tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN April 6, 2016 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
education process. the reality is that the f-35 program, albeit it has gone through restructuring is on a path to deliver all the capability promised day one. it is going to cost more than what was estimated back in 2002 timeframe. those costs were rebaselined in 2010 and we have kept those under control to the extent that now we are reducing costs with time as the program gets more and more mature. what you are not hearing -- i think general bogdan touched on this -- the war fighters that are flying this plane, what their perception is. my comment in the opening statement was the marines love this aircraft. absolutely love this aircraft. this is what they plan to go to war with if called upon. i think that you are going to hear that overtake the other rhetoric over time as more and more of our air force, marine corps and navy pilots and our international partners climb into this cockpit, see what its capability is, train with it and
deploy with it over time. >> yes, mr. sullivan. >> your question is an excellent question. and it's not just the f-35 program. it's about the acquisition process. we do acquisition reform all the time. and actually, it has been improving the last few years. but the bottom line answer to this is, there's got to be a little truth in advertising when these weapons systems start up, because they're always started up with optimistic cost estimates and schedules. this program was originally planned to be completed, everything purchased by 2026. now that's 2038. and so that additional 12 years of funding -- >> that has as much to do with this side of the table as that side? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> so, i mean, that's what you are talking about is that's the congress is faced with unplanned funding for 12 years that they weren't planning on when they started. and i know, like i said, it's
not the f-35. it's most of the major weapon systems. they just don't have a good business case at the outset. the f-16 was a really good aircraft when it was delivered and it was simple. and it's not that simple anymore. it's a very complex aircraft. because they planned it properly. they had incremental planning on that, and they did upgrades. that's really what i think what this is all about. and so other priorities go by the wayside. >> thank you. i yield back. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to follow up on a discussion on requirements to make sure -- i flew airplanes. i never had to procure them. this process seems cumbersome to me. dr. gilmore, the air force chief of staff has said that the a-10 will not be replaced by the f-35 on the record within the last few weeks and said that to me in a conversation last week, surprising me. is the air force going to be updating their ord or whatever
you called it? >> the operational requirements document? i haven't heard that they are. >> to reflect that. >> i haven't heard they are. the f-35s are going to replace the f-16s. >> right. >> i'm a bit puzzled. all i know is what the existing document says. >> you know of no efforts to update that. and if it's -- >> i'm not aware of any. >> if it's going to replace the a-10 and f-16 but he is saying the f-16 will replace the a-10, but the f-35 will replace the f-16, we're still in the same situation where we are in specific circumstances for close air support we potentially have additional risk or a gap or capabilities that are going to be degraded which is why it's important we have this fly off. do you agree? >> well, i don't know whether the capabilities will be degraded. that's what the comparison testing is supposed to show. >> absolutely. >> that's why we're planning it to be absolutely fair. we're going to consider all the conditions under which close air support are done. all the different kinds of threats. it certainly will be a challenge.
in fact, the a-10 couldn't survive in the highest threat environments. we're looking at less stressing threats like the ones that the a-10 is being used in the environments it's being used in today. urban rural situations, buildings, vehicle personnel, different kinds of control for the close air support, different kinds of control interaction, all of the things that you know are done in close air support missions. we're going to set up the missions and then the a-10 pilots and the f-35 pilots will use those two aircraft to their best capabilities using whatever ttps they have. we're not going to specify how the missions are done. we're going to specify what the mission is and then we'll do match pairs -- comparisons of how well each set can perform their missions the way they choose to. >> thank you. it seems like there's just some different messages coming out of the pentagon. the secretary of defense said it will be replaced squadron by
will be replaced squadron by squadron with the f-35. we're asking questions. i highlighted this to the secretary. we will follow up with him and the chairman. between the air force and the setting of defense, they have two different messages going on. we believe that any movement forward should be conditional. let's have the test. let's get the results of the tests. then let's make a decision afterwards as to whether we're going to be increasing risk to our troops on the ground. i appreciate the time, chairman. thank you, gentlemen. i yield back. >> thank you. this is one of our most important and certainly largest programs. i want to thank each of you for your diligence in trying to ensure that this program reaches all of the capabilities that are obviously going to be necessary. because of that, before we conclude, knowing your diligence, i want to give each of you an opportunity if you have anything else you want on the record or you want to raise before the committee as we consider this, knowing that your input is incredibly important. if not, i know we have your
hillary clinton makes remarks in pittsburgh. and c-span 2 will have donald trump's remarks at 7:00 p.m. eastern. american history tv on c-span 3, this weekend. saturday night, 8:00 p.m., lectures in history. >> new factors making emancipation more attractive, with the result that by august of 1962, lincoln has decided that when the time is right, he will announce a new aim for the war effort that will add to a union, human freedom. >> tracy mckenzie about the evolving war goals of the north
in the civil war. then at 10:00 p.m. -- >> how is it possible for them to at the same time build an army. then the amazing reports came in, 20% of american industrial manpower was womanpower. forsaking the round of revelry for the grim task of war. >> this 1944 film shows that women working in manufacturing is the reason that germany lost the war. we visit an exhibit marking the 125th anniversary of this organization. founded in 1890.
>> this imagery of the apotheosis, it's an old concept, it goes back to ancient times, when a warrior is made godlike by lifting him up, and celebrating him. >> on the presidency at 8:00 p.m. >> washington and jefferson are the two most prominent examples of slave owning presidents, especially while occupying the white house. james madison, following jefferson, owned over 100 slaves, holding a large percentage while he occupied the white house. he's responsible for proposing and passing the 3/5ths vote.
>> and the 12 american presidents that were slave owners, eight of them while they were in office. for the complete schedule, go to cspan.org. a look now at philanthropy and american prosperity. karl zinsmeister spoke for about an hour, 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm a senior fellow at aei, and i'd to welcome you to tonight's bradley lecture. as always, we're very grateful to the line foundation, and
they've generously supported this lecture for a quarter century. and for 13 years, karl zinsmeister held the jb fuqua chair at aei. aei is a launching pad for many talented individuals, and karl's career since aei is one of the best examples. he's the author of 11 books, including a cookbook. he was an embed in iraq, and produced two books about what he wrote about when he was there. marvel comics invited him to write a nonfiction graphic novel
about his experiences there. and he produced a documentary film for pbs. he then became president george w. bush's domestic policy advisor. and worked at the stickley company. i remember the townhouse he single handedly renovated on capitol hill many years ago. he's renovated a total of seven properties, and now lives on a housebo houseboat. and he ovstarted a program for veterans and service members. the book on which tonight's lecture is based, the product of years of work. it has shaped his thinking about this lecture tonight.
please join me in welcoming karl. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. we're going to improvise very much today on the a/v. that's how it goes sometimes. you can't be a reporter without being able to improvise. i'm going to make it work here. i want to apologize for my voice. i am suffering from that dangerous malady, final four fever. my children are seventh generation residents of the county of upstate new york where we raised our kids. and i did a little bit of barking last night, i'm sorry. but i think i'll get through it here. and i want to thank aei for
hosting me. we go way back, i think we're bronosauruses here. i started working here in 1982, i think of it as the devonian era, when the fish were starting to walk out of the sea for the very first time. i was a data researcher, and my job was to strip mine information out of the census. and the real estate of the aei then was the gerald ford office. he had a couch built for the contours of an offensive lineman. i'm here to tell you, ford had
big hands, and big cushions on his couch. i can tell you the truth now. but the -- the story i'm going to tell you today, i have to figure out how to click these. the story today is about privateify lprivate philanthropie philanthropies, you don't see it anywhere else in the world. and i have a high goal, i am hoping to persuade you,ify l--iy lan throw pi is crucial to making america the unusual country it is. let's start with some numbers, our nonprofit sector employs 11%
of the u.s. work force. and the 6% of gdp is also quite representative. and this skips volunteer labor. and to give you a perspective, here's the number for the fabled military/industrial complex. the charitable sector passed that way back in 1993, and continues to grow beyond it. information like that, alas, is often missing from discussions today, public discussions, from journals, academic analysis, from politics, certainly. so, many are surprised when they encounter realities like this,
america's most generous cities are the communities of mormon america, and the bible belt. this is a fair comparison. this is giving as a percentage of what you have to give. obviously, new york will be bigger than anybody because it's a huge city. but this is giving as a percentage of what you have available to give. and trying to make the point, all kinds of essential facts about philanthropy are not reported. so people don't have an idea of the role it plays in our national health. and when i was at the round table, we decided to do something about that. we produced this book, it includes all kinds of things like a philanthropist's hall of fame. there's a rich collection of
quotations, a timeline that lays out about 350 years of charitable action in america, and a lot more. and it's really a very lively collection of americana. we're very excited, it will fill some gaping holes in the national self-awareness. it will not make you sleepy, and if your children crack its covers, they will not run to you crying. and this character, a man named ned mcilaney. he was born in the bayou, he had kind of a forrest gump life.
he did some interesting things in alaska, wrote books on turkeys and alligators. he banded about a quarter of a million birds. just a guy with so many appetites and interests. at this point, he's all grown up, paying for life insurance, and doing all those responsible things that men do when they take off furs and put on bow ties. he had a day job, manufacturing and selling the hot pepper condiment invented by his family. let me tell you, there's real money in burning people's tongues. and he used his profits for an amazing array of good works. he got very attached to a fellow native of louisiana's bayous, the snowy egret. when he was young, this was an absolute fashion craze for snowy
egret feathers. mania, women beating each other over the heads to get these things. as a result, this is the kind of head gear which resulted. this is very fetching, which i think you would agree, there are the clearly mistaken ones, and the clearly indefensibles. but these were all very common in the '20s, and resulted in a huge run for snowy egrets. and they were never knocked off by the chinese like coach hand ba bags are. but they made the snowy egret almost extinct. and when he realized this, he
swung into action. the first thing he did, his family owned, still owns an island in louisiana. he went out, managed to find eight baby egret chicks. stuffed them into the pockets of his coat. and went home, here are the chicks. and put these in a protected area, and raised them up for a period of years. and at the same time, he convinced some of his philanthropist friends to buy up swampy areas of louisiana, which were important to the egrets' nesting areas, and in this fashion, he managed to rescue a magnificent animal that was on the verge of disappearing from the earth. meanwhile, about the same time
he was doing this, he got into all kinds of other things. later on in his life, he acted to short-circuit a very different kind of extinction. he had been raised with negro spirituals, and just loved them. around the time of his 60th birthday, he noticed they were dying out. people didn't know the words, didn't know the music. these were an oral tradition, had not been written down. so, he sprang into action. not just his checkbook, but with personal involvement. he tracked down these two ladies, these elderly singers, who still remembered many of the old spirituals. then he hired a musicologist, and asked them to sing their hearts out, and madly scribbled
as fast as they could, and recorded the songs for history, exactly as they had been handed down from generation to generation of slaves. he then published it as a book, a classic of the genre. and looks like only five or six were saved elsewhere. so, about 120 really precious pieces of americana here were saved by this gentleman's effort. and by the way, the songs he saved included the one that martin luther king jr. quoted, free at last, free at last. so, think what a tragedy it would have been to have this music, these artifacts of american culture be lost to
history. but that's the kind of wonderful work that philanthropy can do. here's another red-blooded american philanthropist that helped his fellow citizens. alfred lewis, loved science. from a little boy, just loved it. wanted to make it his life's work, but needed an independent f fortune. he jumped into wall street, and financed most of the rural el t electrification of america. by the end, he was one of the most wealthy men in america.
and then retired and put much of his money into science. he set up a tremendous science lab in his mansion, better equipped than almost anywhere else in the country. he did very distinguished work, the precise measurement of time. did some acoustic work, one of the first to discover and c categorize brain waves. invited lots of scientists from europe and america to work with him. very serious science. then, in 1938, he went to berlin. and two things struck him there. first of all, how popular hitler was, and second, how good the german scientists were. he came home convinced war was
brewing, and knew that science would help win it. he came home and settled on using radio waves to detect moving objects. his lab very quickly became the national leader in what we now call radar. which at that point didn't exist. and started overseeing the production of practical radar sets, and they were delivered to the u.s. military in the thousands, and had a tremendous effect on the course of the war. even more than his money, it was his method, his philanthropic method that helped with his success. he had a contract with the u.s. government, he was apalled by how sluggish and bureaucratic
the labs were. they were saying, it's the next war's worry, and he said, no, we have to do this right now, and they produced radar, then they realized, we need this guy on the atomic bomb. i can't get into the details here, but plomost of the scients were transferred into the manhattan project. he personally made the cyclotron that they used with the atomic bomb. and just a really brilliant record. and the cherry on top for me, i realized it wasn't only his,
this kind of entrepreneurial method that lives on today. he also left on a flesh and blood embodiment of this style, his great grandson is this guy, reed hastings, who is a huge game changer today. he was the founder of netflix, which has now disrupted three major industries in the u.s. and one of the major progenitors of charter schools in the country. and another philanthropists that put a deep mark on america is george eastman. the founder of kodak, popularized photography in the
u.s. at the beginning, it was very much guesswork, and there's a story, he was sleeping in a hammock in the corner of the warehouse trying to get the company started. and the industrial gelatin that was used to develop the photos, people were sending in photos, they were coming out black. he was frantic to find out what was wrong. turned out the cows whose carcass was boiled down to make the gelatin, they were moved to pastures where there was no sulfur, and that was enough to wreck the photography process.
he said, this won't happen again. he started to hire chemists from boston tech, and had some good results from the well-trained minds, and later, funded the transition of boston tech to what is now m.i.t. and he is to a very large degree responsible for making this the great school it is today. passion plays a big role in philanthropy. one of george eastman's passions was music, he had a full pipe organ in his house, and hire ed someone to wake him up with that every day. and there's a wonderful journal
entry, one of his friends went with him to new york city, and they took in 12 operas in 6 days. she said, george is absolutely alcoholic about music. and this passion led to, he just willed into existence the eastman school of music in rochester. the eastman school was really important in americanizing classical music, and popularizing classical music. if you wanted to be a conductor, you had to go to europe before. and the school was important in transforming film from kind of a cheap, vulgar undertaking at that point, to at least
potentially an art form. he hired conductors to perform between the reels, and other things to get that started. another donor that poured money into world-changing research, catherine mccormick. and i just noticed, i think she's wearing egret feathers. which means we have dueling philanthropists here. but many of you know, philanthropy has been very important with medical endeavors. but how many of you know, the birth control pill was the creation of a sole funder. mccormick was an early women's rights activist.
she was a little bit crazy, but very determined to make a difference. and she wanted to find a means to prevent pregnancy as easy as taking a daily aspirin. and she put the current equivalent of $20 million by my calculation of today's money into the project. and by 1957, she and her partners had an fda-approved pill. she absolutely revelled into this accomplishment, she got a prescription for it, even though at this point, she was a matron in her 80s. she wanted to feel that donor pride you feel when you
accomplish something like that. and the ford foundation, once described as a large body of money, completely crowded by people that want some. you look at the big pile of silver like the ford foundation, or a lot of these wealthy donors i've been describing, and you think, well, that's american philanthropy. but american philanthropy, it's not just a story of big foundations. these are the figures from the latest year. only 14% of charitable giving in the u.s. coming from foundation. only 5% more comes from corporations. the rest, more than 85%, comes from individuals. and the bulk of that, small to moderate individuals, about
$2,500 per household. that's a massive amount of money. people think the gates foundation, he gives away about $4 billion per year. cash giveaway, about $360 million per year, so they're a very small slice of american philanthropy as a whole. and to make sure this isn't overlooked, i do some story telling in the book about real-life givers. these two people, these are real people named gus and marie
ciel cielinski. they were very fastidious savers, and when they died, they left more than $3 million to good causes. ann schieber, managing to turn her savings into $22 million by the time she passed away, left every penny of it to a university to help poor and low income girls be able to go to college. and this woman, her goal for years and years was to amass as much as she could, so it could go to the salvation army, and
left millions to them. and albert lexi, shined shoes in pittsburgh, he did it for more than 50 years. back in 1981, he decided he was going to give every penny of his p tips to the free care fund of the pittsburgh children's hospital. benefitting people that need care for their children, but can't afford it. ended up donating about $220,000 to the children's hospital. about a third of his total earnings. critics say, those are lovely tales, but this kind of small giving can't ever do anything large or achieve anything really important. but the very clear verdict of american history is that those
doubters are very, very wrong. many remarkable things have been done throughout our history by disbursed giving, which often aggregates in very formidable days. the state of ohio, just 3 million inhabitants had just -- so, what explains that? the difference is small-scale education philanthropy. this is the colleges that existed in ohio in 1826. at that point, ohio was the frontier, the wild west. that was the year that case western reserve was founded.
it eventually became a powerhouse of science. lots of prominent businesses came out of case western. when it was created, at this point, it was basically a little dot built up solely ly bly by sacrificial giving by its neighbors. during the winter, when wagons and horses weren't busy, one man hauled stone. and another family, several pledged a fraction of their egg or milk sales to the college. it adds up, and in the case of this college, and lots of others. in the 1840s, hundreds of eastern churches pooled their
donations together and sent them west, and within 30 years, those churches had raised more than $1 million, nurturing 18 colleges. and after that ohio campaign had been going for 20 years, lots and lots of places, many of which have become quite important to our nation. i want you to fast-forward, please, to 2015. today, there are 50 separate different american colleges in the midst of a fund-raising campaign that will raise at least $1 billion. and private gifts are important not just to private colleges, but to public institutions as well. here are the figures for the
latest year. you'll note that uva has a lot more gift income than state funding, and berkeley as well. even though these are prominent state public universities. and lots of philanthropic sub-innovations are there. the endowed chair is an invention of american philanthropy. even today, it's rare in other parts of the world. i recently spoke at the university of kentucky, and they had just received a $22 million gift to build a new honors college. this is the gentleman that gave the money. his name is tom lewis. i was interested, he's a successful home builder, and had
made his money in arizona, and went to college in north carolina. so, i thought, why kentucky? what's going on here. i finally figured out, it turns out that all 16 of his great grandparents were from kentucky. he felt a personal connection, something that he wanted to act on. that's a good example of a point i want to make next. in our country, giving has always been personal. not just big giving, but all giving. and this next one, a broadway lyricist named michael brown. that's a good way to go broke in a normal year, but he had a good year, and was feeling a burst of prosperity. for their christmas celebration, he and his family invited a
young writer far from her home in south carolina, and wanted to share their good fortune. and they handed this woman an envelope, with a note that read, you have one year off from your job to write whatever you please. merry christmas. and the writer's name was harper lee. harper lee did what most people did when they decide they want to be a writer, move to new york city. and then ended up trying to pay the rent more than writing. and she was working in a bookstore and an airline office. and the browns noticed this. and in a very personal act of philanthropy, they decided to do something about it. and with their donation in hand, harper lee quit both jobs, and during that year, she wrote "to
kill a mocking by ininmockingbi most influential books of all time. and one of the most powerful things of philanthropy for me is, i don't know if you realize, those are the homes of some of our greatest founding fathers. among our nation's top cultural treasures. they're not preserved by the national park service, but by privately funded nonprofits. mt. vernon was saved from ruin by what's called the mt. vernon ladies' association. and they're annual budget is $40 million a year, and completely
thriving. and monticello, thomas jefferson's home, and montpelier, james madison's home, and abraham lincoln's home, he made some of his most momentous decisions at this hours house, for years, it was neglected. and the white house in those days, it was in absolute mayhem, you could walk in the front door, and people did all the time. poor lincoln got no rest, and couldn't say no to anybody. so, when he needed to work on
something serious, he went up to this college in the northeast. and it was moldering away, until this private foundation decided to fix it up. williamsburg, mystic seaport, old salem, all of those are products of private philanthropy. our great cathedrals, also funded by private philanthropy. jpmorgan funded this one, and lots and lots of small donations as well. our cathedrals of human learning, which i would call
libraries, another fruit of private philanthropy. this is the private reading room, not just it but all of america's private libraries were initially created by private dono donors. many of our magnificent parks are also fruits of philanthropy. this one here, this is grant tetons, great smoky. basically all launched by private doe knnorsdonors. and the really interesting thing going on in parks today, urban parks. many of you remember when central park was falling apart, becoming a dangerous place, not very well-used.
and some private donors came in, gave not just money but over ma and this conservatory had tremendous effects. visitation is up 4 1/2, 5 times since then, beautiful place, as you know, and a huge part of city life. that model was so extremely effective, it's been copied all over the country. there are parks, beautiful, wonderful oases for urbanites. discovery green in houston would be another example. there's a $350 million park being built. all kinds of things going on all completely driven by private philanthropy. private supporters have been at the center of miraculous
recoveries of numerous endangered species that's not always well appreciated. this is the falcon, one of my favorite creatures on earth. when it's flying, this is the fastest living being when it flies. when it's reproducing, this is a real snail. they were just not reproducing at anything like a necessary rate and flirting with extinction. biologists tried and tried and tried to speed up the breeding rates but repeatedly failed. then along came a bunch of small donations from falconry hobbyists, you know, that wear the glove and train them. they started giving moni and producing unconventional ideas for experimental ways to overcome this problem. they love heights and pigeons.
where do you think might be a good place to start the comeback? sounds like a crazy idea but there are paragons everywhere in this country. turned out to be a brilliant idea. donor ideas and funds were crucial in the comebacks of other animals. fascinating stories. i don't have time to tell you but the wolf, bluebird, grassroots philanthropy. hunters brought back the turkey. crane. unbelievable story of a major donor who did all kinds of things. not just his talent but his insights. once the birds have been re-established in the u.s., they have to be taught to migrate. once they've done it once, they can migrate again. this guy was an amateur pilot and said let's use an ultra light plane to fly them to
florida. it sounded absolutely mad. but it was actually quite successful. the philanthropy is terribly important in science in general. all kinds of science. you're looking here at a telescope that, i don't know if you realize, almost all the famous telescopes in the country, mt. wilson, mt. palomar, all of those really great high-end instruments were filled with light by private money. and that continues today. the two really massive instruments under construction right now are the giant magellan and so-called 30-meter telescope. both of those are products of donations. i mean big donations. i mean like this one -- this is the 30 meter. this was created by a $250 million by the founder -- gordon
moore. certain large areas of philanthropy have been especially hard spurred by donors. medical research is a perfect example. we did a special investigation of pioneer funding for medical research that john rockefeller did. we found an astonishing 61 separate nobel prize-winning scientists had been boosted up with rockefeller money. the breakthroughs that were made by these folks were all kinds of important things. blood typing, nerve signaling, all grew out of that funding from john rockefeller which began, by the way, because he lost a grandson to scarlet fever. very personal motivation but he jumped in there and helped a lot of other people out of that
tragedy. very few people know that private u.s. funds sent overseas now supersede the aid from our government. you can see these numbers. in 2011, we had $39 billion of private donations for overseas poor folks and $31 million of government aid. and it isn't just the quantities that matter, by the way. in all fields, as i've already hinted, i think, private giving tends to work in very different ways from public funding. philanthropy tends to be more experimental. it's quicker, more efficient, in general. it's much more varied, much more personalized. let's take the last thing. let's take personalization, for instance. many of the most interesting and successful mechanisms in the charitable world. and i'm thinking about things
like microlending circumstanles mentoring programs or the posse foundation, which keeps kids from dropping out of college, or alcoholics anonymous. these all rely very heavily on individualized solutions, on the one-to-one human accountability and what they're really doing is taking advantage of all the useful information that becomes at your fingertips. if you actually know someone instead of just dealing with a strarng. by creating interpersonal relationships they use the power of relationships to change behavior. that's powerful. teresa used to never think about crowds. i think about individuals. that's kind of a philanthropist creto. government program almost has to think about the crowd not the
individu individual. treating everyone the same. you can't have different approaches for different kinds of people even though that would very often work better. now, this consistency of government programs sometimes gets romanticized. it's very ease toy romanticize. it's big, clear to define and out there. crazy in comparison. consistency is not how human beings work. if you have one child, for instance, in your family who needs a very structured environment and another one who only blooms when really given the freedom to explore his or her own boundaries, you don't want one size fits all. you don't want consistent schools. you want individualized services that recognize and work with the intimate differences between different kinds of personalities and you'll have a very hard time finding that in any government program almost by definition. but it is a hallmark of philanthropic efforts, which
leads us to this great $50 word that every american really ought to know in my opinion, polyarchy. it refers to a society in which there are many independent sources of power. the easy way to remember it is contrast it to monarchy. it's the opposite of monarchy. the united states, obviously, has a notably polyarchy culture. you can think of all those givers and nonprofits as mini legislators. they're deciding what matters, what needs fixing and what's important in our society and they're acting. steven carter, thinker i admire, points out that everyone measures community needs with what he calls different calipers and that millions of individual charitable decisions are going to lead to much more variety and much more diverse spending and
much better protection of nonmainstream points of view than a single government program can or ever could. and for this reason, carter refers to philanthropy as, quote, democracy in action. now the fact that philanthropy takes place out of the pb eye, and often is anonymous, it's very easy to overlook the actions i've been describing here. most of us only see a very few fragments of the overall iceberg, even people in the business themselves lose track of its import and its size and its scope. and the result is that we grossly underestimate the problem-solving power of charitable action and how valuable it is to our nation. so, not surprisingly, there are lots and lots of critics who kind of go out of their way to discount the idea that major public concerns can be expressed
by private responses. yeah, philanthropy is cute. i'm not against it. it's a lovely little thing. but if you're serious and really want to solve a problem, get big, get governmental or go home. that's the clear message. one of the criticisms you will hear about philanthropy is this one. philanthropy is just a drop in the bucket. when i start this had talk, i told you about the nonprofit being much bigger. keep that in mind. let me throw a few additional tidbits out there. the gates foundation alone is a sliver. it now delivers more overseas assistance than the entire italian government. it's estimated that in just its first two decades, the overseas vaccine programs that gates runs -- just a part of what they do, by the way -- saves almost 8
million young children. that's not a drop in the bucket, in anyone's bucket. and i want to take you a little further. absorb this. again, gates has done pretty remarkable things here. guess what. gates' fraction of the total amount of money that america sends overseas to needy people is very modest. religious organizations alone, churches and synagogues. that alone is 4 1/2 times what gates does every single year. and then there's the nonreligious givers. there's a very big iceberg underneath that tip and ease y underestimate it. another -- excuse me. another complaint you'll often hear is philanthropy is not coordinated. you'll hear that the rules vary
so much, they're all over the map. there's no consistency. no one is in control is kind of the argument. and what some observers love about government spending is the opposite. it's very orderly, very uniform, very standardized. everyone is marching in the same direction. and there's a certain kind of cramped mind that appeals to you, i guess buchlt there are some serious problems with standardization, obviously. in human affairs it can have very harmful effects. i worked for three years in the west wing, oversaw policy. and any time we would take up a problem, i would think to myself, you know what? no matter what we do, no matter how careful we are, no matter how deeply we think this through, we are going to discombobulate millions of people. the apparatus swings in one direction every time there's a rule change. that's what rule changes do. you pull out the rug from a lot of people every time do you that. it's hard to test competing policies. many times i wanted to.
it's not really feasible at federal level. many types i wanted to turn a faucet on slowly. you can't do that. it's all or nothing. now, differing solutions for different places is very appealing. very impossible at the federal level. now, because humans are not predictable robots, the healthiest forms of society building, i would argue, are going to often evolve by lots of little experiments and lots of little trials and errors and many of the efforts will fail. and the reality is that so long as we aren't swinging in one direction at the same time, that's fine. failures will be exposed and errors will cancel themselves out to a large degree. successes will be visible and people will copy them. that is an argument for d dispersal of resources, all the things that philanthropy provides.
in 2005 -- i figured this out n 2005 there was a wonderful new word coined to describe what i'm kind of preferring here to describe a reliance on dispersed authority to fix things. and that word is crowd sourcing. of course, you know, crowd sourcing is all about -- how to define it? lots of people taking lots of small bites out of big problems that allow them to eventually chew through those big issues. if you're an individual people and you really think hard about it, you think i'm wasting my time. you can't think that way. you have to recognize that you're part of an army. that's what gives crowd sourcing its power. the effectiveness of this method has been brought into high relief by the computer revolution, obviously. i'm old enough when the computer revolution first started to unfold it was all about machines like this. big ibm mainframe computer. but it very quickly became clear that this was not the future. this was not a particularly powerful method of solving
problems, that this was the future. you know, the story of the internet, the entire story of the internet is the accumulated power of millions of small actions. the lesser the hacker culture you see depicted here, one man with a laptop can do amazing things. i look at this picture and think one man with a lap top is also probably very good for the practice of dentistry, from what i can tell. dentists have to make a living, too. obviously, aspects of this culture that you may or may not find appetizing. it's clearly a powerful way of solving problems. that's one of the clearest lessons of the last decade or two. my argument would be that small scale decentralized, nonuniformed, nonorchestrated problem solving in this model should not be considered a problem for philanthropy or any other motive or aspect of society for that matter. the next time you hear
philanthropy criticized for being too much of a patchwork, i want to plant a seed you can think b i want you to think about charter schooling. the very, very largest and most famous and big sbegest and best funded chain is the kip schools. kip schools have 183 different schools. sounds like a lot, right? guess what, there are a total of 7,000 charter schools in this country. that means that the market heavy weight, the big gorilla, has a tiny fraction of the market. most charter schools are mom and pop operations, either single schools or they're one of -- they're parts of a chain of two or three or four schools. so this is, in other words, a radically decentralized sector. and that allows some interesting things to happen. it allows a riot of choices. i don't know if any of you have spent any time in charter schools. it's a fascinating aspect of america. there are math and science schools.
there are schools built around the great books. there are work-oriented schools. there are quasi-military academies. there are hippie schools without doors, windows or controlling features of any sort. there are all kinds of things. much more variety than you will ever find in traditional district-run schools. philanthropical movement is built on the idea that there's no single definition of what's a good school. it's all about matching. what you want to do is match each child's gifts and temperaments with a school that can bring out the best in his or herself. you see that crazy quilt of charter schools. walk around the city and poke your head into some of them. you'll be amazed by the varieties. does that strike you as evidence of inconsistency and trouble? they don't all look the same. they don't all follow the same rules. or does that ecosystem of
options that you'll find strike you as a healthy sign of adaptation to what people want? which brings us to a final item on the list of alleged weaknesses of philanthropy. the fact that some donors are mean. you'll hear this one for sure. or they're selfish. all they want is their name on a building. it's absolutely true that some people do good things for not good reasons. not all donors are saints. you are looking here at j. paul getty, a cheapskate. literally one of the richest men in the world that installed a pay phone at his estate so guests would have to pay for their own phone calls. his grandson was held for $17 million ransom.
grandpa is negotiating with them endlessly, forever. to the point they finally cut off the grandson's ear and mailed it to grandpa. at that point, he kind of resigned and said, okay. but, get this. he paid as much as the ransom as tax deductible. don't ask me why any ransom is tax deductible. he paid $2.2 million and the rest of it he gave to his son as a loan so he could get his grandson out of hostage at 4% interest, by the way. that's the kind of man we're talking about. not a sweet and fuzzy man. nonetheless, the reality is that j. paul getty also, with some other part of his brain, gave the world just an absolute sublime collection of greek and roman art that will be elevating souls for centuries to come. one more example, then i'll close before my voice completely drives you all crazy. you are looking here at leland stanford. listen, folks out there --
there's no denying corruption made leland stanford rich. they used stock watering, collusion, string pulling, kickbacks, bribes. you name it. he got good at it. yet -- yet when his son died, genuine grief over this tragedy led him to decide that he was going to use his ill-gotten loot to benefit the children of california and ultimately all of us by build iing stanford university. the message is that, no, philanthropists aren't always pretty. no question about that. here is the fascinating secret about philanthropy. you don't need to be an angel to participate. the brilliant thing about this mechanism, it will take us just as we are. you know, all the selfish impulses, noble impulses, wishes and wants and vanities of all sorts that swirl together in every one of our breasts and it
will take that and use it in a wondrous way to get things done, even with our flaws. that's kind of the genius of the mechanism. so, obviously, if i've done nothing else this evening, i hope i've convinced you that philanthropy is a huge, fascinating and powerful aspect of our culture. i assure you, i have only scratched the surface of the al man alcohol. it's a 1300 page book. so, as you -- please do grab one. as you leave through them i hope you'll keep track of one very profound reality. there's lots of human interest and fun stuff in there. there's a deeper message that's terribly important. voluntary giving in this country is not some sort of cute hobby. it's not just a nice national sideline. it is right at the very heart of our country's success. so, with that, i thank you very much. [ applause ]
>> thank you for a marvelous lecture. i'm sure you generated a lot of questions. i'll go back and get him some tea. >> that would be very welcomed. >> we'll put these two questions on the table first and i'll be right back. >> i'm bob hershey, a consu consultant. how is the internet affecting philanthropy? you talked about crowd sourcing. >> well, more generally, not just the internet, but the whole kind of modern culture of the computer revolution is affecting philanthropy tremendously. for one thing, you know, it used to be an undertaking of retired people. as you know acres lot of people that made internet fortunes are doing it early and parallel to their career building. tas it's a new model. it's not just the money you give, but the insights you offer, management skill, wisdom and daring and entrepreneurial
talent you bring to the table. that's a big, big influence. in addition, there's all kinds of technical aspects to this. some people, i should say, were panicked when the zuckerbergs announced they were going to give away their money without using a traditional foundation. some people said it's not actually giving it away. actually, it can be giving it away better with a commercial mechanism or hybrid mechanism. we're having an explosion of technical innovation in the field, very exciting and encouraging. >> hello. my name is david krukopf. i enjoyed your darwinian mutation of philanthropy. do you ever get into judgment of philanthropy? you emphasized a lot about higher education and, from my mind, higher education has become almost an end to itself nowadays in the cost of higher
education has become the utility of it is less than it once was, i believe. do you ever discuss, do you judge at all in your work? >> you know, you can't help -- i have my own opinions. i tried real hard to keep them out of the al mmanac. lots of them i don't really like myself or would not have done myself. the measuring stick is, did it make a difference? did it redirect american society? if it did, we put it in. i think it's really important -- not just for me as an editor, but for all of us to try to resist that temptation to judge. very often you don't know what's going to result from an innovation. there are lots of examples where people kind of launched something and weren't quite sure. quick trivial example. remember the ice bucket challenge? people said oh, how silly. isn't that a trivialization of
philanthro philanthropy? they raised $160 million and follow-up gifts after that. people, once they gave, tended to give twice, for the als association. when was it, in january, i believe -- i was really struck by this. one of the leading researchers on als at john hopkins went on readit, the interview side and gave a talk where he said if you think that the ice bucket challenge was triv iial, that tt was a joke, or that didn't maek a difference, i have news for you. that very day they released an article that said they used this huge influx of als ice bucket challenge money to try a very unorthodoxed kind of unconventional approach. bottom line is they discovered it's very likely that there are going to be important new therapies resulting from this within a few years. and those therapies, by the way -- clinical trials for those therapies have been prepaid for by the ice bucket challenge. it's easy to scoff and easy to
anticipate problems, but i think the track record of philanthropy is such that it's wisdom to be agnostic. there are plenty of dumb ideas and they all die. they do not get renewed. you have to have confidence that the competition of ideas will handle that. that's what philanthropy is, our innovation budget. it's way more risk taking than anything the government does or even anything that many private companies will do in the areas of medicine, for instance. it's our innovation budget. that's the nature of taking risks and experimenting. >> question back here? >> hi. i'm with the american public transportation. i messed the beginning. detroit is a city wear lot of people who believe in the city say i'm stepping forward in a philanthropy way to get the city back. comments on any of that? >> you're right. it's terribly important. this new grand bargain would not
have happened without donors. it wasn't just the money. it was kind of the insight and the squaring of the circle. i'm trying to -- not mull this phrasing. somebody i admire, who i won't identify, was saying that's kind of the difference between politics and philanthropy. in politics it's about the math of sub traction and philanthropy is about addition. it's a different method, different style, different approach to a public problem. when you get to a sticky wickett like detroit, which is a huge mess, with all kinds of villains. huge temptation is throw brick bats. there has to be a punishing element involved maybe but it doesn't solve the problem. phil an tloepianthropists just t out of the woods.
they don't want thing ralphled out a -- raffled off. they don't want schools shut down. it worked very well. detroit can still blow it. it gave them a second chance but didn't guarantee their rosie future. we'll see if they're idiots or not. >> question right here? >> linda greenberg, putnam publishing. i enjoyed listening to the wonderful stories. every now and then i thought sometimes these people don't work out quite as well as you would like. the person i remember was jeffrey sax and his village. he took a great deal of money and disappointed so many people and caused so much harm. i know that we saw a lot of very good people. how about the people who, you know, took the money -- they certainly had a goal, an ideal, but they were misguided?
>> very fair point. >> i think the scale of it today is large. >> that's a very fair point. the scale of the good work is large, too. as i tried to indicate, it's a very big sector. i would say at that time success to failure quotient is higher, to someone who came to the field four years ago. it's way higher than government success to failure ratio and as high as much of the private sector. philanthropy is very -- you do not get renewed if things do not work out. can you ruffle up a society for a short period of time, but it goes away. there is a death sentence on bad programs. meanwhile, when was the last bad government program you knew that got shut down? >> exactly. right here and then we'll go over to the side. >> claudia rosette. thank you for that fascinating lecture. i want to follow up on linda
greenberg's question to ask about public/private partnerships, u.n. foundation which came out of ted turner's gift to the u.n. but translated into ted turner paying people inside the u.n. to find things that would further his agenda. thus, climate change and so on. in other words, he leveraged the u.n. by this philanthropic gift. over and over, we see that large philanthropists will try to leverage contributions from the federal purse. what's happening with that and what do we do? thank you. >> i personally am not a fan of public/private partnerships in most cases. what usually happens is the public swallows up the private. that's the normal kind of m.o., the way they normally unfold. i think the advantage to society is to have two distinct elements. as i say, they operate very differently, have different incentives, different payoffs. this is all about kind of a competitive approach to problem
solving. and each sector has its strengths and, you know, there are fields in which both will, by definition, be preeminent. it's very unwise to try to hybridize. you're going to get a very unpleasant mush in most cases, looking like the private side. it's not going to have any of the energy or distinctiveness that makes phil anthropy useful to us. >> i'm andy stevens. i used to work for the charles koch foundation. a lot of great industrialists have left their fortunes to causes that would horrify the fou founders. what do you think of the notion that philanthropists should spend the money while they're alive or spend themselves out of existence shortly after their death? >> spending down is a big priority of the foundation i work for of the more importantly, it's a big priority of modern donors.
the fraction of foundations that spend down used to be something like 5%. last i checked it's close to 30% now, and fast-rising curve. for precisely the reasons you mentioned. not only because you can get into new attitude or ideological territory that would be unpal e unpalatable to the original donor but the power in most cases is it's connected to the fresh ideas, vigorous problem solving of the donor. once it becomes embedded in a foundation -- the ford foundation now has -- what is it, 25-floor tower in new york city? it's become sclerotic. you lose any of that freshness that really made philanthropy working in the first place. lots of good reasons to encourage -- it has to be the case to encourage donors to make sure they spend hard when they're alive and the rest are
cleaned up in the next 10 to 15 years after they're gone. >> let's take one more question. this gentleman in the back. then i would like to invite all of you to a reception outside where karl will be signing your book. >> john kramer, institute for justice. pointed out that 56% of americans will find themselves in the top 10% of earners at some point in their lives. can you talk about that american dynamism and what it means for american philanthropy? >> i found a wonderful organization i never heard of. anyone ever here of inokians? french organization, named for enoch in the bible, the man who didn't die or couldn't die or never did die. and the enochians is mostly european with a few japanese firms that are hundreds of years old. the breta company is still owned
by the beretta family. one of the richest families in britain for 400 years, same family. you simply do not get that in this country. you have this dynamism. people make money, lose money and give away money. part of what's wholesome and helpful to our capitalism is the recycling function that is at the heart of philanthropy. think about this. bill gates, last i checked, has a personal fortune of, what is it, $40 billion, something crazy like that? he has pledged to give away all but $10 million to each of his children. he's going to hang on to -- the gates family is going to hang on to $30 million. do the math. $30 million on a $40 billion fortune. he's hanging on to a fraction of one percent. voluntarily embodying this dynamism you're talking about, trying to build another generation of successful americans, to save other people's lives, to get them educated, to help them succeed
eastern. donald trump is campaigning today in new york. c-span 2 will be live with his rally in the town of bethpage on long island. new york's primary is april 19th. that rally is scheduled to start at 7:00 eastern today. c-span 2 will have live coverage. american history tv on c-span 3, this weekend. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history. >> new factors makinge ining emancipation desirable. resulting by august if not earlier of 1862, lincoln has decided that when the time is right, he will announce a new aim for the war effort that would add to union human freedom. >> wheaton college history professor tracy mckenzie on the evolving war goals of the north during the civil war.
then at 10:00 on "real america." >> how was it possible for america to achieve such production and at the same time build such an army? 20% of american industrial manpower was woman power, to stop my advance across the worlworl world. >> this 1944 war department film documents how women in world war ii helped the war effort, alluding that the hidden army of women working in manufacturing is a man reason germany lost the war. sunday evening at 6:00, daughters of the american revolution mousse wrum to learn about an exhibit marking the 125th anniversary of the organization. >> one thing that stands out at this time period is this creation of this imagery of the
apotheosis. it's an old concept that goes back to ancient times where a warrior is made god like by lifting him up and celebrating him. >> on the presidency at 8:00 -- >> washington and jefferson are the two most prominent examples of slave owning in their presidency. especially those who did so while they occupied the white house. james madison, who followed jefferson as the fourth president of the united states, owned over 100 slaves, holding a large percentage while he occupied the white house. he is responsible for expanding the three-fifths compromise, which guaranteed the south held a disproportionate influence on congress to preserve and uphold slave-owning interests. >> tyler perry, african-american
studies professor at california state university full erton on the 12 american presidents who were slave owners, eight of them while in office. for the complete american history tv schedule go to c-span.org. a discussion now on the challenge of foreign fighters for intelligence officials here in the united states and abroad. this discussion comes as brussels investigates terror attacks that killed 30 people, including two americans, last month. >> my apologies for starting a little late, but we're going to be live on c-span. so, we're starting for that. in case it's not obvious, since we are live on c-span, this
event is entirely on the record. so, my name is patrick clawson and i'm the director of research here at the washington institute for near east policy. let me stand up so you can see me better. and i would like to thank you for coming this morning and it's -- sorry that we have to spend our good friday this way but the terrorist situation in europe is high on all of our minds this morning and we thought we would assemble a panel of people who bring unparalleled experience and knowledge about this matter. so we'll be starting this morning with the institute's own matt levitt. he is our former wexler fellow and director of stein program on counter terrorism and intelligence. he was in brussels last week where he was meeting with
belgian government officials, police, intelligent services and the local police in that famous neighborhood of molenbeek. he is treasury department official. and he is also served in the state department and the fbi. he will be followed by a member of the french foreign ministry who is a diplomat and resident here at the washington institute. we want to emphasize he's speaking this morning in his private capacity as a visiting fellow at the washington institute. he is not speaking for the french foreign ministry or the
french government. he joined the institute last summer after serving for three years as a counselor at the french embassy in tehran. where he focused on iran's nuclear and regional policies. then our third speaker, eric rosand, the state department's loss is our gain. he recently left the state department, where he had served as counselor to the undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights, and previously he was a senior official in the state department's bureau of counterterrorism, where he spearheaded efforts to develop and launch the global counterterrorism forum among other institutions. and eric has now joined the prevention project, which is organizing against violent extremism. so with that, let me turn the microphone over to matt. >> good morning, everybody. thanks for turning out so early on a friday morning.
i wish it was for a more -- better topic, but here we are. last week i, as it happens, spent the week in belgium, meeting with belgian intelligence and counterterrorism officials. as it happens, i was sitting with one of the chief belgian counterterrorism officials on tuesday, as they were about to raid a safehouse in the neighborhood of forest. one person was killed in that raid. they did not find their primary targets saleh abdeslam but found his fingerprints and three days after i left they found him in the neighborhood in which he grew up, molenbeek, just around the corner from the family home.
let me paint a picture for you. after meeting with the mayor and the police chiefs and the counter radicalization cell and the civilian prevention officials in molenbeek municipal city hall, i went with several of them for a walk around the neighborhood, not a denied space by any measure. it's a beautiful part of town. it's not like some of the neighborhoods in the suburbs of paris. it's a 15-minute walk from the eu city center, three or four metro stops away, including the one that was just targeted. and as we circled around back to the municipal building, we got to a picturesque typical european cobblestone courtyard. on one side of that courtyard is the municipal building and on the other side of the courtyard, catty-cornered to it, with nothing but air between them is the abdeslam family home, window to window, there is nothing but air between the municipality and the home of the man, the family who was of the man who was most wanted in europe, but there's a world of difference between them. so i think there are three critical points that i took away from my time there, and now
looking back on it, after the brussels bombings on tuesday, that i want to share with you. the first is that authorities were absolutely aware of the threat, and they were doing all that they could. the problem is that europe, in general, and the belgians in particular, have come late to this problem set, and this problem set is two-fold. one is a traditional counterterrorism problem set, and the other, in some ways much more complicated, is one of social integration, social cohesion, integrating immigrant communities into society. when you have children in a neighborhood like molenbeek, who drop out of school at 11 or 12 and are, you know, heads of gangs by the time they're 18 and not particularly religious at all but adhere toe an ideology all
that fills up many of the things they're missing in terms of family ties, mostly from broken homes, in terms of empowerment and belonging and having a purpose, mind you, most of them aren't becoming particularly religious but this is filling in gaps for them that have a lot less to do with traditional counterterrorism. elsewhere in europe we certainly still see cases where radical islam is the first piece of the component, but not here. from the counterterrorism perspective, there is a long way to go. i'll give you just a few examples. some of the most obvious are the fact that saleh abdeslam was able to hide since the november attacks in paris until this past friday, without being captured. all right? many of the european union member states are not yet electronically connected to the databases that europol has put in place at the crossings. 5,000 fighters have gone to fight in syria and iraq, some of them won't come back, some of them will die there, some of
them have already come back. that 5,000 number though is not just from reporting from eu member states. in fact, much of it is not. according to the eu counterterrorism coordinator, whom i met with last week, according to his latest report, the reporting from eu member states adds up to only a little over 2,700 verified foreign fighters even though we know and europol has reported at least 5,000. more disturbing still is of the european member state reporting that has come in, over 90% of it is from only five members. there is critical need to fully integrate intelligence information sharing, getting information where it needs to be. there's a long way to go there. at least as important is going to be dealing with the social integration piece in places like molenbeek. as one official put it to me you're dealing with people who
are going from zero to hero. people for whom this islamic state ideology, the idea of getting in at the ground level and helping to create a caliphate, following in the footsteps of the prophet muhammad and his original followers is extremely empowering. almost every single one of the people who have carried out the recent set of attacks over the last 15 months has been someone that was on police radar for their criminal activity without any knowledge whatsoever that they had been terrorists, and that's not the police's fault and the reason i say that is because in almost every case, the speed of radicalization has been at hyper speed, very, very quickly, people being drawn into their radical ideology. you can't live in this larger part of european community. you're part of the muslim nation and you need to do things on behalf of the islamic state.
very, very fast. it's important to recognize, finally, that while the brussels attack was a wake-up for much of the world, it really wasn't the aha moment for europe. nor, for that matter, were the attacks in paris in november. it might have been for the public, but not for counterterrorism officials, not for intelligence officials. that ah-ha moment came 15 months earlier in january, 2015. not with the "charlie hebdo" attacks which i would consider both the kouachi brothers, claimed by aqap and kulibali self-identifying with the islamic state, terrorist frenemies whose groups were fighting one tooth and nail in syria and iraq and engaging in attacks together in paris, those were still of the old school lone offender type. there was no evidence they were being foreign directed by other
group. >> the key aha moment came a week later, in belgium, where intelligence led people to a safehouse based on intercepted communications, a key belgian islamic state terrorist based in a safehouse in athens was on his cell phone. they raided this place, two belgian officers were killed, and what they found there was tremendously disturbing. precursor chemicals to make tatp explosives of the type used in belgium this week. large cache of weapons and ammunition, sophisticated communications gear, a significant amount of cash, and indicating to them as they continued to investigate, perhaps most disturbingly, not only that this was a foreign directed plot, and then over the course of 2015 we had several more foreign directed plots including, of course, november in paris, but also the
cross-jurisdictional nature of this plot. they're in belgium, they're being overseen by someone on a cell phone in greece. other pieces of the investigation were going on in germany, in france, and in the netherlands. u.s. intelligence report that has since been made public presently noted at the time that this, the cross-jurisdictional nature of these plots is what is going to make the most difficult for the international community in general, and for europe in particular, given the fact that its communications and intelligence and information sharing are still very much a work in progress, this is what will make stopping the next attack all that much more difficult. we have two clear baskets of tasks ahead of us. the one is obviously counterterrorism, and it's what most people are going to be focused on right now. identify the accomplices, map out the network, arrest as many people as possible who are planning attacks against the west today, and you have heard yesterday and i'm sure there will be more today of further raids in belgium and france, et cetera. that shouldn't surprise and
that's appropriate, but in many ways, the larger lift, the 20-year plan, the thing that is going to be a lot harder to do is integrating communities that have become ghetto-ized and not at all integrated, and i'll leave you with just one strange and disturbing statistic. i asked local police officers in brussels if they were able to work with local imams in brussels when they found people who were drifting off either into criminality or from criminality into radical ideologies condoning and justifying violent extremism, and they said largely not, and for two reasons. one, there's not a religious but a cultural taboo that makes it very hard for them to reach out to many elements of the community. there are lots of efforts to do this, and some of the most successful, for example, have been to reach out to mothers,
but they have a real problem getting past the social taboos, but in terms of the imams themselves, there are, they told me, approximately 114 imams in brussels. most of these young youth that are being radicalized don't speak arabic, and most of those imams don't speak any of the three local languages in particular, french or dutch. and the number they gave me, which is frankly mind-boggling, is that of the 114 imams in brussels, a total of eight speak local languages. so there's clearly a tremendous amount of work yet to be done. i have to take your questions when we're done with the panel. thank you very much. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> good morning. thank you first for joining us this early. i think we all really appreciate it.
the march 22nd attacks on most news outlets failed to notice, brussels for most of the eu institutions have their headquarters, one of the blasts was close to the institutional core of the city. of course, matters of opportunity and tactical expediency played a role in the choice of the city as a target. brussels had been a real base for the network that conducted the november attacks in paris, and isis operatives were already in place. also it seems that after the arrests in brussels of the most wanted figure of the paris terror ring, saleh abdeslam, some of the remaining members of the cell chose to kill and die rather than to be caught. but the attacks also epitomized a strategic decision by isis to extend its operations to europe. jihadi terrorists are hitting the continent hard as a time
when it faces multiple crisis. such are the stakes of the future of europe as a political project largely depends on the ability of the eu and of individual member states to respond to the threats. and these are security and political implications for the u.s., too. europe has become isis' latest battlefield, the remnants of al qaeda in iraq, the group managed to carve its caliphate taking civil war and unrest in syria and iraq. it proclaimed out of provinces by endorsing and supporting groups in places such as nigeria, libya, sinai peninsula and afghanistan. with the recent attacks in paris and istanbul and in brussels. the move might very well be partly a consequence of the setbacks that isis suffered in its core constituency, but that is no solace for the families of the victims and european
citizens who are now learning to live with that threat. the whole of europe is targeted, not only istanbul due to the proximity of the syrian theater. it's not only paris. it's not only brussels. it's pretty much the whole of the continent. networks and procurement lines spread across borders, as shown in the case of the paris attacks. plots have been foiled across the continent and other cities, london, mentioned as potential targets in isis propaganda. youth citizens have also been targeted outside their home countries, british tourists in tunisia or german tourists in istanbul. unfortunately, it is very likely that there will be more attacks and the worst might be to come. the brussels attackers contacted civilians operations linked to belgium's nuclear program, and the french government officials have repeatedly warned of the prospect of terrorist chemical
attacks in europe. isis can rely on a potential reservoir of more than 5,000 european foreign fighters who made it a certain point of time, some have come back, some are still there, some are on their way, some are dead. not taking into account the possibility of other homegrown radicals and when isis is hopefully defeated, other organizations will take up the mantle of jihad. europe is no random target for the organization. the attacks come out at a time when the continent is facing multiple crises. fiscal and monetary crisis that resulted in a bailout of several european states and weaken the euro, an economic crisis with growth and unemployment, an migration crisis initially spurred by the syrian civil war with hundreds of thousands
trying to reach europe for safety and increasingly also for economic reasons. the continent is also facing an identity crisis, questioning the status of islam in europe and the ability of the continent to integrate migrants. and then on top of that, a crisis of the european project, obviously since the 2005 constitutional referendums in the netherlands and france, and know a game playing out with the referendum that is scaled in the uk in a couple of months. the attacks fit also within isis' concept of what they call the gray zone, according to the organization's publication, propaganda available online. western muslims find themselves in a gray zone, neither following the ways of the caliphate, as fantasized by the organization, nor fully belonging to the western mainstream. the point of t repeated
terrorist attack is to provoke a backlash against american-muslims, pushing them to, in turn, embrace the radicals. so facing that, what can europeans do? so facing that, what can europeans do? europe is frankly not well equipped to stand up to the threats. just as the union was created without a complementary fiscal union, free movement within europe was established without strong security cooperation both among member states and on the eu's extended borders. the eu did devise a common security and defense policy and conducted successful operations within that framework, like the anti-piracy operation near the coast of somalia, but that instrument was tailored to stabilize the eu's neighborhood typically in the balkan or to help the crisis even further, typically in africa, not europe proper. series of steps can be taken in the short term and some are in the pipe already as matthew noted the need for increasing intelligence sharing in europol,
europe needs to reinforce its borders by giving more robust border agency context and lowering systematic control which is under the discussion, will be under discussion in the eu parliament soon. and member states to share crucial data about air travel can help face the current intelligence and security cooperation challenges. more can be done in terms of following covering anonymous means of payments including means of payments with much more limited than traditional terrorist ventures. but international security cannot be separated anymore. handful of european countries meet their spending commitments right now, five of them.
even fewer are actually willing to commit troops and resources to operations. an attempt to enlarge, to improve the burden sharing of the continent's security has been made after the paris attacks. the french government has called on other partner states to work within the framework of a mutual system that is part of the european treaties. more can still be done. this effort should be pursued and new security for strategy and foreign policy strategy, the eu is due to adopt during the course of the summer should reflect that. it is the ability to deliver security to its citizens. the law also requires setting europe's values with confidence and making sure that these do not remain empty for those who
do choose to implement the european way of life, thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. now eric. >> thank you very much to the washington institute for hosting this event and for inviting me to join and to sort of be able to share some thoughts on a topic that is receiving obviously enormous amounts of attention from the policy, and the practitioner community. i think you open up the "new york times"/"washington post" every day and three more op-eds about what europe should be doing, what the u.s. should be doing, what went wrong and how to fix the problem. it's difficult to add and particularly following these two speakers to add much value but i'll do my best, reflecting a bit on my, the six years i just spent in the state department working on some of these issues,
and other experiences i've had. so i think the first point is, i very much share matt's assessment of the two-pronged challenge, because both the counterterrorism challenge and as well as what he describes as inclusion challenge. i would frame it slightly differently in terms of a near-term counterterrorism challenge, and a longer term prevention challenge. and at the core of the prevention challenge is these issues of social inclusion, and one of the main issues that we have to grapple with and europe has been grappling with for some time, we grapple with in the united states is resources, and every single leader will talk about the need to focus on the long-term while also focusing on the short term and not to, the goal should be of course to take terrorists off the battlefield and the streets, but also to diminish the pool of recruits so for each one you take off the
street there are not ten more to replace that individual. unfortunately the resources allocation never matches that rhetoric and we're guilty of it in the united states in terms of i think until recently the last budget of this administration, i don't believe there were any dedicated resources for countering violent extremism at home. i think they'll finally be budgets in the department of justice and homeland security budgets for this specific purpose. i think a similar issue confronts belgium and other countries. the resources simply are not being allocated to prevention. so that means the kinds of mother schools that you've seen popping up around the world to engage mothers proactively and to allow them to engage their children and their other young people in the community to set up hotlines for mothers to reach out to when they see early signs of radicalization to train
school teachers to train police, all the rhetoric is there. the european union has perhaps the most elaborate radicalization awareness network imaginable and they promote it all the time, and it produces lots of thick reports and thick analyses and do lots of workshops around europe but at the end of the day, you don't see that translating into resources at the municipal level being allocated to implement the good practices that are being identified, and so that's again it doesn't get a lot of attention in the how to fix the problem bucket, but over the long-term, a greater investment
in prevention resources, i think, has to be made a priority. if one just looks at the budgets in the european commission for and the development commission, they've just announced a 1.8 billion euro fund to deal with counter radicalization and counter migration in africa, 1.8 billion euros. union architecture are not new. they've long existed in terms of the counterterrorism structures, and terrorist attacks since 9/11 in europe are not new. they've been horrific attacks in numerous countries around the continent, and yet we haven't seen the kinds of changes in the system in the european architecture that i think a number of european countries have been advocating for and certainly the united states when i was in the government, we were advocating for.
part of the reason we haven't seen that kind of change is because, in some sense it's a lowest common denominator process within the european union, and so you have a number of countries, you have, that are less willing to invest resources and political will in the kinds of reforms that are so clearly needed. europe is not without its, europe is not without its counterterrorism related structures. they exist. they just don't work, so the question is by creating these structures, as has been advocated both i think today and
in various newspapers over the counterterrorism agency that's been proposed an eu intelligence sharing mechanism that actually works, but then it has to be implemented at the national level and that, as illustrated by i forgot, matt or olivier, when only five countries are submitting names to the europol database within europe that means 23 aren't is a new structure going to change the way the european governments operate and part of the challenge here and this, again, is, we're going to see shifts in, just like we're seeing shifts in the sengan system we'll see shifts in how european governments and institutions balance privacy and security concerns. i think for too long there has been great emphasis placed on perhaps too much emphasis placed on privacy rights that have actually interfered with the ability of some european governments and european union to provide security to its citizens, so i think that debate is a very fulsome one, an intereuropean debate that has to happen, but i think the debate is so complex that often slows down reform efforts, because
there are so many stakeholders within the european system that need to be heard, just elongates any reform process so that's another thing to keep an eye out for, and then one thing that's always sort of, i've always scratched my head about is the challenge that the u.s. government has in terms of dialoguing with the european union on counterterrorism, and part of that challenge is a result of the hydroheaded system within the european union, so you have the justice and home affairs process with our departments of justice and homeland security. you have a foreign affairs counterterrorism dialogue. you have a terrorist financing dialogue. you have a countering violent extremism dialogue with the united states, so it's like five or six dialogues, none of which involve the eu counterterrorism coordinator because currently he really doesn't have any authority. he has a grand title and he produces wonderful reports but he