache" that where the court has to decide the federal issue and it did. it clearly decided the federal issue and found that the batson claim had no merit so it is decided, the federal issue, and there's no contest about that. >> explain to me why deciding the federal issue was essential to its deciding the state res judicata issue? >> because it framed the question as being that it would look at the -- they would look at the "batson v. kentucky" claim and if there was merit to that claim then the court would grant the writ on it. on the other hand, if it found there was not merit on it -- >> you think it was saying whether there's res jude ckata r
not it has no merit? that's a very strange application to res jude cat da. >> well, you can bring an issue that's been limited already before direct appeal. in habeas if there are -- even if -- right, even if it would produce a different result, right? >> right, if the facts are such that it would produce a different result, right. >> mr. bright, did the court in your judgment do denovo review? didn't it say it was basically going to do step three of the batson challenge? >> yes, that's exactly what the court said. >> so that's a ruling on the merits? >> i think the court said the batson claim is without merit. that seems like a ruling on the merits to me. [ laughter ] >> well, i think it said after
redoing -- >> after considering these other facts. they think there were some legal errors made there but after considering the facts the court said that the claim was without merit. >> the court said that it would reach step three again on the basis of the new evidence presented so they did it all over and i guess that's -- you must take that as what happened. they did not apply a res judd judicata. >> the court said when it depends on a procedural ruling the state law prong is not independent of the federal claim. and this court has jurisdiction. that's on page 75 of 479 states. >> well, i don't want to belabor the point too much but are you arguing that georgia res
judicata law is this. if someone comes up with any new fact, the thinnest new fact, that is sufficient to wipe out the res judicata bar and allow the courts to get to the merits of the claim. is that your argument? is that your understanding of georgia res judicata law? >> the evidence has to be sufficient enough to do what the court did and rule on the merits of the issue. that's what happened here. this was not a matter of adding one more leaf to the basket. >> and we want you to get to the merits, but why is that in conjunction with justice scalia's question? why is that an issue of federal law? >> because the court decided that that's an issue decide the underlying state law issue. and i think "ache" is pretty clear on this and i commend it to the court's attention. since the state didn't raise this either in their opposition or the brief, it's not briefed before this court but i think that's the deciding case on
this. >> thanks, counsel, i think we have your argument on the point. thank you. >> thank you very much. if i could just say what happened here was that the prosecutors had identified the african-americans by race, they had rated them against each other in case it came down to having to select a black juror -- >> the prosecutor said the reason for concentrating on the black jurors was that you had informed them you would present a batson challenge and therefore it was necessary for them to see if there was a race-neutral ground for disqualifying. two answer to that, justice ginsbu ginsburg. what the lawyers did here -- these lawyers have practiced here for a long time in rome, georgia. they said the prosecutor strikes all the blacks from the jury, that's been the practice. we think they'll strike all the blacks from the jury in our case but last year the supreme court of the united states decided "batson v. kentucky" and we
asked the court not to let that happen in this case. now, of course, if the prosecutor is willing to avoid a batson challenge they could have not discriminated. that would have been the first thing to do but secondly with regard to the information that's collected here it doesn't seem like it's information just to exercise strikes when they sigh if it comes down to having to taken a african-american ms. ha hart or ms. garrett might be okay. and the district attorney himself said marilyn garrett has the most potential of the black prospective jurors. in other words, the blacks were taken out of the picture here. they were taken and dealt with separately and over the weekend, the jury questioning ended on a friday and the judge said all right, over the weekend you have a chance to decide who you're going to strike. and they knew exactly who they were going to strike because the jurors are listed in order.
teurtátj first and if it accepts a juror the state accepts and that juror is on. there's no going back. there's no back striking or striking people here and there. they developed three strike lists and one of those strike lists was a list entitled "definite no." these are people absolutely not going to be on this jury. there are only six jurors listed on the list of definite noes and the first five are african-americ african-americans. the six is a juror who made clear during the voir dire process that she could not impose the death penalty under any circumstances. the state moved to strike her for cause. the judge probably erred in not granting that strike. but even she ranked behind the black jurors in terms of the priorities that the prosecution had for striking. >> council, at the time mr. linear said they weren't striking the jurors because of race, they were striking them
because they were women and three out of the four african-americans were -- who were struck were women. and then that explanation has just kind of fallen out of the case. how does that affect the analysis. >> well, he did accept women, though, as well. bear with me just a moment. the court had not held that batson applied to women but the court did say it could be used as a pre-text for striking on the basis of race. in this case the prosecutor struck three white jurors and struck three black jurors, women. the three black women and the three white women. the final -- >> mr. bright.
mr. linier answered yes when he was asked whether he had done -- oh, no, it was on the motion for a new trial hearing wl( he had done the same extensive background check on all the jurors white and black. did you find any evidence of that exsensitive background check? >> no, the only -- what that's talking about and the investigators said this in his deposition was the race-coded color lists, the first four lists you have in the joint appendix in which the blacks are marked with a "b" and highlighted in green with a marker at the corner saying "green designates black." so your understanding of that statement was that all -- he had only done an extensive search of the blacks on the list? >> well, it's clear mr. lundy
had had a list that talks about just the black jurors and i think the state concedes in its brief that the focus was on the black jurors. >> during the trial did defense counsel when he made his initial batson challenge, not in the papers but at trial, did he again say that this was part and parcel of the prosecutor's pattern? >> he didn't say that. but i point this interesting thing out. when they discussed the batson motion before trial there was never a suggestion there wouldn't be a batson hearing. everybody knew what was going to happen, that all the blacks would be struck and that'd have a hearing after that happened but the defense basically put their motion in writing and relied upon that. >> i was just surprised that we didn't hear about this preparation for a batson hearing until the habeas. >> well, the defense lawyers at trial didn't move for the prosecution's notes. and the prosecution opposed
them. they were very strict in not giving their notes. then when the prosecutor testified on the motion for a new trial he did something i'd never seen a lawyer do before. he cut a bargain sort of with the judge and the lawyers saying "i will testify but only if i don't have to show them my notes." basically the rules of evidence argued testifying and relying upon notes the other side can see the notes but here these notes were guarded until 'twixt when we obtained them through a freedom of information -- what they call open records act in georgia. >> the prosecutor said that you -- they said we never wrote -- authorized or relied on those notes. and you didn't call the prosecutors to test the veracity of that assertion. >> no, but all the prosecutor talked about were the color-highlighted notes. each prosecutor filed an affidavit which are in the joint
appendix at 168 and all they said was we didn't highlight it in green and we didn't tell anybody else to highlight in the green. then mr. linier says and i don't have anything else to say beyond what i said at the batson hearing and the motion for new trial. mr. pullin said -- the only other thing he said is i didn't use those green highlighted lists in choosing te ing thing . but that's the first few pages. what's damming about this is not so much that but the definite noes list, the misrepresentation to the trial court that ms. garrett -- they wanted ms. garrett, that's what they told the trial court and the trial court relied upon that in denying the batson motion. that this showed their openness to having. ms. garrett was on the definite no list. she was on each of the strike lists. ms. garrett was never in the running to be on this jury but they represented to the court that because another
african-american, shirley powell was excused for cause -- there were five african-americans in the -- at the start when they got ready to instruct the jury but one said "turns out i know somebody in the family." she was excused for cause and the prosecutor said -- implied clearly that had it not been for that, that extra strikes that ms. garrett would have sat. at the same time -- and they're still arguing this both ways, that they both wanted her and didn't want her. they give 11 reasons for why ms. gard would not be a good juror. that she's impudent and doesn't respect the court. if you believe those things they said about her they would never want her as a juror. but those things i would submit are not valid in terms of the reasons because the reasons they gave here, many were demonstrably false and not supported by the evidence including reasons they gave about ms. garrett, they were inconsistent, some were completely incredible and they
applied to white juror, some of these reasons applied to white jurors what who had the same characteristics as african-americans who were struck and then lastly and what's so important, they didn't question the jurors about the reasons for striking them. they gave reasons for striking them. one question would have cleared up some of these. and millerel says the failure to engage in any meaningful voir dire about whatever your reason is is evidence suggesting the explanation is a sham and a pre-text. >> mr. bright, i have found some circuit courts who have a rule on appeal or on habeas which is if they can find one ladge mat reason for striking a juror that's enough to defeat a batson challenge. do you believe that's an appropriate rule? are you suggesting a different approach to the question?
>> well, it can't -- i would suggest it can't possibly be because this court said in justice alito's opinion in "snyder v. louisiana" that where the peremptory strike was shown to have been motivated in substantial part by race that it could not be sustained and i would suggest to you it shouldn't even really say "substantial" because if this court as it said so many times is engaged in unceasing efforts to end race discrimination in the criminal courts then a strike that -- strikes motivated by race cannot be tolerable. and, of course, as pointed out here, this is a serious problem, not just in this case but in other cases where people come to court with their canned reasons and just read them off. that happened in this case where one of the reasons that was
given was just taken verbatim -- two of the reasons were taken verbatim out of a reported case so you don't have the reason for the lawyer in this case. he said my personal preference. it wasn't his personal preference. it was the personal preference of some u.s. attorney in mississippi who gave that reason and it was upheld on appeal by the fifth circuit. but we would suggest that the standard is at least what "snyder" says because when you have both -- you can always have as zrñmillerel recognized -- >> in response to justice sotomayor's question, if the prosecutor argues a laundry list of reasons for striking the black juror and some of those are reasonable and some are implausible, how should the court approach the batson analysis? >> i think the court looks at which reasons are pretextural. i think the fact that there is a laundry list suggests in and of itself that the court should scrutinized but the reasons very carefully, should be suspect of the reasons because otherwise what the court is going to do is
just simply encourage prosecutors or any party in a case since batson applies to everyone is going to encourage a party to give as many reasons as possible and hope that one will be acceptable. >> don't you think this is a case-by-case thing? suppose there's one reason that's a killer reason like this individual has numerous prior felony convictions. and then the prosecutor says in addition. and this person didn't -- looked down at the floor in answering the questions and didn't seem to pause and didn't seem to understand some of the questions. under a circumstance like that could at no time court say, well, the one reason -- the there's one reason here that is clearly a justification for a peremptory strike. we don't to determine whether there's evidence the person was looking at the floor. >> well, batson says look at all relevant circumstances. it may be if all the circumstances are the ones that you said then you would come to
the conclusion that of those two reasons there was a valid reason but i would suggest that where you have like we have here -- we have an arsenal of smoking guns in this case. >> a lot of those smoking guns were in the original decisions by the georgia courts. it seems to me is what you would have to establish to reverse the georgia courts is that the new smoking gun -- assuming that all the rest were not enough to demonstrate a batson violation, the new smoking guns would tip the scale. isn't that the issue? that the georgia courts decided? >> well, when the new smoking gun tells you the prosecutor misrepresented facts and gave reasons that were absolutely false, demonstrably false reasons and those are not clear before but you have that now. i mean bat sson turns on the feasibility of the reasons. >> all i'm saying and you seem
to be agreeing is that it is not the overall batson judgment that's before us but rather the judgment that the new evidence did not suffice to create a batson violation where none existed before. >> no, our position is that when you look at the new evidence with all the evidence another trial that all relevant circumstances considered together considering a lot of these reasons we now know from the notes, we now know from the notes that they were misrepresentations with regard to these reasons. the georgia supreme court just as an example, justice scalia, upheld the strike of ms. garrett on two bases, that she was a social worker and that her cousin had been arrested for drugs. she was not a social worker and secondly the prosecutor didn't find out until after trial about her kupzen's arrest so it couldn't have possibly been a reason for the strike. >> you're saying to justice scalia that when you had the
notes, those notes cast doubt on some of the prosecutor's justifications in the first round? >> they do that and they show misrepresentations to the court and they show an overarching goal of separating out the african-american citizens, treating them differently and putting them on this list of definite noes. >> mr. bright, just to make sure i understand. all the notes in the prosecutor's files were new, is that right? >> new? new to this case, yes. and there were three people. two prosecutors and the investigator who put those together. i would like to reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel. ms. burton? >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. i believe there are two important factors in this case when reviewing the entirety of the evidence. one is petitioner bears the burden of establishing clear -- >> i've -- i'll ask you as well to address the certiorari
question first. >> and respectfully i disagree with the petitioner's counsel on this issue. i believe norfolk western rail v. hiles indicates or states that if there is an issue raised in the lower court and it's raised in the state's highest court, in this case the georgia supreme court, but the georgia supreme court denies discretionary review then it's before this court on certiorari from the lower court. >> well, the problem is i don't think this is discretionary review. the 11th circuit found it's not under georgia law, read its opinion. it seems pretty grounded in the stated law of georgia. >> yes, your honor. and that is a -- that's a pretty hot button issue i know right now in the state federal courts in georgia but our position in those cases and i think there's a case before this court on rehearing on that same issue is that georgia statute specifically says that is a
discretionary appeal. the 1975 a habeas corpus act made it a discretionary appeal, i think, because the georgia supreme court was getting inundated with appeal after appeal. >> and has the georgia supreme court ever said anything one way or the other as to whether it's discretionary or not? >> in two of their cases "reid v. hopper" 219 southeastern second 409 and "smith v. nichols" which is 270 southeastern second 1999 they both state those as discreti discretiona discretionary. but they have not answered a certified question on that issue. >> could you give me the reid versus -- >> yes, 219 southeastern second 409. that's a 1975 case. >> are certified questions available in georgia? could we certify a question to the georgia supreme court? >> i believe you can, your honor. >> i looked at the statute. the statute says in a habeas
case, state habeas, that the georgia supreme court must review it. it says it must review it unless it's without merit -- i forget the exact words. i was looking for them. doesn't it say that. >> well, i think it's 91452, the statute takes state habeas cases out of other appellate review and makes that just discreti discretiona discretionary. the georgia supreme court -- >> then i've been looking at the wrong place. you heard your brother here say -- he quoted some words. i don't remember the exact words but they were exactly what i read and it was from a statute in georgia and georgia statute said -- i just can't find in the my book here, sorry. the georgia statute said they shall review the case unless it's without -- it's totally without merit, something like that. does that ring a bell? >> well -- does it ring a bell
what i'm saying? >> it does ring a bell. >> what are the exact words? >> i do not know the exact words. >> the exact words are that a certificate of probable cause will be issued when there is arguable merit. >> yes, that's it. >> but i believe that's rule 36 of the georgia supreme court. >> i think it's 91452. oh, there has been compliance with that. >> does that govern this case? >> i believe the statute would trump. >> does the word that the chief justice just read from georgia law govern this case? the answer is yes or no. >> no, i believe it's not -- >> they do not? what in your opinion is the georgia statute that says that those words you just held do not govern this case? >> i believe it's 1940 -- correct me -- i'm certainly open the question. 191452 states that state habeas is taken out of other appeals which are normally directly appealed or prison appeals and they are discretionary. >> okay, thank you. >> well, i suppose that a court
could have discretionary view but could provide by rule that in the exercise of our discretion we will grant any of these unless it's patently wrong. maybe that's what's happened here and if you use your discretion to enact a rule which says you will take cases of a certain court, does the taking of those cases still remain discretionary? it's a nice question, isn't it? [ laughter ] >> i think the taking of the case does remain discretionary if they find it has arguable merit. and the two cases i cited specifically reference. >> you've just decided that you will uniformly exercise your discretion a certain way? >> correct. >> but maybe i'm misunderstanding what you're
saying. you're saying there is no such uniform determination that they will exercise their discretion in a certain way in? that they're insisting upon their discretion being diskri discretiona discretionary. [ laughter ] is that correct? >> this law applies to not just death only cases but the multitude of non-death penalty cases. >> i'm sorry. i'm so confused i can't even -- the state habeas process is different than the regular appeal process? >> that's correct. >> and the regular appeal process they look at each case with diszplegs. >> on a direct appeal process it -- certainly in a capital case it is mandatory review. >> okay, in state habeas they have a rule, an internal rule that says we'll take every habeas case unless it has no arguable merit, right? >> if i may rephrase. i think the rule says that they
will take a case if it has arguable merit. >> in the positive. >> right. >> so what would lend us to believe that they didn't look at the merits and say there was no arguable snamerit? that they said "we're too busy, we don't care if there's arguable merit." do you believe they did that? >> i would never say they were too busy to take the case. >> i'm sorry? >> i would never say that would be their reason but i think they would say we've looked at this case because they have the records before them and we don't see arguable merit to take this case up. >> so that is a decision on the merit. there's no arguable merit? >> there's no arguable merit to the application that there has been error below. if that makes it any clearer. >> now it's clear. >> and in your view cert should have been granted to the georgia supreme court? >> i believe it should have been granted to the state habeas
court. because of that discretionary review and because i believe this court has said in "michigan v. long" that if it's unclear it comes from the state habeas court. >> can i ask one more quick question about this? you made reference -- this is an issue that's being late gaited in the georgia courts? is that right? in the 11th circuit? >> that is correct. >> this precise issue? >> this issue. >> thank you. >> what issue is that? [ laughter ] is it the issue of which court the certiorari should be directed to? >> well -- >> the issue of what? what is the issue being litigated? >> am i right the issue being litigated is whether the supreme court review in cases like that is discretionary or not discretionary? >> that is correct. in those cases obviously it's coming up from federal court so we're dealing more with "harrington v. richter" in a
different scope of things in that regard. >> and this question is in both the georgia supreme court and in the 11th circuit? >> it's currently in the 11th circuit. i don't believe we have a case pending now in the georgia supreme court on that particular issue. but i do believe it's up -- there is an issue up here in a case "jones v. chatman" where they've asks for rehearing. >> do you think this would be an appropriate case to exercise our discretion to certify to the supreme court? >> we would certainly like an answer from the georgia supreme court on that issue. i think the 11th circuit would like that as well. i think it would clear up both state and federal law for a number of things. >> did the statute that permits the georgia supreme court to certified questions, do you know anything about the history of requests for certification? some states have such a process but the state supreme court rejects the question. >> i do not, your honor, and i
apologize. >> what if we hold in this case that it is not discretionary review and then in these cases that are pending, the georgia supreme court says it is discretionary review. who wins? >> um -- >> is it ultimately a question for us or for the georgia supreme court? >> i think it's ultimately a question for the georgia supreme court as to what the state law is. >> me, too. can i go to the merits. is that all right? [ laughter ] okay. unless other people -- okay. look, you have a lot of new information here from these files that suggests that what the prosecutors were doing was looking at the african-american prospective jurors as a group, that basically said "we don't want any of these people, here's the one we want if we really
have to take one" but all the evidence suggests a kind of singling out, which is the very antithesis of the batson rule. so i, mean, isn't this -- i'm just going to ask you. isn't this as clear a batson violation as a court is ever going to see? >> i don't think it is. and i think because these notes that we have, they don't undermine any of the findings that were given by the prosecutor in his strikes. particularly of mr. hood and ms. garrett. they certainly can be interpreted in two ways in our response brief to this court, we don't know when we say you know this is why these highlights are there. there's a reasonable explanation just as mr. foster is given speculation in his arguments, we don't know. >> what's the reasonable explanation? >> the reasonable explanation is n this case is four months prior to trial, as was previously argued, batson had just come out, batson is new, four months prior to trial defense counsel
files a motion and says "the strike of my black juror, we're filing a batson challenge." two weeks prior to trial he files a motion and says "there's racial disparity in the 179 jurors." and that's the list that's challenged, the 179. there's racial disparity of black prospective jurors on that list. the day of trial he refiles that so i would be more surprised, quite frankly, if there wasn't some sort of highlighting -- >> in other words, the argument you're making here is that the reason he highlighted all the black jurors in green and said black, what about the black jurors and all these different things was because he was preparing a defense in case of a batson challenge? >> correct. >> all right. now if that's correct, was this argument made before your main brief in this case? it's been several years. >> it was not. >> it was not. so if that had been his real reason, isn't it a little surprising that he never thought
of it or didn't tell anybody? [ laughter ] until you raise this argument in your main brief? >> and i would -- i would say that's on state habeas counsel. we relied on our res jude kata bar throughout state habeas and after that basically defended theof. >> so it seems you have two arguments, someo arguments, unis that he never thought to tell you and the other, after years -- so it's hard to believe that's his real reason. then there's a second argument that he had about 40 different reasons and at least some of them could be valid. okay. now if my grandson tells me "i don't want to do my home work tonight at 7:00 because i'm just so tired. and besides, i promised my friend i'd play basketball. and besides that, there's a great program on television. and besides that, you know, my stomach is upset but i want to eat spaghetti." so he's now given me five
different reasons. what do i think of those reasons? >> well, in this case -- and i -- >> one may be valid. >> correct. >> which one? >> well, they all may be valid but they may not be as strong as the first one. but in this case i think the important part -- >> the point is he gave 40 different reasons and the very fact that he gives 40 different reasons and many of them are self-contradictory, not applicable, totally different from -- that's why i use my grandchild's analogy, all right? and so i would say my answer to my grandchild is "look, you're not too tired to do your home work." and i think any reasonable person looking that the would say "no, his reason was a purpose to discriminate on the basis of race." now tell me why i'm wrong. >> i think because you have to look at the time period this was done. this was done a year after batson came out and even throughout the transcript defense counsel and the prosecutor said we don't know where batson is going so in this
case the prosecutor dealing with batson for the first time, the first time in history anybody has had to put strikes on the record -- >> but he's simply wrong. he puts down if it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors ms. garrett might be okay. >> and that's mr. lundy, that's the investigator. >> but that seems to me to undercut the argument, well, they're just feeling their way and so forth, they've made a mistake of law in batson. sure it was new but they're wrong. >> let me say i think that's why there was a laundry list because he was espousing every reason he had but with regard to mr. lundy's notes, that was the investigator who says if we have to choose a black juror, she may be the best one. >> who is responsible for the definite no list? >> the definite no list, nobody -- the only person that was asked about that was mr.
lundy and he said he could not identify who wrote that list. >> there were only three possible choices. >> right. we know it came from the d.a.'s office [ laughter ] >> and it exists. it says definite no. >> correct. and i don't think that is -- i don't think that was a ranking of jurors because when you look -- they did score jurors throughout. >> but there were five african-american jurors on the definite -- and one of them was barrett as was pointed out, they said if we have to have one, let it be barrett but barrett then shows up on the definite no list. >> correct. >> were we told that the only three people who did the investigation on batson were the two prosecutors on the case and mr. lundy? is so if mr. lundy says he didn't make that list it has to be one of the two prosecutors. >> it has to be one of the two and one was not there on the day the jury was struck, only mr.
linier was. so if that's not mr. linear's thought process of this definite no list, i don't see that that gets you to clear error in the striking of mr. hood or ms. garrett. >> it seems an out and out false statement. the reason that's given -- one of the reasons for garrett's being struck is that her cousin was arrested. but then the prosecutor doesn't know that at the time of the voir dire. he doesn't know until after the voir dire. that the cousin was arrested. so how could it possibly be a reason at the time of the voir dire? >> and i don't think the record bears that out. the highlights notes that petitioner wants to say these were used during voir dire, these were used during the strikes, in those note, and this is joint appendix page 256 "angela" is written out beside ms. garrett's name.
in mr. lundy's notes where he said he wrote down things he knew prior to strikes, prior to voir dire of what he knew about individual jurors, he wrote down as to marilyn garrett "angela garrett" a cousin and then mr. linear testify -- >> didn't the habeas court -- i'm sorry. >> proceed. >> didn't the habeas court accept he didn't know at the time of trial? he just knew that lundy didn't want her? >> what the -- the habeas court actually credited the fact that mr. lundy had advised trial counsel that angela garrett should be struck. >> but that was his explanation for why the prosecutor didn't know about the prior arrest, correct? >> no, i think the state habeas court credited that as one of the facts of the strike. >> that mr. lundy didn't want her. >> excuse me, i'm -- >> that mr. lundy didn't want
her. he never credited or never said that he knew about the arrest. >> actually, mr. linear testified twice, though, that he was aware at the time of jury selection that he knew about -- >> mr. lundy did but the prosecutor didn't. >> well, no, in the motion before trial mr. linear, the prosecutor, testified and said i knew during voir dire mr. lundy told me that. that's the joint appendix 105 and 112. >> didn't he also testify -- this is on 14 in the reply brief. "it haas come to our atense sin -- attention since the trial of this case that angela garrett was arrested"? >> it says on that part of the transcript which i cannot explain to you in contrast to in the notes it is noted she is the cousin prior to jury selection unless that means -- and i've read it several times since that time she's been dismissed from her job.
again, it's unclear. >> what about the giving a reason for dismissing her that she was close in age to the defendant? she was in her 30s, he was 18 or 19. >> and when he initially strikes, when mr. linear initially explains his strikes he does state her age so he is not trying to stay she's 23 or -- he states her age as 34. and throughout the overall theme was we don't want younger jurors, we're looking for older jurors closer to the age of the victim, age 79. so i know that's not the most articulate framing but i think it's more of a generational she was younger and that -- the age i don't think was a make or break factor. working at head start with underprivileged children, a make or break factor. a similar situated white juror also struck for that same purpose. >> but ms. burton wouldn't you agree -- and a lot of these batson cases you'll have
purported justifications which they could a valid peremptory strike, right? but that the question for a court is, well, but did they support this valid peremptory strike? in other words, what was the prosecutor thinking? batson is a rule about purposeful discrimination. about intent. so it doesn't really matter that there might have been a butch of valid reasons out there if it was clear that the prosecutor was thinking about race. you agree with that, right? >> i think if his intent was to strike based on race. >> yeah, if his intent to strike was based on race it doesn't matter that he could have had a different intent that would have supported a good peremptory strike. so the question of whether, you know, someone or other might have been properly struck by a prosecutor isn't really the question. the question is on the total amount of evidence before us
including these prosecutors' notes what was going on with respect to each of these peremptory strikes and then you have to deal with not just "oh, it could have been this, it could have been that" but you have to deal with all this information that what it really was was they wanted to get the black people off the juror. >> and i don't think these notes show that. what the notes show with mr. hood and ms. garrett, they're contemporaneous notes taken at time of trial to each of these jurors are the reasons they struck them. there's no derogatory comments within those notes. >> where there are other reasons that are plausible but could be phony, surely it's the judge that hears the testimony who's best able to judge who whether asserted reasons are phony reasons or not. isn't that right? >> yes, your honor. and i don't believe that -- >> it's hard for us to do it on a cold record. harder, not impossible. >> justice scalia raises, of
course, a very good point in the mine run of cases but not in a case where all the evidence of intentional discrimination was not before the judge at the time. >> and, again, i don't think there's -- i don't think there's clear error here on these notes of racial discrimination. the strikes are sound. as to mr. hood, you would not want mr. hood on the jury regardless of his race based on his reasons. the reason he gives a laundry list, like i said, may well have been because we were in 1987 and you're just putting out everything you can because you're not sure what you're supposed to do. >> why weren't the notes turned over earlier? >> the notes were not turned over earlier although it was brought up in the motion for new trial in november after the trial in 1987 and the prosecutor, mr. linear, said i will give my notes to the court to look at in bank if defense counsel will do the same. defense counsel chose not to do so. that issue was raised on appeal
to the georgia supreme court direct appeal. the georgia court found it was work product and didn't have to be turned over. when we got to state habeas proceedings they found an open records request under georgia law and they were immediately turned over. i don't think there was any argument about it at that point. >> what do we do with the failure to ask plz garrett any questions about the issues that troubled the -- for example, her cousin's arrest. there's an assumption that she has a relationship with this cousin. i have cousins who i know have been arrested but i have no idea where they're in jail. i don't know them. but he didn't ask any questions. doesn't that show pretext? i'm not going to inquire because she might get off the hook on that. >> well i think a number of times -- and i know this court's precedent on not asking questions is particularly in voir dire as to people but as to a number of issues i think when
you're in voir dire asking questions you don't necessarily care what the answer is because with regard to mr. hood if he had said, yes, i have a son that's been arrested, it's not going to bother me a bit that you prosecutedly son. >> well, stealing hub caps in my mind is decidedly different than murdering people or attacking them the way this case was about. i can imagine -- why can't you imagine a father saying "it was stealing hub caps, he should have been punished." >> he may well have and it's a risk -- >> that's the what the record supports. >> it's a risk the prosecutor didn't want to take. mr. hood could very well have said that and meant that but in my mind i'm thinking "he's going to get back there and think i don't know about that." >> i want to ask you a question different before your time is
up. i'd like you to respond to the question justice alito initially asked and that is is there an independent state ground here? you're familiar with the record and i read on page 192 of your record the decision and the first paragraph supports your -- the view that you would like to hold, i think, that this is based upon res judicata, which is state matter. then there was the paragraph read to you on 195 and 196 where the judge says "the reason i reached that conclusion is because the notes and records submitted by petitioner failed to demonstrate purposeful discrimination on the basis of the race was the basis." that sounds like batson to me. then he goes on to say "and in addition, there's no good reason given now or then." and then he concludes "accordingly, the court finds
the renewed batson claim is without merit." if so if i read just that paragraph i would think the reason that the judge found in your favorite is he decided the batson claim in your favor. he didn't have to, he could have gone on some other ground but that's the ground he did go on. but at worst why isn't itting a big white house? and if it is ambiguous why didn't we take -- i think what's in the law, all those cases, if it's ambiguous aren't we required to assume a that the judge went on the federal ground? now that's both alito's question, it's what i think is the hardest point for you to overcome and i want to hear your response. >> i actually agree it's unclear. >> well, that's the end of it, isn't it? >> it is. i think it's unclear. one other issue -- >> what do you think is georgia >> i think in georgia if you
have new facts or new evidence -- >> the res judicata goes out the window? >> the court gets to look at the issue and go beyond. >> sorry, i didn't hear that? >> once you have new facts or new evidence if the court in this case finds they can review the evidence anew and a new review is had then i think you are beyond that bar. >> i don't understand what you've just said. say it again. [ laughter ] >> okay. if the issue has been decided on direct appeal and you cannot go back to it. the superior court obviously can't overturn the state's highest court but when you have new evidence such as this case and it's strong evidence that the court feels like it has to go -- it has to look at that evidence, and in this case it did, i think you are beyond the res judicata bar. >> i think that's exactly how
the decision is framed because the decision talks about claims that are not reviewable due to res judicata, it lists many, many, many claims then lists a whole bunch of claims that are procedurally defaulted then this is in a separate section, the batson issue, and it's in a section with all the other claims that there are merits, determinations being made about and the court is very clear. first sentence, last sentence. first sentence the court finds the prosecution did not violate batson versus kentucky. last sentence, on the merits e the -- the petitioner loses. >> as much as i would like it to be an adequate and independent state law ground -- >> what do you make of the statement on 175 as a preliminary matter this court notes that as cited by the respondent the following claims are not reviewable based on the doctrine of res judicata and the
first one it lists is the batson claim. does that suggest maybe the court had two reasons for what it did? it's barred by res judicat -barred by res adjudicata -- i'd like counsel to -- >> if anything, it's an alternate ruling. >> supreme court has said, georgia law allows the claim to be revisited when new facts develop because it's based on facts that did not actively exist at the time of the appeal. it's essentially a different claim. that's what the jury has. new facts, essentially a different claim. >> yes. >> making it right or wrong is a matter of conclusion law. but that is the law. >> that is the law. >> mr. bright, you have two minutes remaining. >> thank you.
very quickly, let me first say, with regard to what justice alito quoted, that has just come to our attention, since the trial of the case that miss garrett's cousin was arrested. that was on may 1st. that was after the death verdict will be returned in this case. secondly, if you look at the joint appendix on page 56 and 57, where they give the reasons for striking miss garrett, there's no mention of her cousin whatsoever in there. that's the time when she should have been mentioned after the strikes were made. and yet there's no mention of that at all. and then six months later, there's a motion for new trial, and now the prosecution is adding new reasons that it didn't give at the batson hearing. it's saying she was a social worker. she wasn't a social worker. it's saying her cousin was arrested. they didn't know that at the time they instructed the jury. they're saying she's low income.
but you can't add reasons on into perpetuity. a person has to stand or fall within the reasons. with regard to questions, i just want to make one quick point on that because there's not much time, but with regard to miss garrett and martha duncan who were both teachers' aides who were in schools literally in the same neighborhood. miss duncan had kindergarten students, miss garrett was head start. no question, what kind of children did you have, miss duncan? to me, within the neighborhood, miss garrett lives 18 or 20 miles away. miss duncan -- her school is 250 yards away. and she lived a half mile within the school. both of them answered they weren't familiar with the area where the victim lived. then, some more questions, after those answers, would have provided a difference.
but instead, miss garrett is treated as a liar. and miss duncan is actually accepted and actually served as a juror in this case. there are other examples with mr. hood, if you asked, what about your child was arrested. put on probation. $180 of -- $180 restitution. and he went off to -- went off to the navy, served his country honorably, got an honorable discharge and came back. >> thank you, counsel, case is submitted. tonight race and the criminal justice system in the u.s. speakers will discuss sentencing reform, community interaction with police and other issues. the discussion gets under way at 8:00 on c-span. and republican presidential candidates are heading to florida tomorrow for what the state gop party calls the sunshine summit. beginning friday morning, live at 10:30 eastern, you'll hear
from senator marco rubio, senator are ted cruz, senator lindsey graham. and scheduled to speak on saturday at florida's republican sunshine summit, governor bobby jindal, chris christie, rick sap forum, rand paul, john kasich and carly fiorina. the saturday session gets under way at 10:00 a.m. c-span will have live coverage. c-span has your coverage of 016 where you'll pipd the candidates, the speeches, debates and most importantly your questions. this year we're taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow c-span student cam contest and road to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, on the radio, and online at cspan.org.
we have a justice system that does not -- these trials were not held according for what we would consider modern law. innocent until proven guilty was not yet in place. there were no lawyers by the way i should say at the time. the courtroom is an extremely unruly place. so that is one piece of it. and also we don't happen to believe in witchcraft or prosecute witchcraft today. >> sunday, author stacy shift talks about her book the witches. on the salem witch trials and the scope and effect of the accusations and trials had on the massachusetts community. >> the interesting part about the accusations, especially given the way we think of salem is that wealthy merchants were accused as witch, sea captains were accused as witches,
homeless girls were accused to be witches. this is not an incident where all the victims were female. we have five male victims including a minister and we didn't burn the witches, we hang them. so there was so much encrusted myth and misunderstanding here that i felt it was important to dispel. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. the. the brookings institution recently hosted a panel on isis foreign recruitment and violent extremism. experts talked about the different approaches in the middle east, europe and the u.s. and the lessons of those various efforts. this is about 90 minutes.
all right, everyone. welcome. my name is will mccants. on the organization of the islamic world here at brookings. today, we're going to talk about countering violent extremism. brookings is doing this with the program on the partnership with extremism at george washington university. joining us today is lorenzo bodino to my right who directs the program at george washington university. to his right is rashad ali who is a senior fellow. to my left is angela king, deputy director. and to her left is daniel koehler, who is a fellow on the program of extremism at g.w. and founder and director of the german institute of radicalization, and deradicalization studies. okay. so the countering violent
extremism discussion has been going on for several years now. if the phrase sounds vague to you, it's also very vague inside the u.s. government and foreign government. no one is quite sure what this thing means. i remember when i was working at state department, i asked another agency to give me a list of everything that had been justified to the congress. as countering violent extremism across all agencies. everything from building forward operating bases in afghanistan to english language programs for a young mother. essentially, it became a way for the government to protect and their program. in an effort to become much more focused we are here today to talk about one slice of this
that's often neglected, that i think honestly is the most valuable. in the effort to spot or counter recruitment for terrorist organizations.j and that is early intervention. and so, i want to begin our program today by asking daniel koehler to tell us what early intervention programs are. how they differ from other programs, say, deradicalization of foreign fighters, what have you, then we'll get to a more wide ranging instruction. daniel. >> thank you for the introduction. early intervention in countering violence extremism is an unusual term. usually when we look at other states in their counterterrorism violence policy, we see there are three tools that they usually use. the first one is prevention.
anything related to education, civil society, anything that tries to prevent people from ending up in the groups can be seen as a tool. the second level is repression. containing an actual existing radical threat. law enforcement, anything that is related to courts, house searchings, sting operations. and then the third level which is called intervention in most western european countries. so early intervention would mean that we actually have someone who is in the process in the early process of the violent potentially violent radicalization process but has some connection to it. has some connection to a radical group. some connection to radical ideology. it's on a path that's considered dangerous. so it is part of those tools where deradicalization programs, programs part of it.
early intervention programs are tools that usually focus on the social effect of the environment of those persons who are about to become a violent radical. we know there's a phenomenon called leakage. that many persons leak some kind of sign directly or indirectly to family, colleagues, employer, anyone around them. and these persons are usually the first ones to notice a change. to notice a potential threat and danger. and in most cases, the so-called gate keepers, the so-called gate keepers, do not reach out to the authorities, do not reach out to the police or anyone else because they feel a strong sense of loyalty, obligation to their friends and family members. they fear what might happen to them. they fear that maybe they're making that worse. maybe they're responsible for
their son or daughter being put into jail for 20 years. so we need to figure out a way to give these family, friends, associates, gatekeepers, tools, third party mentors that can turn to for assessment, advice, counseling but also, between authorities, between social services, health services to give them an understanding. an assessment of why this is happening in the family or in the environment. and these early intervention tools are those who focus on friend, family, colleagues, to give them a tool as early as possible to reach out for help. later tools will be deradicalization programs for returning for fighters for all those in prison, in prison inmates, and these focus on individual levels. and early intervention levels to
me or the effect of social tools. there are many out there. specialized trainings for teachers. for police officers. for community leaders. >> so, daniel, to my mind, these kind of programs make a lot of sense. because it's a small population that you're working with. they have already demonstrated they're interested in radical ideas, but generally, they have not committed any violent crimes yet. so you're working very, very close to the problem. and the game is to try and make sure that these folks don't go over the line. and commit a criminal act, particularly a violent criminal act. but lorenzo, these programs have been -- it's -- they haven't caught on in many places. particularly here in the united states. when we talk about countersing violent extremism, it runs the gamut, as i said. but this is not really part of it.
working in this space is usually from my experience often left to law enforcement. people who are entertaining radicalizing are thought to be a security risk better to let law enforcement than having the early intervention. give us the scene from europe. how does that compare? >> it's very different. first of all, let me thank you first for having us here. it's very good to have this conversation on the way we partner together on this and try to mainstream the debate that comes to the u.s., and experience that comes to europe and bringing people from the european experience. because some europe 15 countries have seen 10 or 15 years of this kind of intervention. everybody makes whatever they want out of it. all of the focus in the u.s. has been focused on the large idea, the message for americans. the engagement to communities which is also extremely important. and the europeans have done that kind of work, the core
integration work. the lack of integration, whether it's linked to radicalization. it's very large for the europeans spend a lot of resources on it are very difficult to assess. very difficult to prove negativity. that what you're doing to stop people from radicalizing. i think what we have seen the last few years, the europeans have focused more on the one-on-one interventions for some of the reasons. in the u.s., as you correctly pointed out, that has not been the case. we've seen a lot of countermessaging, whether more with the foreign partners, or engagement of communities which is basically what cve has been on the domestic front. >> can you explain what we mean by engagement of community, what that ends up looking like? >> yes, this is basically dhs, the fbi cells have been doing for a long time, which is building trust-based dialogues
and relationships within communities. we have to specify the days -- probably one of the points of contention. and one of the most debated points is that cve is unfortunately limited for the most part to the muslim community. it's limited to targeting what is traditionally known as al qaeda-inspired radicalization. and isis-inspired radicalization. of course, there's debate whether or not it's correct and focusing on forms of extremism. it should be 99% of resources are devoted really just inspired. i think in the u.s., we're limited basically -- we had been limited mostly to engagement. we're starting to see signs that they're working on one-on-one intervention.
the very tailored interventions. which if successful, are quite cost effective. and it's much easier to prove the effectiveness, not very easy, but easier, than some of the larger programs. and the european experience tells us that. so we have very different models that we'll talk about largely, depending on what the degree of government, and a variety of other factors in the u.s., we're starting now to talk about utilizing it. i think traditionally, we have seen a law enforcement approach. the traditional use of sound, very harsh. techniques and the fbi is in charge of the investigation. so, with the european approach, you simplify things as individuals that are clearly radicalized and very criminal states. the european approach is to try
to push people into a preradicalization stage. the fbi approaches in some cases, to try to push the individual, a kind of sting operation. and the right condition, progress report, or controlled setting, you have the fbi controlling everything and eventually arrest them. two different factors. but there's a growing realization in the faith that that kind of tactic cannot be used all the time. it's very effective, particularly from a prosecution point of view. a very high success rate in court. but it cannot always be improved. we're seeing more and more minors attracted to isis ideology. and it's difficult to use for a variety of legal and ethical reasons to use sting operations when it comes to minors. the numbers are also very high. we hear from the fbi a couple weeks talk about 900 investigations, open nationwide. and individuals linked to syria and mostly to isis.
that's a very big number unprecedented from the past. and it's difficult to tackle all of these cases with traditional law enforcement tools. i think that's something that the department of justice fully understands and is trying to explore some of the tools. just to give you an idea, just this morning, we have meetings with the department of justice, with a particular working group that is trying to find a prosecution. because they understand that they cannot arrest their way out of this problem. so the idea is, and instrumental in this seamus was instrumental in this. obviously, not all of the tactics that can be used in europe can be used to be transported and adopted here in the u.s. there are a lot of ideas that with the proper caveat, with the proper adjustments could be used. >> daniel, i want to come back
to you just to get a sense of what's going on here. because i know, in terms of early intervention programs, it's uneven across the continent. some countries embracing this. some not. which country would you hold out as the exemplar in holding that, and why? >> that's impossible to answer. you can't have a country like germany, for example, where they have almost 20 years of experience in work against extreme nazi groups, and they have -- at least the last count was they have 12 to 15 specialized deradicalization programs in the area of countering violent extremism. you can't have a country like denmark where you have a very state, focused, police-run organization, where everything runs through the police.
you can't have a country like sweden where they have one or two organizations doing that work in cooperation with the government. in countries like the uk where they have a strong complement of attendance -- >> depends on the political culture? >> absolutely. depends on whether or not ideology should power the program, and it's not that popular in denmark. it's not that popular in the uk. very strong in germany, for example. i would say deradicalization or intervention can be ranked or classified according to three criteria. first of all, ideology. technically spoken, do we have a disengagement program, with ideology, getting someone out to do or to stop committing criminal acts. versus deradicalization, really trying to get the dismantling of radicalization. changing the world.
the second criteria is, is it state or unstate? is it run or organized by a government body like police, social services? or is it nongovernment based. and thirdly, is it active or passive? is it actively reaching out in prison groups or in germany, some have a list where the neo-nazis live. they just go there and knock on the door and ask do they want to lead the movement. or are they passive programs, those wanting to get out? in europe, we've seen a very wide and broad array of different programs and organizations. i would argue the most promising the public/private partnerships, because usually, there are aspects that are being done more effective to the government. and on the other way around, more effectively done to other organizations. we have seen several attempts in germany, sweden or the uk, where
the government body started to call a hotline or a program, incorporating idealization, in programs. i would say germany and denmark are definitely on the forefront of that. >> thank you very much. angela, i want to give people a look at how this program works. i'd like for you to talk about how an early intervention works with somebody who hasn't yet broken the law. and i as wonder if you could say a few thoughts about the role of ideology. not necessarily in terms of inspiring somebody, but when you're doing these kinds of interventions, do you really need to deal with the ideology, or do you focus on other things first?
>> well, it's been a little slow going. we don't have those programs right now. but with what we've done, we're out there doing interventions, doing countermessaging, doing cve. and for us, personally, we have not found that it's successful to immediately go in and aggressively attack ideology. what we do is share very real, raw human experience. and connect on a different level. i think it's important to mention that we really have to be aware of what propels people into these movements. what's broken? you know, what is the underlying issue that made them feel they were missing out on something.
that they needed to belong. a variety of factors that really push people into it. so when we go in and we talk to an individual, we have an understanding of what drove them there. that kind of gives us the foundation and the base that we work from. we draw on our experience. life after hate is completely run by former violent extremists. so, instead of justifying the individual, instead of attacking the ideology head on, we ask them personal questions. you know, what has affected them in their lives. what is important to them. what are they interested in? what are their goals? and from there, we fall back on our own personal experience. and share that in a way that shows them that they are not alone. that they're not the only ones. that it is absolutely possible
to disengage, to deradicalize. they're not concerned with being deradicalized necessarily. the referrals we get come from a variety of places, whether a parent with a child, maybe getting involved. some government referrals. human rights, and then we have people who contact us on their own and say, listen, i am thinking about getting involved in this. i have a certain belief about a certain thing. or i have this experience that's really pushing me in this direction. but i don't know -- i'm not sure. can you talk to me about why i shouldn't? or what are the consequences? you know, things like that. so it's been in that way that we've been able to go out and start having some successful intervention. and these are literally some of the people who, by their own
account, are on the verge of committing acts of violence, who then are prevented from doing so. >> are you doing any of these interventions purely online? or is there always a real world component? >> both. there have been cases where we have traveled and face-to-face sit-down intervention. we get contacted a lot by a social media -- by our websites. and we definitely don't have the funds to travel the country, you know, to do a personal face-to-face every time. but part of what we offer is one-on-one mentoring. whether it's phone calls, text messages, social media. and we -- you know, get these individuals involved. for instance, we have a group that consists of almost 30 former violent extremists. and these individuals, some of them have been disengaged and deradicalized for decades.
some have just come out in days or weeks. we are using that as a means of support. as a means of talking about the issues. some of those issues that propelled them in in the first place. it provides kind of the support that daniel talked about. whether it's a family, or community, you know that kind of support, but is not there to say you're horrible because you believe these things. it's, let me share my experience and how i got beyond that. and finding that common ground. >> have you ever encountered anyone who was radicalized purely by what they have read? they're normal in every way, high-functioning, but just consumed a lot of hate literature? or is there always something else underlying it? >> every case is different.
some of the information that we're finding now is that not every person suffered trauma or abuse or has mental health issues or anything like that. some people came from perfectly stable loving homes. and for some reason, felt the need to belong in that way. and it's different. you know, some individuals, a small percentage, were actually raised in the extremist environment. that were taught violence. you know, there are individuals who were raised in a prejudiced household. they were taught racism literally as children. some will grow up and rebound against that. and others will grow up and look for a place, saying this is it, this is what i know. this is what i was taught. and there are individuals who will have maybe one experience from that point on, pun intended, it literally colors their view of the world from that point on.
and then there are some who will just read, you know, history. you know, say something has happened unfairly in history. one group is being represented more than the other. so, it's -- we can't classify it all across the board. it really literally is case by case. >> thank you. so, rashad, i want you to help give us the uk perspective on this. but i also want you to talk about the role of ideology. again, i think for many people, when you're thinking about early interventions, the first thing that would come to mind is you need to take on immediately the ideas that political radicals would espouse. have you found that to be the case in your experience, when we're talking about islamist radicals? or as angela said, you look at it on deeper, societal issues that have drawn into this viewpoint.
>> i'll start with the latter question. i think with our experience, what we have is i look at trends just to make it easier. as you mentioned, there are those that have a political perspective, a political landscape, they buy into a narrative. and they look at the world as very similar to kind of old school narrative. you have the evil west which is hegamonic. and america and its allies, just suppressing the natural -- you know, the natural aspirations of most people. and in this instance, the conflict used to be communism in the west and now it's islam.
and they buy this and they look at everything in the world through that. with palestinian, through the political lens, if you like. they look at any conflict in the war against iraq, because of various economic, societal reasons. actually it's a manifestation in the middle east. so all of everything. then you get others who actually are not politicized as such but they have various political grievances. in the sense they may have had a question that they face in their life. questioning that sense of belonging to society, they may have had grievances related to racism and past experiences or disenfranchisement. and then the narrative appeals to them because of those things. they're approaching it because actually they already feel they need something else.
you then have others who have neither necessarily have the specific problematic set of grievances, or embracing a form of religion which automatically separates them from everybody else. so, therefore, they're separated from other muslim. they're seen as not being true muslim or not. they are analogous to what we see. and from that, and then the way they look at the world is nothing it is really truly represented in the purest way that should be enforced in society. that actually the purest that comes from a very direct
engagement of scripture, tells them exactly what is right. what is wrong. and therefore, they have the theological look at it. and then you have, i guess the other trend of people who actually do suffer various different illnesses. they suffer various other issues. and therefore, those things have pushed them towards embracing a black and white perspective, and that is appealing in that context. obviously, i'm describing this for a general but actually most people will be a mix of those things. therefore, when tackling and engaging an individual, you should be able to ascertain what are the push/pull factor. is it somebody embracing ideology, it's an ideology which is aimed at -- when reading scripture, i don't know if you have that when reading scripture -- if you're reading scripture in that way, it should be enforced. and the government is going to enforce that as scripture.
and then actually, i guess the only way you can engage with that is to break down the methodology in the way they approach the scripture. on the other hand, if someone has a particular world view that is very, very they're low, then the only thing you can do is make them realize the complexities in the way we were made up. and this actually works in the uk in politics as well. because actually, they are then loved figures who went in. that is an indication in the uk. not the most popular politician in the uk. but at the end of the day, once they start to see it as a complexity to their world, then you can have more complexity to
the way you see people and society. they do need that. and i guess that was -- the uk approach is something that is a multiprong approach. so the former measures we have, the contest policy in the uk which is the broad countdown and measure. which has -- what we call the four ps. protect, outside of the u.s. embassy in london. there's propel, which is when those do question, how do they respond. and pursue, which is investigations, intelligence gathering. finding arresting people and prosecuting them. and prevent. and prevent then is this what we we've spoken about, individual kind of engaging the people who are either vulnerable toward
radicalization, or who have become radicalized. therefore, that works in space, and also primarily which is people have been -- whether it's by police, the public in general, as an example in the cases we have, as an example in the uk, where there's communities, and we've had individuals come into the mosque also like they had in syria. they will contact the authorities and say. and the authorities will send someone who is appropriate to engage with that individual to make an analysis, a diagnosis, and then put a plan together.
>> but there's been some criticism on the program, right? >> huge, huge. i think this is very important to look at because actually, i think there are some very good questions that you need to ask. the first is what are we talking about -- so there are natural concerns about how do we determine that. what types of process, how do we know this is the case, ambassador of science, et cetera. which is a reasonable kind of consent to have. the second is engaging in radicalization, especially in somebody who has a theological foundation. actually, what you're going to do, there are a number of different approaches, in some ways, you're going to engage the religious proclivities. in the state, the church, but in reality, our policies are
founded on sector, liberal values and therefore, to what extent engaging with individuals can persuade them. and then that comes down to the logic behind that intervention. that actually that individual is starting to experiment doing the engagement. or if you have an individual who is truant -- a young kid is truant from school. and we think actually we've seen them around, then we have an engagement, that intervention. and the same thing applies, actually, we should have an early intervention. to see a beheading or talk about how evil effort is. and whatever it may be, that actually that may provide some form of intervention. and the other side of that, i think, is more the problematic part. so as i mentioned, there's a difference we see which is the
investigative side. prevent. the one side is prevent. it actually has nothing to do with the investigation side. nothing to do with the surveillance side. prevent, which is brought on to this idea of actually the state, and therefore, what we should do is monitor everything, which is good. but then it becomes actually the state must be using this -- it must be spying. it must be targeting the whole community. and therefore, all of these things come into this. now, some of these things can be easily dismissed. 25%, roughly, of individual referrals in the uk actually are referrals that have nothing to do with this. actually have to do with right
wing extremists, et cetera. the overriding methodology, there isn't specific engagement. so it isn't -- although it's described as tied to communities or government, and yet some of the people have -- it's not surprising that an organization, which i won't mention, which has previously supported and the american terrorist for yemen is very critical of the program. with the al qaeda resistance to americans. therefore, got to understand there are some which buy into these.
so, it is -- it's complicated, but actually, there's good and bad reasons for it. on the whole, i think a lot of it based on propaganda. >> daniel, i want to turn back to you. the counterterrorism part of my brain hears about early interventions and saying, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. you're focused very narrowly on people who may become upon demonstrated. they really like the propaganda of a violent group. that's the one you really want to focus on. but then, the american part of my brain speaks up and says, well, wait a minute, i mean, these folks are entitled to free speech, like anyone else. this isn't exactly criminalized in the speech. but it seems to get right up on the line, if not over. i'm trying to figure out how to
strike this balance. and i gather from your comments that a lot of it has to do with the unique political culture in each country. and if we were in germany, they would have a different answer, versus in the united states. but how do we -- how do we find that? how do we keep this focus on a very narrow problem, without running afoul of the proud tradition of free speech that we all value in a legal society? >> i think that is the core question of how you make deradicalization and programs work. as you mentioned deradicalization has the build in, it work usually is supposed to work in a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and religion. but we know on the other side,
that starting when something criminal happens, a criminal act, on the prison system, is much more effective, is much more expensive. and we know that there is a process leading to that criminal act, leading to violence that is dangerous, inherently dangerous to democratic society. because it embraces an ideology. it spreads an ideology that is actively attacking and trying to destroy the democratic part of society. so, neo-nazis in germany, for example, have always tried to hide under that freedom of speech. freedom of political opinion. and even though the german version of freedom of speech, it's much more strict than in the u.s., obviously, for traditional reasons. so, i would say that this problem, figure out this problem, when an inherently dangerous process starts, in balancing it, against what is
morally acceptable in terms of the program, it's essentially a question of how do you structure that program? for example, i get the fact that i'm very critical about government-run active programs who try to change a political religious world view, for example, in prison. and there are programs that are more or less coercive in prison that says you're free to participate. if you don't, don't expect to be -- don't expect to get any special, beneficial treatment, anything like that. so, then, on the other hand, there are nongovernmental programs that can have close association they should have for the government but they have their own political philosophy. they say we are part of the society. we are part of the society at large. and we are passive. we have our own version and if you come to us for help, this is
what we expect in term. deradicalization can be morally acceptable. people are free to go to ngos, they are free to choose. they can go to another ngo. a couple months ago, i worked with the new dutch program, and they are currently building a new deradicalization program. and they have set out a very interesting framework -- they have very specifically set out the framework where they work, and how they work, in close cooperation with ngos. especially trained experts, and they're very strong. and they're realizing people end up in prison before doing something more sharply before doing something. we need to figure out, specially in northern america, what actually is the point where we figure out the point it's not acceptable.
this kind of ideology, this sort of propaganda, is really trying to destroy that society that we're actually living in that protects you. i think that deradicalization programs where they are public partnerships, they can benefit from both sides of it. they can say, you are protected in a certain area. but what i do now is directly aiming at abolishing these central principles. these constitutionalized. if this system that you're propagating, would be realized, 100%, right now, in the u.s., would any person who is not part of your group, racial group or religious group, have different, or same rights of how we can treat them from today, tomorrow, try to force them to the country, would you put them in camps? would you grant them much lesser rights of speech? would they have to pay an extra tax?
would they get killed right away? so these indicators are very essential in figuring out where you're going. >> thank you, daniel. you know, it's -- i can feel the response in the audience from americans. that this is a very european perspective. >> it is. >> yeah. and in this country, we let an awful lot of stuff fly. i wonder again, rashad, how does the united states, which is barely -- barely put its toe in the water in intervention, how does it find that way? >> i think actually it's a couple things. in the uk, it's a balanced process. so there can not be any coercive approach towards individuals. either they choose to engage or they don't.
if they choose to engage then it's a process with the whole deradicalization. in that sense, it is something that the state supports lends its support. >> if they're radical, why do they engage? >> this is the question, why do radicals engage? i don't know if i should make any comments. the thing is why do people take steps forward because they fundamentally believe they have something to offer. and maybe they believe they have something authentic to offer to give back to humanity or society. or that it's either benevolent or an improvement. they want to engage for the radical world that is generally better for the u.s., for their community, or for the country. so, actually, that's one reason,
they want to present it. secondly, with a lot of individuals, obviously, they want what they're doing known. human beings aren't black and white, there are generally a set of complexities. the reason you have leakage is because people also want an intervention. it's the same reason why people who talk about suicide. because they are feeling -- and when they do, we know we should take it seriously. but actually, they're reaching out as well. so, there's those factors. in almost all cases, you have a high level of people. i do think there are early interventions and the problem really is it seems like we're controlling the political persuasion of people. in that sense, i think there's a very reasonable part in the uk.
and why it's impossible in the u.s. because they're talking about extremism being illegal. or liberal. or banning organizations that promote or undermine democracy or human rights. there are lots of people that go from the right and left wing, especially in the uk who are fighting against that because it is quite a horrific conservative requested idea. on the other side of that, i think there's a moral imperative, a civil society, as
a whole, to stand up and do something about this. and so, what really you have with it, is a partnership between government and between civil societies. they actually -- actually a civil society can engage in a deradicalization process. and governments actually support this. if there's say sociopolitical interest in doing so. actually the argument in an economic basis is sound. on a social moral perspective, we can't sit back and do nothing. we've had a huge number of migrants out of syria and iraq. between 1 million and 2 million people at the european borders. people are talking about are we taking extremists into europe and all sorts of debates?
we've exported a brigade of 5,000 extremists to go and join isis. on one hand we have a moral responsibility to not send terrorists abroad, which is what we've been doing. and hence my point earlier that actually we have contained, incubated these things. >> angela, i'm trying to find this line or this balance between public and private. you're deputy director of a private ngo. if you can, talk about in abstract if you like, what's the right relationship between an ngo that does early interventions and the government? or should there not be one at all? >> are you trying to get me in trouble? >> not at all. >> we can all play a part in interventions and disengagements
but we have to define the roles and what's needed and who is best suited for each different aspect. so, for instance, the easiest example i can give is when i was an adolescent and becoming radicalized, i was headed toward violence. i'm always asked what would have stopped you? what could have been done? what kind of person could have approached you? what would you have heard that would have changed your mind. i've thought about this for years, and i know the kind of teenager i was, it would have taken someone with real life experience that actually understood what i felt, what i was going through, the obstacles that i faced, the issues that i dealt with.
so i think when we go out and look at these relationships, there has to be support. there have to be people that can go out and act. there have to be all of these different aspects of it. this may be unpopular, and i apologize if it is. i do not believe that relationship between ngos like mine and say law enforcement should in any way be intelligence. it should not be telling on people, giving up information. if we're to truly go in there and do this work, we have to create communities of trust. another example i can give, when we get feedback, for instance we recently produced four psa messages. we targeted individuals currently involved in the violent far right in the u.s.
we expected a negative response but in essence what we're doing out there is saying, number one, we have been there. we've had the experience. we know what it's like. so behind closed doors when you're feeling like this really isn't what you thought it was going to be, you know, there are things that you just didn't understand, those feelings of guilt or shame or doubt are creeping in, we get a response from some individuals that is so intense, so filled with rage, and we'll hear things like you're the worst traitors of all because you knew the truth and you walked away. those are the kind of responses that are telling us we're striking nerves. we're doing a good job because those individuals that are voicing that, they are probably the ones that are having those doubts. they're the ones entertaining them and they feel ashamed. they think they're going to get
caught. they don't know what to do. so when we look at things like that and start to build these relationships between government, between ngos and people on the ground, we need to keep this in mind. i'm going to be a lot more successful going out and doing some intervention work, some cve, because i'm a credible voice. because i've been there. and especially with the far right in the u.s., we're dealing with people that cling to conspiracy theories, paranoia, they already don't trust the government or law enforcement. so we need to be very clear about those lines in the relationship there. so there's always room for collaboration. we all have a part to play. we just need to define those roles very carefully. >> thank you. daniel, you had a point you want to make. >> i want to comment on this problematic or highly debated question of the relationship between an intervention program, the clients and authorities,
security agencies. i know that there are programs run by intelligence agencies who just use that for hard intelligence gathering, names, addresses, group structures, anything like that, which actually hurts the idea of intervention but also hurts the families. it puts the family at risk or the social environment at risk and it's accepting risk to burn them by simply getting a couple of names. but i'm very positive about counterterrorism acquisition programs. many people think, i suspect in the u.s., that it is seen as a weird, soft approach to something that should be handled by the pros, by agents, fbi, intelligence. so if you look at how do deradicalization programs operate, many include former military, they know what they're doing.
they do risk assessment in an area that overlaps. you can identify concrete aspects like reduce manpower of a terrorist group. you pull out human skills and knowledge out of that group. the group needs to refill that gap. needs to invest resources in recruitment and train other people within the hierarchy and it's proven that this organizational cost that you put onto these groups by getting people out can even cause a complete collapse of a terrorist group or radical cell. plus, what i would call soft intelligence gathering. i'm not talking about individual names and addresses but for example you locate where a new recruiter is active or a new group is active or a new topic of recruitment is active or a new style of jihadism has emerged. obviously that's something that you can pass onto the authorities. you gain a lot, especially knowledge about radicalization process, about connections that you can use in training and
skill building for probation staff and police and for teachers that is very, very influential and very important, and you make the work of law enforcement much easier and much more effective by providing tha easier, much more effective by providing that additional angle. working with families of informers or people who want to get out themselves closes the gap of that network, counterterrorism network and helps to remove a blindfold of that area, that social milieu where radicalization occurs and you can help the police to become much more effective. >> thank you. i want to open it up for questions, but before i do, i want to ask lorenzo a final one i'm in a think tank. you're in a think tank. we have to think in our tanks about what kind of policies come out of this stuff. you and i have been thinking a
lot about why it is we don't have intervention programs in the united states for political radicalism. even angela's program is unique in this country. i know working on jihadism there's the word organization in d.c. and some others that work on it. but it's still in its vay nascent stage. there hasn't been a lot of support from the u.s. government for these kind of efforts. i've got my own ideas as to why, but i'm curious why you think there hasn't been a groundswell in the government for these kind of programs. >> a very good question. i think there's a combination of reason, overlapping reasons there. first of all, there's not really even a debate into building intervention when it comes to the right. the debate is on the jihadist threat. it's something, again, we can
discuss. but even on that side we've seen a lot of talk but very little resources, very little action. think there's a variety of reasons. the threat has not been that big, the domestic side, from european countries. we've never seen the sense of urgency that exists in european countries. if you look at which european countries have been the most active, they've both been touched by some kind of attack. >> lorenzo, is it even worth doing so? >> i'm saying yes. that has pre vented the initial trigger. the dutch have been very active there's a trigger event. the boston marathon bombing, i think that has been a bit of a
trigger. boston is a pilot city. to some it is justified, the numbers here are so much smaller than most european countries. there's not that sense of urgency add to that that the tools are so much more powerful. at the end of the day the fbi can do nice sting operations which no european law enforcement agency can do. it's a very safe space. we can talk about the problems. if you're the fbi, it's a very nice tool to have, very effective from that point of view. acknowledging somebody that has written a lot about these things, jerry. the fbi is an organization very much based on numbers. if you run a field office, you
make a good name for yourself based on the number of people you prosecute, not the number of people you pre vented from radicalizing. the fbi has this sort of mentali mentality, not in a negative way, prevents the discourse to go forward. >> would you say it's political as well? reading the chapel document, that document is a very sober document. they talk about risk, what happens if someone goes through the program and carries out the act, who gets the blame, what happened? my sense here in addition to everything you say is that politically, also, no one wants to put their name on this kind of program because they're terrified one person goes to the program, carries out the attack. the program's done the person's career is done. >> but i think that's the reality in which we are now which is problematic. we are seeing, as i was saying earlier that the fbi and more in
general the counterterrorism community understands that they need to use these kind of tools. they are occasionally, spore radically doing it, but without clear guidelines. we see cases when it comes to minors, cases like connelly, people with mental issues, the case in denver, where the fbi does this kind of interventions, but they don't have guidelines on how to do that. the legal part is one of the big ones. that's one things that to some degree we'd advocate as a center, do it with the right training, the right knowledge, the right partners and do it with the right legal guidelines. that goes for the fbi but also goes for people in the community that want to help. it's a concern we hear from people in the community, they do want to help. but without clear guidelines they are afraid that engaging with somebody was an extremist and potential to become a terrorist, they'll be charged
with supporting terrorism. to work in that space where most people recognize the next step for u.s. counterterrorism policies domestically, it needs to happen with clear guidelines coming from the top. i think that's what we're not seeing. >> the top means department of justice? >> that's one of the other problems we see is there's a lot of entities that are fighting on who should be running that space. the whole alphabet soup of agencies there, everybody sort of claiming one part of the portfolio. they do not have a leading agency there, although some things are moving there. but those all those issues will be taken together and then there's really nobody in charge of this. >> let me open it up to the
audience, please. let's see. down front here. >> thanks very much, a fascinating discussion. i'm garrett mitchell and i write the mitchell report. i want to focus, if i can, specifically, i want -- on the jihadi and isis sort of cluster and pose two questions, if i can. one is as opposed to far right radicals, knee nazis, et cetera. one is some of us have attended sessions in this very room on the role of messaging and counternarratives. i would be interested to know, particularly as i listen to what when i listen to what angela had to say, i'm interested to know
whether and to what extent you think messaging and counternarratives can have some success in this process of keeping people from stepping over the edge. second, if it's appropriate or if there's time, i'm interested to know what -- how you evaluate the considerable work that the saudis do on this and how you evaluate that. >> very we have a question about the efficacy of countermeasuring and the specific question about the saudis. >> i'll take the saudi part: obviously there's a history of programs in the middle east and saudi arabia.
i think they would classify as an active government, highly ideological program. what they try to do, with a lot of money and effort to replace jihadism which is not that far away. nothing of what they do could work in a western country, to be clear. what they do is they have this very strong sense of what is necessary in the practical sense, getting financial support to marry, financial support, buy a home. they finance the families to come in and meet them in prison. the practical dimension is very good. i think there's no western country who would put so much resources in for that kind of work. in terms of evaluating it, there's no deradicalization in that planet that would not claim 100% high success rate.
the saudis say they have a 95% success rate. if i remember correctly, it was a year or two years ago where they arrested an 88-member cell. there were 50 that were graduates from the program. there were a number of terrorist plots by graduates of the program. no scientific evaluation of the program whatsoever. the only information that comes are people who run it and finance it, 95% success rate. >> i'm very critical and skeptical. i am convinced deradicalization can be evaluated, should be evaluated and can be effective. there are a lot of questions like data access, the relationship of the researcher and the program who finance it, who has an interest in the positive or negative evaluation. it's highly complex and
political. i think the saudi program is so popular in the muslim majority world is because it's very outspoken because we sit down and teach them the right form of islam and sit down and debate them out of it. in western countries i've never seen it happen in practice: they have no reason to listen. they say you're not a real muslim. why should i listen to you, your government-paid westernize muslim or government muslim. they simply say it because they want to get out of prison earlier. i think it's an interesting program, taken into account what can be done practically in terms of art classes, financial support and sustainability. the ideological component, i'm very critical about that.
there needs to be a real evaluation. >> michelle, on the question of countermessaging, is it worthwhile to do given that isis has gone out of its way to anger most muslims in the word. you don't light a fellow sunni muslim on fire unless you intend to put your finger the eye of every muslim. we don't message as a government against neo nazi iism. mainstream culture has already decided it's a pretty vital ideolo ideology. should we be doing kountd measuring. >> i think it fits into the last question as well. the saudi program is essentially saying you should only really engage in acts of terrorism when we tell you to do so. otherwise it's just wrong.
that's the substance of that kind of theology. that's what it boils down to: there's the credibility thing that you mentioned, when you engage with somebody in prison, you're acting for the state. if you denied state, you're starting at a negative already. having said that, i experienced something very different in the uk that we've had a little bit over 100 cases over the last six or seven years. actually in that space, the overriding majority that we looked at, where there has been a theological or ideological component in deradicalization, it has taken place in the continuous engagement since. in my experience, it can be done. i just don't believe the religious perspective of the
saudis is necessarily the most appropriate way to do it. looking in indonesia, morocco, egypt, all have various techniques. i understand nesia does the wrap-around thing where they do the ideological dimension, the theology and taking care of the individual and their families, et cetera, on cases where they convict terrorists. they have a lot we can learn from thisn that respect. this is why the messaging, if it's calibrated appropriately and has the right messenger, it can be effective and influential. there are various different groupings of people if you'd like. you the bloodthirsty neo sociopath who wants to join isis because they've burnt this ju r jordanian pilot alive because, as you explain in your book, they are successful -- sorry. i will recant.
. they're sociopaths and attracted to the savagery. the other thing that's interesting is the management, a book about how you need to be savage in order to win. that's what modern jihadism should be. one of the things you mentioned, he talks about the random killing of women and chill of women, children and civilians. you explain this is in direct contra vengs of a rare prophetic saying, which is. [ speaking foreign language ] . coming from an academic voice which is not political.
which is someone just looking at it, would resonate with a lot of the young people i speak to. it's not muslim but academic who is more interested in politics but is just pointing out your religion is not blood thirsty in that sense and therefore that actually does have a resonance with people. i say that experientially because i engage with young individuals from various different spectrums. in that sense messaging if it's calibrated appropriately from different messengers so, yes, the u.s. state may not be the most credible messenger toward jihadi. it's fairly reasonable to say. then there will be academic voices like yourself and muslim voices and there will be theological voices and then people at various levels of persuasion. some that buy into the politics where their religion tells them, no matter how much you dislike a particular government, it never justified a terrorist act. then that messaging will have that impact. it depends really. that's not a great answer of calibrating and getting the
right messenger will determine how effective the messaging it. i firmly believe it can be effective. >> gentleman in the brown jacket here in the middle. yeah. >> thank you. my maim is stefan leader, a retired analyst but worked in the state department for in a unit in the state department group called the counterterrorism communication center. the strategy that we worked on at that time was to mobilize voices in the islamic community to do the countermessaging that we've been talking about, not from the u.s. government but to mobilize people in islamic community, which would be perhaps more acceptable voices to the target audience that we're talking about. and i think that's still a valid approach.
i would be interested in further comments on that. >> if i could put a wrinkle on that as well and angela and lorenzo, please jump in. what happens when the communities don't radicalize? like we're talking about far right extremism. there's not been a big movement to push back against that. you were saying that yours is one of the first in the united states to push back against that. you're saying yours is one of the first in the united states to push back. does the government need to fill that space? does it need to quietly encourage nongovernmental organizations to do it or should it be more laissez-faire about it and sit back and wait to see what happens? >> from my perspective, i know the numbers aren't great, but i don't think we can afford to wait to see what happens. i'll give an example for that. it could be something as simple
as a community being empowered with knowledge. what do we do if we see x, y and z? and for that example i'll use the charleston shooting. that individual publicly stated to several people that he was going to go out and commit acts of violence. if that community was empowered, if they weren't afraid or think i don't want to call the police, who do i go to? i don't know if it's a credible threat. and with that example i will say that we can't afford not to do something. we can't afford to say the numbers aren't that big so we can just let it go. the numbers are getting bigger.
certainly not on the scale, you know, with other things that we've seen, but there's a problem. >> when you say we, you mean private citizens need to mobilize to set up more ngos like yours? >> well, i'm into all kinds of stuff. i tow the academic field, some other stuff. i would say we as a community. all of us who are engaged in this kind of work whether it's on the academic side, whether it's on intervention, cve, counternarratives, policy, that's what i mean by all of us. >> needs to take extremism more seriously. >> absolutely, yes. >> let me get another question -- >> can i? >> sure. >> there is something that you can avoid that happened in britain and to a large extent across different european countries. the failure in britain was that civil society didn't stand up against the phenomenon of radical islamism. that's why the government is acting with these fairly aggressive counterextremism
policies, in terms of banning organizations, give asbos -- an antisocial behavior order, where we stop individuals speaking in public because they have extreme views. i mean, i think that reaction is terrible but the reaction is because civil society has failed to challenge the ideology. what do i mean by that? i mean we have as an example the leader of the labor party, the leader of the opposition in the u.k., the main opposition in the u.k. who is someone that's invited someone to come into parliament in the u.k. who describes hezbollah and hamas as his friends. these are blood thirsty organizations that do a lot of good social work but they have terrorist fringes as part of their makeup. yet civil society has allowed them to be incubated within parts of mainstream society.
this is one area where we can benefit and heed the words of jon stewart mill which was, look, don't embrace your values as historic tradition. you forget why you fought for separation of powers. why you decided there should be no religious test in your constitution. there's a reason and rationale why you decided that when you formed your constitution. it's the same reason why it's amazing, that we see some of the presidential candidates that we see. essentially the values underpin intellectually you have to stand up for and this is why we see regressive measures and i think that comes in both with your muslim communities and everybody, muslim or not, must share that stake in standing up for the american dream or whatever your particular aspirations and values are life, liberty and fruit of the loom.
>> fruit of the loom. what can i say? i think what rashad is saying is fitting to the u.k. dynamics but doesn't apply to the u.s. a lot of what we discuss is very country specific. you said it works in saudi but not in other countries. here in the u.s. we do not have a problem of communities radicalizing. we have a problem of scattered individuals. occasionally there's more clusters of four or five individuals, similar to an online community, but it's a completely different dynamic. the countermessaging, the working with communities, great3 stuff. it can't hurt but in some cases if not done properly it can actually hurt. for the most part we're talking about individuals here and there who are radicalizing. we're communities but are generally rejecting radical messages unlike important part
of the british community. it's a very different dynamic here. some of the big role of the state, social engineering, the needs for the communities to really speak out, i'm not saying it would hurt in the u.s. but not necessarily needed. it's not a matter of communities. maybe there's something to be said about the part of the community in minneapolis but it's generally few of the individuals not part of the community. shameful in pitching our stuff but a study we did on isis in america looking at the 70 individuals indicted in the u.s. for links to isis since 2014. 40% of them are converts, don't really belong to communities. most of them are new converts that people for a variety of reasons but in most cases belong to the fourth category rashad
was saying. people with some weird personal issues radicalize. outreach to communities doesn't do much in that case. a lot of this stuff doesn't really apply to the u.s. >> thank you. let me gather a few questions. gentleman in the baseball cap in the back. >> thank you very much for an interesting discussion. my name is ken donte. my work was with addicts as a therapist. i wanted to see if there was a comparison to addiction treatment. people need information to self-diagnose. you can diagnose them forever, but if they don't have a self-diagnosis, they don't take steps. part of that is a measure of soul sickness. i've seen that even in guys who were in combat who were working with radical organizations and even people in the idf got disgusted with what they were doing and had to make a journey but they also needed to have individuals around them that would serve as elders, a sponsor
in aa or in recovery, but perhaps it would be someone who had charisma of going through this difficult journey back. i wonder if you might want to talk about that comparison if that holds valid. >> let me gather a few more questions. there was one in the back. nope. her hand is not going up. there it is. >> hello. my name is clara o'connor. i would love to hear the panel's view on some of our quote/unquote allies approach to countering violent terrorists. for example, egypt and turkey and israel. >> thank you. let's take another. down here in front, please. >> thank you very much for a fascinating discussion. i'm curious if any of your
groups or you know of other groups that might actually have become a target for some of these violent extremists? when you think of the example that you end up dismembering a cell, it's just a very soft way of destroying it, right? ultimately you are an enemy. i'm curious if that's something that's of concern. >> thank you very much. let's take those questions. just to remind you, we have a question about similarities -- we have a question about the way states in the middle east handle radicalization with egypt, turkey and israel. and then finally about whether any of you or if you heard of
anyone being a target as a consequence of doing this radicalization work. >> i think, yes, there is that risk for people that get involved. with regards the -- essentially the psychology of individual deradicalization, i loathe to try to pathologyize it. @as though it's somehow sub human. i think it's fairly normal. we tend to live in liberal bubbles and the rest of the world isn't really like that which i think comes to my -- the last question which is, yes, some of the horrific practices of the egyptian government are something we should stay very
far away from in terms of suppressi suppressing. we may think their ideas are horrific, but we shouldn't be supporting the horrific supp pregs. whether or not we think it's effective or not is irrelevant. it's just wrong. israel really -- how long have you got? i'm going to avoid israel. turkey has become more and more authoritarian, and that is a problem. >> daniel, yes, please. >> i have an anecdote. at a conference i met colleagues from turkey and the conference was about deradicalization. i talked about deradicalization talks. turkish colleagues say, yes, we
do deradicalization. we kick in their doors and hit them on their head and put them in jail. that's their way of deradicalizing, eliminating the threat. i know they have changed and have stronger community policing aguirre aspects where police officers would go uninvited and hand out gifts and be present and be nice and be open. to my knowledge they don't have individual deradicalization intervention programs. there was the question of the threat against people engaging in that work. i think you have differentiate and those who are not professionals and come from another back ground. it's the way you frame these counternarratives.
to give you another example, i'm leading a group together with the inspiration group called mothers for life, a group of mothers from nine countries across the globe who all have lost their sons and daughters, most killed in syria and iraq. and these mothers wrote an open letter to islamic state and posted it on various social media sites. you can find everything about that online. the idea was next to formers, mothers are in essential position to challenge beliefs and ideologies because there is this famous saying of the prophet, paradise lies at the feet of your mother. irregardless of the background language, she is still the mother and has something to say about that. we wrote that letter, deliberately used certain jihadi terms, described how these mothers felt after their sons
and daughters had been killed, without their mothers having a chance to intervene. would you guess how long it took for the islamic state to respond? 3 1/2 hours. they tried to scorn and ridicule the message. after a couple of days when the letter was translated into eight, nine, ten languages, they shift their response and posting jihadi recruitment videos saying, well, you might have a point there but jihad is really something different. you misunderstood what we actually do. here are videos showing we just work out and it's training and it's nice. the response shifted from ridiculing and rejecting to acknowledging parts of the message and trying to turn it around. we were able to engage in a message. none of these were directly threatened after that. even me as a family counselor or as an expert, i was never actually threatened, directly
threatened. and what you said, of course, it is dismembering these groups, of course it's dismembering the ideology and empowering those who are really, really dangerous to these groups by their simple biography, by their simple natural being. i think this can be done in a way that these gripes don't even recognize what has happened. it's simply getting more difficult to recruit, more difficult to hold your members in the cell. suddenly you are engaged in an internal controversy or argument with your own members why the person left, why the comrade left, why are these mothers saying we shouldn't go to syria, and we've been told the mothers are so important. so you create much more noise within these groups that potentially create doubt and fallout from the other sites which you can use -- and rifts and all that stuff. >> we have time for two more
very quick questions, if anyone has burning questions? all right. answered everyone's questions. lorenzo, a final one for you. and that is, if you had one recommendation to make to the u.s. government thinking through this stuff, you've looked at this issue in europe, you've looked at it in the united states what would that issue be? >> one, it's resources. the bottom line has been a lot of talk about resources. at the same time we do not need a massive large scale program like the saudis or some of the europeans. the problems are very limited, numberwise. so what i think we've been arguing as a center is a target of interventions accompanied by the engagement which is useful not just cbe, but securitizing
the relationship which is problematic per se. keep the engagement but at the same time start the intervention programs with partnerships, community, open up the space for civil society, ngos to be partners, obviously with clear guidelines for everybody. i think it's something that can be done relatively cheap based on pre-existing structures and i think would allow more enforcement to zero in on the problematic cases and not spend resources on a 15-year-old who is on facebook just googling baghdadi and killing shias because it's a phase and would allow the fbi to zero in. it's a matter of resources put in the right way. >> thank you very much. please join me in thanking our panel today. [ applause ]
tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span, race and the criminal justice system in the u.s. a national correspondent from the atlantic magazine will join the discussion on how mass incarceration has impacted black families in the u.s. here is a look of some of what you'll see. >> no solution has been more disastrous than the policy of mass incar ration. it's our solution we choose to use for mental health issues. until relatively recently it was a solution we used for drug issues in the african-american community. there was a piece in "the new york times" about two weeks ago. it was talking about how heroin use was rising among white people in this country, this alarming rise of heroin use. i could not help but note the
very sympathetic and benevolent tone that was taken when you talked about heroin use among white people. compare that to the time in which i grew up in the 1980s, when we were very, very much worried about crack. i was worried about crack, too. the tone was not benevolent. it was not sympathetic, in large part it was an argument for incarceration. i don't think you can separate the solutions away from how we view folks. >> talk about that a little bit. there was -- crime rates were much higher in the '60s and '70s when the country embarked on this. >> yes. >> you also made the argument, as you were just alluding to, that this fear of crime was actually connected to a deeper history of the portrayal of brack criminality in this country. >> when i started doing the article, i lived through the rise in crime.
there's no dispute that crime rose. i was in west baltimore, i knew how kids understood their neighborhood when they were growing up and when i grew up. no dispute that crime had risen. one of the mysteries of connecting crime and incarceration is the fact that -- >> sorry. we're sorting out the audio. >> one of the discrepancies for me was, in fact, when you drawback and you look at the world as a whole, in fact, crime did not just rise in african-american communities and did not even just rise in america, it rose in canada, in england, the nordic countries. this was an international phenomenon. the united states is unique for embracing incarceration as a solution. why did we do that i think very much in our thinking is the idea that, if people are committing crimes, jail is the best way to address it, especially the draconian -- talking double,
triple. i'm not completely against the idea of jailing people who are a danger to the community, but the kra doanian nature that we do it is very, very interesting. how did we end up with 25% of the world's prison population? how did we end up with a situation where we have an incarceration rate of 700 per 100,000. how did we end up with our nearest competitor is russia? what exactly happened? i don't think that can be separated from the fact that we have a very, very unique population in this country, african-americans, 40 million and a very, very unique history with that group of people. >> the discussion also includes sentencing reform and community interaction with police. you can see all of today's conversation on race and the criminal justice system in the u.s. tonight starting at 8:00
eastern on c-span. >> c-span's road to the white house continues on friday from orlando at the sunshine summit. the two-day event brings together presidential candidates along with state and federal officials. friday morning at 10:30 eastern, the lineup includes florida senator marco rubio, texas senator ted cruz, south carolina senator lindsey graham, former arkansas governor mike huckabee, former florida governor jeb bush, donald trump and ben carson, and live on saturday morning starting at 10:00 eastern, more from the republican sunshine summit with former pennsylvania senator rick santorum, louisiana governor bobby jindal, kentucky senator rand paul, new jersey governor chris christie, john kasich and carly fiorina.
taking you on the road to the white house on tv, the radio and c-span.org. . /* a signature feature of "book tv" is our coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with interviews and viewer call-in segment. coming up, live from the miami book fair. authors include representative john lewis discussing his book "march, book two." a live call in with author peggy noonan who talks about the book "the time of our lives." journalist judith miller discusses her book "the story." newsman ted koppel on his book "lights out: a cyber attack, a nation unprepared. on sunday speak with p.j. o'rourke who takes your calls on "thrown under the only bus."
and then joy ann reid will take calls about her book "fracture." join us on c-span2's "book tv" starting november 21st. call or tweet us @booktv and @cspan on twitter. what's the best way to save for retirement? the center for american progress and sworts center for economic policy analysis, hosted a discussion on the way to increase the number of americans saving for retirement. panels saved thoughts on social security and refundment tax credits. this is about 90 minutes. >> please join me in welcoming shawn o'brien, assistant policy director for health and retirement at afl-cio. gary cain nick is vice president of economic and consumer
security at the aarp public policy institute. diane oakley is executive director of national center for retirement security and eric rodriguez is vice president of research, advocacy and legislation at the national council of laraza. thank you for being with us. eric rodriguez, i'd like to start with you. there's a lot of discussion about the coming retirement crisis. too often the related policy discussion seems to be missing. how do we get more attention for the economic struggles of older americans that takes into account the growing inadequacy of family's retirement savings. >> well, that's a good question. in the time i've been in washington, i've seen the debate around retirement issues change and develop over that time: you used to be able to save and
accrue retirement in a couple of ways, one strong coalition business, seniors organizations and labor pushing through changes that were very important for workers. as things have become more individualized in terms of reliance on savings and retirement security, it's meant you have to change the way you think about advancing and advocating for changes, retirement savings, tools, changes in the code: there's a lot of great ideas out there. we'll talk about california, illinois, other states. i think what you're seeing is different and broader coalitions, constituencies that are coming together saying, hey, we need to do something about the savings and retirement situation that we have out there and pushing for those changes in a much broader way than we've seen before. one way has been constituencies and the need to broaden constituency support. the oerks quite frankly, has been in major tax overhauls
where you've had a situation where the top will benefit tremendously from the outcome of that conversation. i think you have good government types who will say, hey, shouldn't we be doing something for the low income. that's really what 2001 tax reform is about. that's how we got the child tax cred credit, was in a debate like that, where you didn't need a strong constituency push, but you needed really smart people who knew how to get something done in an overall package. i think fundamentally that's changing, and we have to bring more groups and organizations, individuals and workers to the tab table. >> gary, i'd like to bring you into this as well. we're in the midst of an election cycle. tax reform discussions are thought by many to be on the horizon and perhaps in the very near future. this could especially benefit
retirement savings. as we heard this morning, savings incentives make up such a large share of the tax code. although, as a new report issued today by the center for american progress finds, many of those incentives are overwhelmingly complex, hard to understand and they make it difficult for workers to take advantage as a result. in addition, many are skewed in favor of high income earners. how can we get more policy experts like your see, like the folks we've had here today to consider tax incentives as an area that they should care about and as one that's ripe for improvement? >> that's very good question. the one thing i would say before i get into the tax reform aspect of it is we have a pretty good idea of what works for retirement savings that, is access to a payroll deduction retirement plan through work and also plan designs, automatic enrollment, automatic
escalation. tax reform i think can compliment those features. we shouldn't lose sight of that. with respect to tax reform, i think in order to have impact in that debate, we need to talk savings, so focus on making the tax code simpler, focused on making it more efficient, going to be focused on pro growth and making it fair. i think with respect to retirement savings, we can hit those buckets. we can come up with a tax system, savings incentive system that is fair, that is simpler and that is pro growth i think that's a argument, savings is a pro growth proposal. it is a pro grom part for the
econo economy. i think we need to emphasize that. one thing i'm in favor of is reforming the savers credit. i would love for that to be made simpler and go directly into the account because it would build savings. >> how can we get more retirement policy folks to see tax as something they should be focusing on? >> i think it's making sure they understand the value. right now the way our tax system works, it works well -- our retirement savings system works well for some, but for too many it doesn't work well enough. i think there's an opportunity for us to improve it so it works as well for the other part of the population for whom it doesn't work well enough and who, in fact, need more savings. more important for them in terms of their retirement security. >> sean o'brien, turning the the
politics of tax reform. with the exception of the rare bipartisan cooperation we've seen in recent days with the budget deal actually moving through the house and early this morning through the senate and now being to president obama's desk to be signed, we're generally living in an era that most people agree is hyper polarized, gridlock is the word of the day. which policy steps related to tax reform and the kind of savings incentives we're talking about today do you see as having the best chance or any chance of success and does paul ryan's election as speaker change anythi anything. >> i think there's an interesting thing about paul ryan in particular. i read a tweet from a reporter yesterday basically saying, for paul ryan, what's going to
happen in the next year? there's no budget to worry about. we're not going to have immigration reform not going to do anything about entitlements? we don't know and we don't know where where speaker ryan would come now the terms of his interest or not in addressing retirement savings. if you look in the past, his interest has been about social security privatization, cuts in social security benefits. on the other hand he certainly has shown himself open to radical -- embracing radical ideas in terms of changing tax code incentive. for example, getting rid of the current tax incentives for workplace health care plans and
replacing that with flat dollar credits. actually refundable dollar credits may tell us something or not about his willingness to embrace or at least consider refundability of the saver's credit. as we think about opportunities for retirement savings in tax reform, i think the first thing that comes to mind really is the -- we have to worry about the threats to the retirement savings system a lot of times it's looked at as a piggy bank for congress to pay for things they want to do. if you look at paul ryan's predecessor, the chair of the ways and means committee would have proposed, he would use changes to pay for other things. you referenced the budget deal. let's look at that budget deal and what was included there.
there was stuff on retirement and they used it to pay for other things. i learned after having been in washington for a while i wasn't cynical enough because the first version of the agreement that was released included certain changes for better pension rules, higher premiums had to be paid to the pbgc as well as changes in the funding rules. that would have generated i think 5.1 billion over ten years. and within 24 hours they changed what they did to a 50% increase in the money they were getting from it. it's hard to believe this all came from a heartfelt desire to protect pensions. it really was about raising money for other things. it's important to keep that in mind. there's a threat to the workplace based retirement
systems i think in terms of what ideas are most likely to be looked at, unfortunately, some of it we would consider to be more marginal even though it may or may not be worth doing, changing some of the rules to create incentives for more efficient retirement plan designs. there seems to be a fair amount of bipartisan interest in something called multiple employer plans which would allow for -- targeting smaller employers to come together in a plan they don't have to -- employers themselves don't have to to run. there has been a lot of interest in changing the saver's credit. gary talked about it and certainly the first panel talked about it a lot. it's hard to gauge how much energy there is there and whether or not you can get republican support for refundability. i think some of these structuring questions we've heard a lot about today are
really important as the retirement savings incentives. interestingly, the proposal initially was a bipartisan proposal. i think the original republican co-sponsors of that all lost their re-election races. but it has been bipartisan in the past there may be an opportunity for discussion around proposals like that. >> diane oakley, i think what we're hearing is maybe questions marks at best about how much we can see at the federal level in this space: even if we were to see forward progress at the federal level to make savings incentives work better, be more efficient, other policy efforts would be needed to make sure we see more people save for retirement and take advantage of those kind of incentives. are there steps outside congress people can take and steps state
policymakers should consider? >> it's a great question. part of the idea is the federal government can't do it on its own. what's really important for the federal government to understand and even the state government -- legislators to understand is individuals know they can't do it on their own. in fact, we've asked americans, do you agree with this statement, i can't save enough for retirement on my own? three quarters of americans agree with that and 50% of them strongly. we have a study that says 84% of americans want higher priorities placed on retirement security. in fact, six out of ten people feel that way very strongly. so americans sort of -- i keep on saying they know what's in their 401(k) plans or they know they don't have one. that's where a lot of americans are. we know we have 40 million
americans -- 40 million households that have no retirement accounts. and so the next level is where do we go to find some solutions? the federal government's retirement policy under arissa has never been to expand coverage. arissa was really created to protect the promises that have been made. the bill gary mentioned, ectra, i forget the whole title of it, that 2001 tax bill that was not major tax reform, by the way. it wasn't something like the '86 act which we're talking about in some of the discussion here. but that bill was the first time that really congress passed federal legislation in creating the saver's credit that really focused on where the problem is. when you look at who does not have a retirement account, it's the bottom half of the population by income. the lowest income quartile, only
about one in four households have a retirement account. if you look at the next quartile, it's about half. that's really where we have a big gap. we have a gap in the level of savings entirely. the saver's credit is targeted towards those individuals. it's worked to a modest extent. it is a modest proposal. it got more modified as it does -- john was mentioning how all of a sudden the new bill doubled the amount or increased by 50% for the retirement community. when the ectra bill was being put together, at one point in time, the saver's credit got cut by at least half when it was done. instead of giving everybody a 50% tax credit, they cut it down to 50, 25 -- 20 and 10. also, because it's not refundable for people at the
levels where you really need to get the incentive because they have no tax liability, thap don't get the same benefit that someone in the 39% bracket, where 40% of their pension contribution is supported by the tax law. they get none of that. so it's not surprising that they don't have savings. what we've seen is the states also realize -- because i think they're closer to their constituents because they're more districts locally. we have seen actually bipartisan efforts across the states, five states already have approved legislation. illinois may be the first state to move ahead with some type of auto ira. so the proposal for having automatic payroll reduction -- in other words, ask employers to make a commitment to employees to give them that access to payroll, so they can do that one thing that all works best when it comes to saving which is, if
you can think of paying yourself first when you get your paycheck, by putting your money into your retirement plan, that's the best way to save. and if you don't have payroll deduction, you don't do it at the end of the month. we know that especially for those incomes. individuals are willing to do that. so we've seen illinois adopt a bill that's going to be implemented i believe next year. california is in the midst of a study that should be finalized within the next couple months. we'll be moving forward, washington state, oregon, massachusetts and connecticut have looked at that. in essence, more than half the states have looked at and considered some type of legislation. a lot of the state treasures are taking action. the think i think is important and we have to link up a little better, we have to link up using that saver's credit to the state efforts, and that can be a really powerful tool because right now one of the things that happens with the saver's credit,
of the people 25% of the taxpayers would be eligible for the saver's credit based on their income. today 20% of25 actually make a contribution that would be eligible for the saver's credit which was also talked and i often talk about it more about a match from uncle sam to save for retirement and it's really important, especially if you're not going to get a match from your employer to understand there might be a match in the tax code. and then the next step of that is a key one which is right now, especially at the low income levels, 40% of the people who save open accounts don't go through the paperwork to get the saver's credit. as gary said, we don't put that credit into the account. if the states look and say we're going to create these accounts, one of the ways to grow these accounts faster is to put the match in the accounts, and then
the other piece to make it simpler is let's make that match stick. i think there would be a lot of agreement of saying at least the match that you get can't come out until you're retired. we heard earlier, my son might not go into this if he knows he can't get that money out until he's 65. maybe let him take his money but not let him take out the money that goes in from the tax code. i think there are some things that we could definitely do to make it better. i think we all have a lot more ideas. i was thinking earlier as everybody commented i could say something about what they had to say so i think they're going to have a great discussion. >> we're just at the very beginning, plenty of time left. so i want to give each of you a chance to also weigh in on additional policy steps that should be on the table. we've heard about the saver's credit, about auto iras. there's a general sense that the tax code is lopsided, that there's a lot more that benefits
the higher income households than those at the bottom. what additional policy steps have we not been talking about that need to be on the table at either the federal or the state level and i'll give that to anyone who wants to respond. >> i'll start although i know i'll sound like a broken record here so i apologize. to pick up on what diane said, the reason why i am a big supporter of expanded saver's credit is because i think it is doable and i think it can get bipartisan support. i think one of the keys for the saver's credit is not making it refundable but having it go into the account. don't debate the language for a second. >> we'll get to messaging in a minute. >> yes. but i think having it go into the account is ultimately our goal because what we want to do is build assets. i think that will make it simpler and compliment -- one of the things i said in my initial
comment, we should compliment the features and the policies that we know work and are effective. providing more access to payroll deduction savings plan we know is effective. doing auto enrollment we know is effective. the states are taking up where the federal government sort of fell off as shawn mentioned in terms of the auto ira. at the federal level we can have a saver's credit that goes into the account and would support what's happening at the state level. i think it's important to emphasize that this, i think, is something that's achievable in tax reform and meets a lot of our goals. >> yeah, i would just add, i think it dpenlepends on the pro we're trying to solve. are we trying to improve add wassy for certain savers. that leads you down a certain path. are we trying to bring into the retirement savings system those that have been left behind or not engaged. that takes you down a different
kind of road because you start to think about who are we talking about. we're talking about potentially low wage workers, those that don't automatically save in any other way that may be disconnected from the banking system, may be moving from job to job. that's a different set of things that you want to look at and you want to see how the tax system is influencing or affecting those particular workers and families. i'll say a couple things on that. there was actually a great -- i'm going to plug a cap study earlier this year. >> we'll let you do that any time you want. >> yes. right. they looked at the demographics so the big picture there was that. we've got three states that are majority/minority right now. that's going to go up to about 14 in the next few decades. what's happening to minority workers, how are they saving. it becomes a really important national question and also really important in a few states. for example, in california, we're studying it, looking at the retirement savings issue.
3 million latino workers don't have access to retirement savings in california. we've got to be able to dive into that, unravel that, and figure out what's going on with those particular workers if we're going to be able to substantially increase over all savings over time. the other issue that i think is really important related to this is a lot of the data that's coming out right now that's looking at wealth and equality and what's happening amongst households based on race and ethnicity is finding that even if you control or income, even if you control for employment status, you find real disparities in savings and wealth between african-americans, latinos and whites in their upper 20s that have good college degrees but they have student loan debt. they have significant amounts of debt that's preventing them from being able to engage in regular savings behavior. so even if you have strong
incentives on the retirement side, even if you have good access, you're going to run into problems if we're not also addressing some of these problems. and tax reform can look at what's happening for certain populations and segments and try to provide some relief and i think ultimately the right kinds of incentives. i agree, this is the issue with the saver's tax credit that i mentioned. we can get changes to the credit and a major tax reform overhaul but the question is at what cost. ultimately that's going to include a lot of other provisions in a tax reform package that could skew to the upper half of the income or the upper 1%, and you got to wonder are we really addressing the problem if that's the result we're getting. i mentioned we got saver's but we also got a refundable child tax credit in 2001 but i and others in the civil rights organizations oppose that bill for justifiable reasons. we're going to have to think about this more holistically but on the whole it depends on the
problem we're trying to solve and i think it's about workers who are not in the system, not saving or have different kinds much situations that we have been looking at as a long term investment. >> building off of that and i want to bring you in on this, shawn. given the political constraints we've been talking about this morning, are we in a place where, if we want to see those kinds of improvements and if we want bipartisan support we're going to have to find a way to pay for those improvements? shawn, do you have thoughts on that? >> first of all, i wanted to build on the point that eric was making. actually, a good conversation we had earlier in the week talking about this. a lot of the folks who we're talking about who are uncovered also don't have emergency savings and that relates to some
of the earlier discussion about leakage from retirement plans and how do we think about that. right now in most of the proposals out there there's no way to really grapple with that other than to concede that some people are going to have to access this money so let's put them into a roth ira so they can take out their contributions and not pay a penalty. i think this is an area where more work needs to be done and thinking about maybe there's a way to pare the need for short-term savings with some kind of features in the plan design to help people in that respect. it's an important area that we need to think about because otherwise we are going to have the leakage problem for people who go in or there are going to be plenty of people who aren't going in because they feel like they can't access the money easily enough and they may need it. i think on the question of paying for the reforms, as i noted earlier, my biggest
concern is that the retirement savings system is going to be asked to pay for other things who are going to take money away from it. that's certainly something that i would caution against. let's have the discussion about how do we use this money more effectively, but i think it would be a bad idea to talk about taking money away for deficit reduction or to pay for li limit tating or reducing capital gains taxes. that would be my biggest concern. a lot of people talk about tax reform as something that's revenue neutral. there are a lot of proposals that frankly would blow open giant holes in its budget because they don't replace the revenue but even in the context where it's being paid for as a