tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN April 6, 2016 5:00pm-7:01pm EDT
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 llenge 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 has a limited mandate and no resources to actually do
anything. so these are all things that i think people have identified for the last shortcomings that have been identified for the last few years but have really not, we haven't seen sufficient progress made there. and then two more points. the first is that, as we look at the solutions or improvements in counterterrorism in europe, a lot of it's going to involve subnational actors. lot of it is going to involve empowering municipalities, local police forces, and resourcing them in the like, and again, it's difficult at the national level for the u.s. government to have a real influence on how national governments in europe engage with their subnational authorities, but i think what we're trying to do, what we were
trying to do when i was in the government is to encourage as many, for example, city to city exchanges between european cities and u.s. cities on social cohesion, countering violent extremism so lessons learned in the united states could be shared with cities in europe and vice versa, one very sort of relatively well-known example, this was an exchange between columbus, ohio and the city of vilvoorde in belgium, just outside of brussels. the vilvoorde had to think the highest per capita number of foreign fighters for any city in europe, that went off to iraq and syria, and a group of vilvoordian officials came over to columbus and other cities in the u.s. with cities designed countering local violent extremism which involved police, religious leaders, social workers, educators at the local level and how they can work together in engaging individuals at risk and creating, preventing folks from becoming further radicalized or going off to fight and some of the lessons learned were then implemented in vivord and the mayor apparently cited a dramatic decrease in individuals leaving. the correlation is hard to prove
as a direct correlation but certainly more of it has to happen an something i think the u.s. government is trying to encourage. and then the final point i would just make is that the -- is the tendency to, in this context, to cite a number of new security officials, a number of new police officers, a dollar figure investments in security as sort of the answer to the problem in response to these situations, and this are tougher laws and what's happened as we sort of reflect back over the last 15 years since 9/11 is in the years after 9/11, there was not one day when the u.s. wasn't being
reminded by our european friends about the need to safeguard human rights as we deal with an egregious, response to an egregious attack on our homeland. every international fora it was the europeans champion of the human rights agenda and every european forum it was the europeans reminding the u.s. of not to overreach, and we in the u.s. i think learned our lessons about that in terms of overreach, and we've made some adjustments and sort of implemented some lessons learned, but as i watch this from afar in europe, the debate
is completely different now. with europe understandably under attack, feeling directly threatened in a way they weren't perhaps right after 9/11, you've seen significant decrease in the sort of human rights rhetoric, and it's just something to keep an eye out for, because i think there's a risk that whether it's sort of the emergency laws in france that have been enacted, and i believe are being incorporated into the constitution now in terms of the ability of the government to do that, i think there's a risk in overreacting, and i think there is a way to balance these concerns both rhetorically but also practically, and i think over time, again, this is a debate that has to take place in europe, but over time, i think there will be more of a balanced approach so that we don't actually create more radicalized individuals as we try to prevent them from becoming radicalized.
so i will leave with that and be happy to answer any questions after. thank you. [ applause ] >> now comes my favorite moment which is i get to ask the first question, and listening to you all, i was getting more and more mystified, as to why europe has so much of a worse problem than the united states. i hear talk about social integration, social inclusion, and frankly, i had thought it was the united states that had a considerable problem of dissatisfied youth and criminal gangs, and we've certainly seen over the last year lots of that kind of problem. i was hearing about, of lack of government coordination and agencies that don't talk to each other. i thought it was the united states with our system which leaves policing in the hands of localities that faces a problem.
i've heard rumors that the fbi and the new york police department don't always get along the best. and i was hearing about counter radicalization efforts, and as one of our speakers put it the united states is not exactly a model to be followed in these areas and i was hearing about isis' targeting strategy of going after people living in the so-called gray zone and i would have certainly thought that, isis would be interested in targeting the united states. so colleagues, persuade me that it's something other than sheer luck, which explains why it is that the united states has faced less of a problem in the last year from these sorts of attacks. >> well, we've had our share of cases. there are cases going on in every fbi field office and that should be expected to continue. the vast majority of these are
of the inspired home-grown radicalized lone offender. what we're seeing in europe is a shift, these are of course not mutually exclusive but a shift toward these far more capable, sophisticated, dangerous foreign-directed plots and there are several reasons for this. one is geography. europe is at the doorstep of the conflict in syria and iraq, and the ability to travel and the cost of travel, the disincentives, barriers removed because of social media really puts europe at the, right at the back door, or maybe the front door of what's going on, and we are a farther distance away, it is a little more expensive to go. we have plenty of people who have gone or tried to go, but the flipside is that europe does not have what we in the united states have put in place here since 9/11 which is a far, far more robust and integrated
intelligence law enforcement coordination system. so we have fusion centers around the country to integrate local, state and federal law enforcement. we have joint terrorism task forces led by the fbi, but with participation across the inner agency some of the biggest cases we have been run by joint terrorism task force officers who are state police officers, for example. there's no such thing as 100% success rate, and it's impossible to say there won't be successful attack here. but we have a completely different model here that europe now is just beginning to try and emulate, and finally, we do have a much better record at integration. you will not find in the united states a community like molenbeek or communities like in marseilles or elsewhere that are completely insulated and isolated, large segments not speaking the local language, not sending their children to school.
you will not find a whole lot of imams in this country who don't speak the local language. we've had pockets where we've seen issues, for example, in the somali-american community in minneapolis and columbia. nothing like we saw in europe and that raised awareness and a tremendous amount of investment, and finally as eric pointed out we now have this new effort, task force in encountering violent extremism to be headquarters at the department of homeland security with the department from the department of justice and participation not only across the intelligence and law enforcement spectrum but maybe much more importantly across the social service spectrum of government, hhs, and the department of education, et cetera, and i think the first thing that we should expect from that task force that will be of significant import is highlighting communities where there are still are either pockets of hot spots which does not mean a terrorism hot spot but a hot spot of communities
that are not yet fully integrated and will be looking to do that not only from a prevention perspective but also social cohesion perspective. the melting pot of the united states. you don't need to check the national identity you came from at the door to become what we all are, which is hyphenated americans or almost all of us came from someplace else. i'll finally say the europeans are just getting on top of this. the belgians for example, they now have only fairly recently a coordinated unit for threat analysis, a cuta, which is supposed to be kind of a national model fusion center sort of based on what we have across the country between their two intelligence services and their federal police at the high national level, and we can't forget by the way that the high national level in belgium is made much, much more complicated by the multiple federal ways in which that system operates, not just politically, but geographically, linguistically and culturally, you know.
20 bonus points to whoever can tell me how many parliaments there are in belgium. it's more than one, and then working down to the local level where there are multiple task forces, usually one per municipality, sometimes more if they're large, so they're trying to copy that, but as eric said there's not enough investment, so for example, in the municipality of molenbeek and i don't mean to just harp on that but i was just there and it really has come up in almost every of the recent terrorism cases, in the municipality of molenbeek, they have had until november, the november attacks in paris, they had 185 open unfilled police officer slots after the november attacks in paris, they got 50 new officers. that's great. they're now down 135. part of that is funding by the way. part of that is it's hard to get people to want to work in a place where there's a lot of work to be done like that, but clearly, there needs to be a focus and a push into that
space. >> anybody else? go ahead. >> i think one of the differences with the u.s. is that you have very destitute neighborhoods in the u.s. where people are facing economic woes unemployment, discrimination, et cetera, but in europe you have that overlapping in some areas with salafism, with radical predication and that creates a more dangerous situation, but there's also something i'd like to make clear. it's not them and us. i mean, these young people are all youth. many of them are third generations. in france a third of those who actually join isis are converts and they don't convert to islam and then get radicalized. they convert to isis, directly. so this is the challenge we're facing. it's not europe against islam or against muslim, not only because that would mean falling into the trap that isis is laying for us, but because it's just factually not true.
>> i think it's a fair question. i would also just also note so we don't turn this into a what's wrong with europe session, the united states has enormous problems with gun violence and with mass shootings that europe doesn't have, and a lot of the inequality that is driving the situation in some of these muslim communities in european cities, there's that inequality here, it's just manifested in a different way and often not focused around the muslim communities. so i think both continents have issues of social inclusion and inequality that are generating different kinds of reactions. but i think, and secondly, i would just note that, while we sort of unintentionally pile on brussels and belgium as sort of they have to get their act together, there are many parts of europe at the national and local level that do have their
acts together, and i think particularly at the community level you've seen a number of whether it's in denmark or the netherlands or norway, you've seen really innovative community level programs that are dealing with exactly the kinds of challenges molenbeek is dealing with, sort of the question i'm always asking myself is, given all of these networks in europe to share experiences across europe, given all the resources that the home commission and the justice affairs commission have why aren't some of these programs being brought to places like molenbeek and resourced? i don't know enough about what's preventing this from happening but seems like such an obvious transfer of expertise that, an experience that should be happening that isn't.
>> well thank you. surprise, surprise, there's some questions. so let's start in back, and please, wait for the microphone. don't forget our audience watching on c-span. they can't hear you no matter how loud you speak. >> good morning, pat bourne europe policy senior representative in the united states. thank you very much for your comments. i just want to make a couple of comments and then i'll come straight to a question if i may. the first thing i'd like to do is as an eu representative acknowledge the victims of the brussels attacks and their families who are all going through suffering. one of our europe colleagues was injured in one of attacks slightly but injured. we must remember the victims when we talk about this subject. i want to say many of the panels referred to a big difference between europe and the united states is we are not the united states of europe. the eu is an economic union and an economic journey, so we do have all the challenges referred to, but the solution cannot be compared to solutions found in the u.s., which is what i'll come to with my question but i am very happy to say on law enforcement the u.s. is a strong supporter of eu. the sienna connections alone with our u.s. entities a 60%
increase in information exchange with the u.s. agents of which we have ten federal agencies, ten u.s. agencies. my question comes to this. the u.s. learned a lot post-9/11. they acknowledged the intelligence failures which probably could have prevented the attacks if it had a unified front and led to the establishment of nctc. we're tasked with setting up the european counterterrorism center in a different environment on the background that we're not the united states of europe, but has the panel on one or two key events that made the nctc a success, there's 84,000 law enforcement agencies in the united states but nctc seems to be success in coordinating counterterrorism activities. is there any advice the panel have as we move forward setting up the european counterterrorism center? >> sure. first of all, thank you for mentioning the victims. it goes without saying that we have to be thinking of them, of
course. look, it's not just the nctc that was created. we had a massive bureaucracy created including the department of homeland security and it's important to highlight there is this kind of broad bureaucracy that we've put in place with redundancy to be able to make sure that nothing is, no one system failure will lead to catastrophe. i think that one of the most important things especially as you're highlighting the large number of local law enforcement agencies here in the united states, and then think of that even more so as you get to all the local law enforcement agencies across europe that are in different national spaces is the fusion centers, which don't
get as much attention as nctc or the joint terrorism task force. as you go out to the fusion centers that's where the information is pushed all the way down the pipeline to the people who are walking the streets, the law enforcement, local law enforcement agencies, the police, the people doing community policing that is going to have not only the law enforcement, but the prevention component that's so important. they're much, much more staffed than any fbi field office, that's what's really important. again, we're piling on belgium because it happened there. belgium has put together a lot of good changes. the fact these are 18 months these things take time to settle in as they did here in the united states after 9/11. this huge incentive between the national and the local is important. 18 measures that were taken after january 2015 and another 12 after november, we need to give these things time to work. but again, staffing is important. so in molenbeek you have i think an ingenious model, there is a
police entity that is dealing with counter radicalization, not to go and arrest people but to integrate people into what we call community policing, it's a small unit. molenbeek has 100,000 people, 8,000 to 10,000 people going in and out, moving in and out every year so highly transient community, second poorest community, municipality in brussels, second youngest by demographic. while they have this unique feature of these community police officers focusing on counter radicalization, after they got more officers, after the november attacks in paris, they are now a total of eight, and there are three people in the civilian prevention branch working for the municipality doing great work but that's 11 people so we need to staff these up and then create multiple redundant ways for communication amongst and between them and that was most obvious now in terms of the fact that reportedly the turks informed both the belgiums and the dutch about one of the individuals who was then a bomber on tuesday,
because there was a belgian national returning from turkey to the netherlands, and that fell through the system and according to a belgian minister that was, as he put it, because of a liaison officer. well, you can't have, you need redundancy. we heard that on 9/11. you can't have one person whose job it is to share the most critical piece of information because that may not happen for any one of a number of reasons. >> i would just add in terms of a recommendation less on the information sharing and more on the intelligence sharing. it's on the strategy development and strategy implementation and implementation role that the rntc plays that i think is very valuable and europe just like the united states, produces lots at the highest level, produces lots of strategy documents, lots of policy documents in response to various threats, and proposing, you know, mandating certain reforms in systems, how incorporation and very rarely is rigorous implementation plan
that is both developed and then assessed, and those that are not -- in the u.s. it's domesticating agencies not following through, held accountable in some way. i think something similar like that in the new agency might be of interest. and i would just, while i have the floor, i guess want to make one comment, which is a lot of these issues of social inclusion that we're talking about in europe and belgium, particularly molenbeek, more particularly are not unique to europe and the context of the counter isil effort and there are a number of countries source countries for foreign fighters that those individuals are coming from ensuring government is responsible for all citizens is missing often from the discourse about how we deal with isil. there are issues of information
sharing, military issue, humanitarian relief, all those issues and counter messaging issues get a lot of attention. governance questions which is fundamental to this problem set are treated in a completely separate context and i think at some point we have to figure out how to integrate these two key pieces. it's challenging but over the long term unless we do that in a more robust, dynamic way we're going to continue to be focusing heavily on the short term responses and leaving these longer term governance challenges to a different set of stakeholders and, therefore, undermining the effort to solve the problem. >> also just one thing i would
like to add. counterterrorism is one very end of the spectrum but even within the realm of security there's an issue that's becoming more and more obvious with the last few attacks and that's ordinary crime. many of the recent terrorists have passed in petty crime or organized crime and this is to be -- seems to be increasingly a pathway to terrorism. once sanctified by the radical ideology. we need to tackling and can only improve the situation of some of the neighborhoods we're talking about. >> thank you. dan. >> would you just comment, please, on the choice of targets?
on the one hand the united states, say the boston marathon bombings and san bernardino, california three months ago, boston marathon a high-profile place, that one office party in california almost meaningless, yet 14 people were killed. what's the european decision? airports, train systems, is that the routine choice for terrorists when organizations send them and give them orders? >> i do think what we're seeing in part is difference between lone offender attacks and foreign directed attacks. in the united states both the boston marathon bombing plots and i served as an expert witness in that case and san bernardino shootings were plotted by individuals themselves. and they hit targets that were nearby and familiar to them and
in europe we're seeing foreign directed plots where the idea is to inflict maximum damage. sometimes on transportation, which is an obvious target now. we now know there's surveillance that was being done on one senior official in the belgian nuclear program but not just. we saw in november in paris the idea of another type of sophisticated, spectacular attack which is more the mumbai style, multiple cells with firearms and some explosives. i think the big difference we're seeing is three things. foreign directed, multiple and simultaneous attacks including the use of explosives and particular suicide bombings which we hadn't seen before, and plots multijurisdictional in nature. people in belgium were plotting attacks in france and here we have again multiple lines of investigation well beyond belgium.
we'll see that i'm sure in the investigation and the attacks this week in brussels. when the european union, when europol reporting that there's 5,000 verified, just verified european union citizens who have traveled between syria and iraq and unverified reports how many have come home we know there's a credible threat and an intelligence gap in terms of knowing all the people who have gone and once they have gone have they return and where are they? we have seen that as an important gap in terms of being able to police the borders overall. there's a lot of work to be done but we're seeing the difference between foreign offender and lone offender attacks.
>> i'm from the polish embassy. i would like to ask two questions. first, we know that the arabs -- attacks are directed. how can we trace the masterminds. you were saying about imams speak local language. it's not the major source of radicalization. must be internet, social media and so on. how to improve tracing the masterminds. second, regarding europe. france has asked european union counterterrorism what's the practical dimension, how it relates and i do think there's a danger for sengan and my comment, don't please -- i think the link between nato, spending as a military, a percent of their budget is very loosely linked with counterterrorism and radicalism, so this money definitely will not be spent on,
let's say issues regarding the counterterrorism or counterradicalism. thank you. >> okay. i'll leave that one mostly for olivier. it would be spent on taking the fight to the islamic state. there's lines of connectivity. there's tissue connecting all of these issues. now of these should be siloed counterterrorism in your community going back to something calling itself a state nor islamic. people who are converting are not converting to islam they are converting to islamic statism. tracking the mastersminds, we can now know about the plot because of intercepted communications. that individual then bragged in the islamic state as propaganda magazine about how easily he was able to move in and out of europe despite the fact he was wanted. it's not just intelligence but
law enforcement issues as well. i want to challenge the idea, though, that surely the driver, the radicalization is primarily or only the internet or social media. that's playing a huge component. but we're seeing in almost every case face to face radicalization and it's not the imams, you're right. it's other people in the neighborhood. the vast majority of mosques in molenbeek are storefront mosques. storefront mosque in and of itself is not necessarily bad but to the extent it's unregulated and outside the scope of the rest of society there's some risks and not necessarily in the mosque itself.
the nexus with criminality is huge. one individual in prison in belgium who was a key organizer in molenbeek. he was nicknamed papa noel because he said continue to go out and do your criminal activity, just give me a portion of it so we together can finance the foreign terrorist travel of those who want to go. and in another case reported recently by politico, a journalist was talking to officials in belgium who told him of an intercepted communication they had between belgians in molenbeek and belgians in syria and guys in syria wanted the previous bombers, how are the guys in the street referring to him. are they referring to him as a martyr as a bum? the reason they explain they are asking these guys it's about street cred. it's about going from zero to hero. not actually about, you know, the highest levels of paradise. >> about the nato issue, actually -- and thank you for asking the question. poland is one of those countries
who meet their commitments and one of the most serious countries when it comes to defense issues in europe. the two persons of gnb spending target is not spending on nato, it is spending on the military, generally speaking. so it is acquiring the abilities that can be used with nato, within the eu or on a national basis. and this is indeed useful in the situation we are facing because some of those capabilities are used to actually target islamic state in its iraqi and syrian strongholds through the air raids conducted by the coalition. and second, increasingly that's the case in belgium nowadays. that's been the case in france for more than a year. troops are deployed on the streets to assist and support the police in trying to secure. soldiers are protecting mosques and synagogues and churches, airports and train stations. so the more you have to make sure you have a military that's
able to conduct various missions, including increasingly domestic missions, unfortunately, the better equipped are to face the threat both individually and collectively. that's why i referred to that two-person stronghold. other thing about the french authorities invoking article 42.7 in the eu treaty, well, we have had some -- the idea was that france was taking a lot of the burden of defending the continent, including through the operation of the french military's conducting targeting another brand of jihadis links to al qaeda but who are still a threat to syria and elsewhere. we did get contributions from other member states to different
operations, both in a region of afta, also the coalition -- national coalition operations in iraq and syria. for some of those contributors that was a significant political change. i'm thinking in particular of germany which is traditionally more cautious about those deployments. but those threats are entering. so the balance sharing is to be pursued. lastly, your point with shengan shengan is free movement space among certain number -- majority of eu member states. not all of them. for instance, the uk and ireland are not part of the shengan space. they now face two challenges. one is the massive outflow of refugees into europe, and the
second is the possibility that free movement offers to terrorist to move from one country to another and to organize networks across borders. the obvious reason is to try and use the eu's external borders. shengan is one of the most tangible benefits for the eu for european citizens, the fact that you can cross a border without being stopped. fact that you can buy chocolate in belgium without stopping at the border which wasn't the case when i was a kid. unfortunately, terrorists use same possibilities to do other things. but safeguarding that and reinforcing that knowledge of the security challenge is not only a security issue, it is a major political issue. it is one of the most tangible, visible and economically offensable achievements of the
eu. >> just one comment on the question how to trace masterminds. there's obviously all the communications, tracking and intelligence gathering that is essential, but i think another piece is the role that community members play in reporting early signs of radicalization and trying to help intervene against them. it's not necessarily by reporting to the police which may not be seen as a friend of the community but reporting through another channel. and i don't think it is a secret that abdelslam was able to -- i don't know if the right term is hide out, but find a little bit of safe haven in his home community of molenbeek. again, i don't know if it's been proven but i assume there are people in the community who knew he was there and could have potentially notified government officials of one sorts of his presence and perhaps his plans. but i don't think, again, the investment is in that piece of
the information gathering and is there. so even if you -- one way is to go about sort of getting rid of the masterminds, but then the other way is to go about -- they're equally important -- to get rid of the recruits because a mastermind needs people to actually implement his or her master plan. >> from foreign policy. thank you. couple questions. to what degree -- what role does the sanctuary in syria and iraq for islamic state play in this terrorism we're seeing in europe? because you're describing these kind of indigenous problems inside europe in these communities. what degree are the sanctuaries feeding the problem? and then, you were talking about privacy considerations and privacy laws.
to what degree are privacy laws and regulations in europe a barrier that actually laws have to be changed to allow the kind of intelligence gathering and eavesdropping necessary to track the extremists? >> i'll take the first question and i'll -- i might have to punt on the second because i'm not an expert in the specific european privacy laws, but i'll take a stab at that as well. in terms of the sanctuary in syria feeding the problems in europe, i think even when there is a political solution in syria, you're going to have thousands of fighters who have gone off to fight in syria and iraq, either they'll be either dead, they'll be wanting to
remain in syria, or they'll want to go home. and thousands will probably want to go home and be willing to renounce violence. the challenge i think for europe is going to be what to do with this influx of returnees and how to decide whether to prosecute or reintegrate them into society. and i think just like the system in belgium is overwhelmed by simply tracking the hundred-plus suspected terrorists that are in the midst, it will be overwhelmed by how to handle the returnees. and i think in terms of just being able to do rigorous intake, in terms of deciding which ones are thrust into society, which ones should be prosecuted, which ones are sort of able to be reintegrated into developing programs or reintegration, and i think this
gets to the question about what the european counterterrorism center could usefully do. this might be a valuable piece of what this new agency could do which is be a centralized place for dealing with returnees. and because a lot of individual governments may not have the resources to rigorously vet the returnees and then develop programs for integration where appropriate, think maybe a centralized european funded outpost could do the trick. but the bottom line is i don't think the resolution in syria is going to end the problem. i think it will certainly immediately it will certainly slow it down because there will no longer be that attraction for fighters going off to syria to get trained.
but i do think sort of the cat's out of the bag in the sense there are thousands of people who have gone off and they've been trained and exposed to horrific violence. how we deal with their reintegration or return is a huge challenge. on the privacy issue -- >> a corollary question though. there are close to a million people who fled syria who have come into europe. could you talk about what extent you think that's going to be part of the problem here, and also you were referring to the ease and low cost of travel from the middle east. all three of you were. as part of the reason why europe faces a greater challenge than the united states does. to what extent do our tight restrictions on travel from
these countries appropriate? we've heard quite a discussion about that matter in the u.s. presidential debates. >> that doesn't make them smart questions. why don't we finish dealing with these two sets of questions, then we'll add on to answer this third. that's a whole separate issue. but why don't you finish what you were going to answer here? >> on the privacy question, again, it's a field unto itself, so i'm not going to pretend to be an expert on privacy law, let alone european privacy law. however, i have seen the past name recognition issue and discussions within europe about how -- whether eu member states are going to be required to gather personal data from airlines of passengers flying in and out of -- into european union airports. the real road blocks that certain constituencies in europe
place to creating this database -- a database that exists in the united states. and it was constantly -- it's the right to privacy, the right to protect individual information. sort of again, it is an understandable reaction to what happened in east germany and elsewhere in terms of government gathering all this data on individuals and who knows what they do with it. but that created an enormous road block to progress in the negotiation. that was in the aftermath of various terrorist attacks that -- and terrorist threats and foiled attacks -- for example, the underwear bomber from 2009, i believe -- was one of the impetuses -- the reaction you was one of the impetus for u.s. pushing europe.
i still don't think there is an agreement within the european union in part because of these privacy concerns but my information may be outdated. and then of course individual member states have their own privacy laws that have to be -- once you get a european union level agreement, each european union country has to implement that agreement and different national approaches may -- and different national experiences may further complicate that. so i can't speak specifically about the laws but i do know that privacy rights are constantly an issue in terms of information gathering and sharing within the european system. >> i'll just add, on the first issue of the sanctuary issue, one thing to point out is actually we are making it more difficult for people to travel to syria and iraq. we've had some success there. success sometimes breeds other challenges and so we're seeing people now moving to libya. that will present some other challenges.
i do think that the sanctuary provides both assistance to the ideology -- there is this ideology of success and there is not like battlefield defeat to push back in their ability to radicalize people to this purr purported islamic defeat. it is logical that they will become more ultra violent at home and become still more determined to strike at us in our homes. the asymmetric warfare which is the only real way they can fight us with any effectiveness. and that plays into the other role of sanctuary which is they in these foreign directed plots -- not everyone, but a significant number of the individuals are people who did go to syria from iraq. in one case it was only for six days but you only need a few days to learn how to do certain types of skill and they are in fact coming back with greater skill in terms of those types of attacks.
one thing people mentioned to me last week, there is an effort, for example, within the eu counterterrorism's office and europe to help member states be able to put together procedures for the use of internet evidence, for example, which has become much more important, when you can prosecute. they want to prosecute, i was told, but at the end of the day many of those people won't be prosecutable. those who are probably not going to be in the european context get anything near life terms. so whether it is immediate or in a few years you have to think about rehabilitation about the returnees and that's a huge issue. on the sidelines of the white house cve summit we hosted here at the washington institute an event on the issue of
rehabilitation of foreign fighters with the member of our house and someone who was involved with the prison system in the iraq war. if you're interested in that washingtoninstitute.org. i'll finally say on the privacy issue, watch for change. i'll give you just one example. prior to tuesday's attack, again the eu counterterrorism coordinator's last report had some interesting things in it. i was particularly interested in this piece. you may recall we had some sensitive negotiations with the european over the terrorist tracking program. it took some time for the european parliament to get on board in terms of being able to feel comfortable with its privacy concerns. and those are legitimate. we got there and it is able to function. but there were some cut-outs. so today you do not have the
united states going to the europeans and saying, you've got to remove these cut-outs. it is the european union counterterrorism coordinator saying it. specifically, there is an example from the tftp system if you make a payment denominated in euros from somewhere in the eu to somewhere in the eu, there is a cutout that's not covered in the swift program. european union counterterrorism coordinator is telling european they need to cut out that cutout. privacy issues are not important or legitimate but fwheed to typed more sophisticated ways to balance them. >> privacy issue, do you have to have the debate and that's what is going on at the eu
parliaments increasingly. because some of the instruments we're discussing have to be passed. syria and iraq, yes, it would be extremely beneficial to defeat the islamic state there. these are training grounds for fighters. this is where most of their command and control infrastructure is. and those are provided through the narrative. it's much more interesting to go fight for the caliphate and retake damascus, the caliphate capital rather than to blow one self up in a train station two blocks from where you grew up. yes, definitely. >> i won't let you escape so easily. the question that makes us uncomfortable we recognize the humanitarian crisis of refugees flowing and we feel great sympathy for the refugees. but is there a counterterrorism problem? and we may feel quite unsympathic to some of the
effective as the, you know, lowest common denominator. so i don't think that we should be tarring and feathering all the refugees. we need to recognize that, unfortunately, there have been some really disturbing and because of the attacks devastating incidences of people being able to move within those larger waves of migration. but as we are putting in place more controls at the borders, by metrics, et cetera, if we can put these systems in place and make them actually work, we do have the capability of being able to make it much safer for europe, and not unlike we have done here in the united states. it is true. here in the united states there's a multiple redundancy levels of checks. we should be able as human
rights to be able to accommodate people fleeing death and destruction in a way that doesn't present us with the kind of immediate threat that we're facing from attacks like we saw on tuesday. >> as research director of the institute that tries to bring in people, nationals from some of the countries concerned i can tell you right now that many of these restrictions the u.s. government has put in place on travel by syrian and iraqi nationals very much impeding our work and our ability to interact with people from those countries. so do not be mistaken that my question implied a sympathy with that. over here, please. >> two quick questions. first it's become anecdotal that the belgians had a law or restriction that could you not invade a home, carry out police activity between 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. is that true?
the second point is talking about integration and anybody who served or worked in belgium i'm a retired foreign service officer belgium is the least integrated country in the world. the german speakers and the third -- the third thing is when you're talking about europe and what is it three weeks ago a major bombing attack in istanbul precede ad few weeks before that by a major attack in ankara. as far as i know the man in europe is no longer in europe but is a member of nato and that was not brought up at all today. >> three important points. the latter wasn't brought up because we're focusing on europe and we can focus on other attacks around the world. it might be at some point. part of nato. not part of the eu. nothing to watch there. and if some of these press cases
continue it's unlikely that they will be. on the anecdotal piece of it yes that was the case there was a ban on doing searches between certain hours and that was removed after the november attacks in paris. finally on the issue of belgian integration i found it tremendously interesting in all of my meetings last week local, federal, every level you can imagine, not a single person in their opening remarks to me said anything about the integration issues among the different communities in belgium about the difficulties of navigating society except for a friend of mine, an american in belgium who # told me over dinner if there's a trash bin from the city blocking your driveway how many phone calls to how many different parts and layers of government, regional, federal you have to
call to get that issue involved in the neighborhood. so that's a very important point. >> yes. one remark. i mentioned the attacks twice in my initial talk, but to be in the community and, you know, divided society issue, i think we're talking a lot about community and not enough about individuals. the individuals who joined isis do it -- i mean they do it -- they break with traditional islam that their parents practice. they break with traditional western environment of their own family when they are converts and once again they continues convert to islam, they convert to the isis interpretation of islam directly.individuals among the students in far greater numbers
than those who join the terrorist organizations join security forces in different countries and play a key role in following and infiltrating some of those networks. we should be careful sometimes referring to communities only and not to individuals and individual trajectories not only have us miss the point in what's actually at stake but eventually plays in favor of the more radical who claims a monopoly on defining what the community should be and should do and be defined as, which is not what we're looking for. >> thank you. >> wait for a microphone. >> sometimes in life one should consider briefly consider america --
>> identify yourself. >> america could be wrong. israel has had zero casualties since september 11th. in italy on october 12th the day before the october 13th attack in paris italian authorities arrested 17 people. one was mistaken identity. the other 16 had weapons. the question is this. the italians have had zero [ inaudible ] for example there are no office of counterterrorism does not exist in italy. the italians have 161 imams in prison. [ inaudible ] and they locked him up. >> and the question? >> the question is this, how come, how come these other jurisdictions, the french, the
belgians continue to follow the italians because several european countries have now broken with the pact and have adopted the italian method because they do not wish for more terrorism. so the issue is how come you gentlemen have kept talking about these problems as if they were inevitable, impossible, that's way it is, that's europe. italians have zero casualties. 45 italians have died in mali and bali in new york, belgium zero in italy. how come nobody pays attention to the italian model? >> i would challenge the idea that there's a separate italian model. you asked your question. several times. so i'll answer it. having spent time with law enforcement and intelligence in rome they do a great job. they are not acting alone. they are part of the european union. there's open borders. so there's a big element of
skill and there's a big element of luck. god forbid there could be and i tack in italy tomorrow. i wouldn't be so brave as to say italy as got it right, rest of europe has got it wrong. there are other countries that haven't had as many attacks. i wouldn't say it's a completely different model. i would say the nature of these communities are different in different places. the biggest thing to me in terms of brussels that we're focusing on because of this week's attacks they've known about these communities that were not integrated for a very, very long time. it wasn't a priority. now they are playing catch up. they can put in place and get funded the most sophisticated systems and strategies and it will still take time. so it's thrilling and wonderful that the italians have not had an attack domestically within italy. may it continue. i don't think i would be as bold as you are to say it won't happen or because they found the golden nugget.
they are still part of the eu and there's a lot more they can still do as italian officials told me not that long ago. >> gentlemen, final word? >> i think it's what i emphasized in my remarks which is the prevention angle. i think again, we are, the united states catching up to this pretty rapidly now in the need to invest more in prevention whether at the national, state or local level and it's not just involving government it's involving civil society, local leaders, municipal authorities, women, imams. it's a much more horizontal effort across communities and stakeholders and everyone talks about this. you know, you go to any country including italy, including brussels and belgium.
they will talk this as if they believe it. and they really do believe it. the next step is resource it. until we start doing that it doesn't have to be through the effort to counterterrorism, doesn't have to be labelled counterterrorism measure but i do think more investment has to be made in this area particularly but not only in europe. so that would be my sort of top line point. >> my last point would be to emphasize stakes are extremely high including for the united states and what's happening in europe. u.s. citizens have been killed in brussels. they can be targeted in europe. they can be targeted from europe. and also if you don't succeed in being up to the task which is a long task, some talk about the generational challenge, the u.s. might have to cope with a very different europe and that's something to bear in mind on this side of the pond.
>> belgium doesn't have the largest number of foreign tourist fighters not overall, not in europe. but they do have the largest number per capita and so as i think about this for what i want to say for one final comment i would say this. one thing that's unique in belgium and elsewhere in europe while we do have cases where religion, radical religion ideology plays a critical role that's not what we're seeing here. what we're shearing is that there is a religious piece but the recruitment of criminals, this zero to hero phenomenon is a huge problem. officials in brussels stress to me multiple times in multiple meetings that there's a religious component that the quote that people said over and over is salafism is mainstream in terrorist.
each terrorists we're dealing with has been radicalized to salafism. maybe, maybe not because a lot of these kids as we said are being radicalized to the idea of the islamic state more than anything else. they are not praying five times a day. they are still drinking alcohol. it's a different type and very, very fast hyper speed radicalism. and then i would say that this local prevent component that eric has pointed to is critically important. again, the belgians have in the past 15, 18 months put things in place. they trained up over 17,000 police officers in the types of things to look for in radicalization. they worked with social workers and teachers how to identify and react. they built platforms that meet
once a week or every other week where people in the local government with the police, with people at the federal police level can meet and discuss things. they do have things in place. finally i would stress one last time this issue of crime. so much so that the belgians have two separate lists. one they call their consolidated lists for their security primarily terrorism cases of i think it's about 675 persons. they also have a separate list they call the jib, the joint information box which is a parallel list primarily for people they know in the criminal context. because so many of these people like saleh abdelslam police had to admit we knew him, we knew him as a petty criminal not a big criminal and wasn't going to mosque and involved in terrorism but because they find so much overlap they are looking to consolidate these lists and that's probably a good idea. >> i would like to thank you all for consolidating our insights on this matter. i'm sorry to say we'll be returning to the subject again in the future. [ applause ]
american history tv on c-span3 this weekend, saturday night at 8:00 eastern, lectures on history. >> new factors make emancipation desirable old obstacles fowle falling by the wayside with the result that 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 his tore professor tracey mckenzie on the evolving war goals of the north during the civil war. and then on real mergamerica -- >> how was it possible for america to achieve such production and at the same time pin an army. amazing ports came in. 20% of american industrial manpower was woman power.
legions of american women were amassing to stop the advance across the world forsaking it for the war. >> this war department film documents how women in world war ii helped the war effort alluding that the hidden army of american women working in war manufacturing are the main reason germany lost the war. sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts, we visited daughters of the american revolution museum to learn about an exhibit marking the 125th anniversary of the organization founded in 1890. >> one thing that stands out at this time period is this creation of this imagery of the epath yoe sis. it's an old concept, it goes back to apncient time where is a warrior is made godlike by lifting him up and celebrating
him about that. >> on the presidency at 8:00 -- >> washington and jefferson are two examples of slave own, eat worth highlighting their successors. 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 upon congress to preserve and uphold slave owning interests. >> tyler perry, african american studies professor at california state university fullerton on the 12 american presidents who were slave owners. eight of them while in office. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to cspan.org.
every election cycle we're reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. c-span is a vehicle for empowering people to make good choices. it really is like you're getting a seven course gourmet five star meal of policy and, boy, do i just sound like a nerd but it's true. >> to me c-span is a home for political junkies and a way to track the government as it happens. whether on capitol hill or in the agencies. >> most staffers seem to have a television on their desk and c-span is on. i think it's a great way for us to stay informed. >> i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. my colleagues when i go back today, they will say i saw you on c-span. >> you can get something like the history of grain elevators in pennsylvania or landmark supreme court decisions. >> i believe that we will win, i believe that we will win!
>> there is so much more that c-span does in terms of its programming to make sure that people outside the belt way know what's going on inside it. >> i am proud to announce -- >> i announce my candidacy. >> i'm officially running will -- >> to president of the united states. >> a reporter who covers politics,>> to president of the united states. >> a reporter who covers politics,fto president of the united states. >> a reporter who covers politics,oto president of the united states. >> a reporter who covers politics,rto president of the united states. >> a reporter who covers politics,o president of the united states. >> a reporter who covers politics, president of the united states. >> a reporter who covers politics, c-span has been part of my research. >> there are so much nitches and all of the policy areas get covered. >> how much nuclear warheads does russia have aimed at the u.s. and the u.s. have aimed at russia? >> it's a place that i can go that lets me do the thinking and do the decision making. >> good morning, everyone. phone lines are open so start dialing in. >> the interaction with callers
is great. you never he know what you'll get. >> you're right i'm from down south and i'm your mother. and i disagree that all families are like ours. i don't know many families that are fighting at thanksgiving. >> and welcome to book tv's live coverage ever the 32nd annual miami book fair. >> c-span2 on the puigweekends becomes book tv. >> it's been a wonderful way of accessing the work of those folks who are writing really great books. >> every weekend c-span3 becomes american history tv. you're a history junky, you have to watch. >> whether we're talking about a congressional hearing or we're talking about an error in history, there is so much information that you can convey if you have that kind of programming. >> whether at the capitol or on the campaign trail, they have a
camera capturing history as it happens. it puts you inside the chambers inside the conversations on capitol hill and lets you have a seat at the table. you can't find that anywhere else. >> i'm a c-span fan. >> i'm a c-span fan. >> i'm a c-span fan. >> yes, i am a c-span fan. >> and that's the power of c-span, access for everyone to be part of the conversation. here on c-span3, we're standing by for a campaign rally with democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. she'll be in pittsburgh p.a. at the campus of carnegie mellon university ahead of the pennsylvania primary that is coming up later this month on april 26th. when the event gets under way, we'll take you there live here on c-span3. for more road to the white house coverage. while we wait a discussion on
campaign 2016 from today's washington journal. >> john than >> jonathan swan joining us now. yesterday you wrote an article that ted cruz and bernie sanders were looking for game changing wins in wisconsin. 24 hours later, has the game changed? >> it's hard to know how much it has changed. it's certainly changed to some extent. i think importantly both ted cruz and bernie sanders overperformed. so i had a conversation with the top polster in wisconsin, charles franklin he was expecting a sanders victory by 4 percentage points and he won by 13 which is very important because wisconsin is a state that he should win frankly. it's a heavily white state, it has a lot of progressive history. so it's a state that bernie sanders should have won. but the fact they won by more
than ten points will give his supporters some comfort. ted cruz again slightly overperformed his expectations. but really what the important story i think out of last night is it makes a contested convention on the republican side much much more likely. and in fact betting agencies are now saying that it's more likely than not that we will go into a contested convention. >> stick with the democratic side. is this this is a different story today if bernie sanders wins by two or three points. what was the ropeeason for the he overperformance? >> we haven't got all the wrinkles of that yet, but the thing with bernie sanders that he needs to do is a tight victory for him these days is not a victory frankly because he needs to really eat up a lot of ground on the delegate count. so he needs big wins like this. he actually -- to get close to where he needs to be, he needed
to win last night by 16 percentage points. that gives you the idea of the magnitude of victories that he needs. but i think that we will see that bernie sanders did very well with working class white voters last night. he still fell within african-americans, but only 10% was african-american, so it didn't have a huge bearing on it. as we look ahead to new york, he really needs to improve his standing standing among minorities. i think he lost 40 points last night among african-americans. >> bernie sanders nets 14 delegates. again magic number is 2338. bernie sanders behind by about 700 delegates if you factor in the superdelegates.838. bernie sanders behind by about 700 delegates if you factor in the superdelegates.. bernie sanders behind by about 700 delegates if you factor in the superdelegates. new york well over 100 dell fwat oo00
delegates in play. look ahead to wyoming. what are the expectations for that coy cussaucus? >> there has been no good polling out of wyoming. they haven't worrybothered to do a projection for it. logic would tell you that bernie sanders would probably win if he didn't win, it would be concerning because caucuses tend to have more intense enthusiastic and often smaller voter turnout which tends to favor bernie sanders. i think the main thing wyoming will do it's insignificant in terms of delegate maps as last night was as you pointed out, but it would be he would have won seven out of the eight last contests. voters would start to think there is something going on here. >> the momentum? >> it's more that his team can sbin it spin it for another week. >> and in new york i said over
100 delegates -- it's 291 delegates available on the democratic side. the republican side new york 95 delegates available. when you but the colorado republican conventions are continuing the actual convention happening on saturday. explain what is happening in colorado for republicans right now. >> so i think what people need to keep this mind is that there are sort of two tracks going on in the republican contest. one is the one that you see every so often like last night where people actually vote the public votes, winner gives a speech, there a press is a press conference. the other is a quieter track which is what is happening is people forget that delegates are actually human beings and most of them haven't been selected yet. so there are also a series of conventions going on, republican conventions where party regulars vote and select who is actually
going to fill these delegate positions at their convention. and ted cruz is showing great organizational strength. he's showing this throughout the contest so far, but what we're seeing is donald trump is being outmaneuvered at that delegate level. so even though there are states where trump led the popular vote, ted cruz is winning the delegates. that is something to look out for in colorado. colorado didn't even have a proper vote so it's truly a pure organizational effort. and if history is any guide, ted cruz will do better than donald trump. >> and if this is confusing for any of our viewers, we have about 45 minutes to break it down. jonathan swan is with us national political reporter with the hill newspapers. a special line for wisconsin voters, as well. 202-748-8003. we'll start with clay in new
york all-important state of new york, clay is a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning, c-span. one of the things that is very puzzling that i've seen and i've been paying attention to this not only with the major media, but some of the blogs that are out there, is that the complete inhumaneization of donald trump. we see pretty much everybody line up against this guy, from the major media, even aipac, even his own party the gop who is obviously mitt romney out to discredit him, his own party trump within his own party. but what. >> prince: he wills me is that here we have a man who appears to be pretty much going against the grain in terms of globalist policy. that all encompassing word globalist. but a man that has very strong nationalist tickic policy.
and it appears that the gop machine and even the dnc do not want somebody who is going to upset the apple cart who is going to roll back globalism and push forward policies which would in affect free trade. my question to mr. swan do you think donald trump is unpredictable and dangerous to the power elite and not so much the american people? thank you. >> mr. swan. >> well i can't speak for the american people. i would never try to do that especially with my accent. but i think your first point is certainly correct in that republican elite are terrified of donald trump. i mean there is one thing that shows that more than anything. i spent yesterday on the hill talking to a number of republicans and ted cruz -- i mean, you cannot possibly
understand how despised hated loathed he is among republicans on the hill. they are now viewing ted cruz in increasingly lies and as lindsey graham said he described ted cruz as poison and donald trump as being shock and they are saying we would rather take cruz than donald trump. so the republican establishment has made -- is increasingly making their choice and i think your assessment of globalism is spot on. donald trump has taken a view that the united states needs to revise his trade policies, revise its immigration policies. and if you look at someone like speaker of the house paul ryan, is he diametrically opposed to donald trump on both of those two issues. >> ted cruz last night in his victory speech talking about his effort to unite the party ahead of the general election. here is a bit from that speech. >> i ask you at home to join us
as we continue to unite republicans and independents and libertarians and reagan democrats and americans who care about our future who want jobs freedom and security just as we've done in wisconsin, we're doing all across this country. and governor let me tell you, i look forward to coming back to the state of wisconsin this fall. and in november for the first time since 1984, painting the badger state bright republican red.
>> cruz cruz cruz cruz! let me just say, hillary, get ready, here he we come. >> the governor that ted cruz turned there to there to talk to was governor scott walker who endorsed tg. tg. ted cruz. how much did that endorsement and that back and forth play into last night's results?how much did that endorsement and that back and forth play into last night's results? >> again speaking to the top pollsters and strategists on the ground in wisconsin one of them described it as weapons grade stupidity for donald trump to attack scott walker. people forget outside of wisconsin, yes, scott walker is a divisive figure nationally.
yes, he is despised by democrats in wisconsin, but he is beloved by wisconsin republicans. he has an 80% approval rating. so for donald trump to have gone there and attacked the sitting governor, not many people think that that was an intelligent strategy and then of course scott walker timed his endorsement of ted cruz as he said himself for maximum impact. so looks we don't know we don't have -- if it added four percentage points to his vote but i think it certainly helped. >> let's go to clifton teen see tennessee a democrat good morning. >> caller: i have a couple comments to make. my old grand pappy raised me and devoted minimum of four years of high life to this country. and i got my hazardous duty pay.
when i got out, i spent over 20 years out on the road running a big rig. doing highmy part to keep this country going and it's my opinion that this mr. trump fella would make a good used car salesman because he says what he knows people want it hear. and one other thing, it's my opinion and my thoughts he's been using our constitution to toilet paper and he outehe ought to be tarred and at the timefeathered. appreciate it. >> up next chris is an independent. go ahead. who did you vote for yesterday as an independent? >> caller: hi this was a very difficult election for me. my husband and i are both very
hard workers. and before the election my husband and i said who are we going to vote for? to me, the candidates are so extreme. we have donald trump who wants to eliminate social security or system. we have bernie sanders who wants to pay for everybody's tuition. we have hillary clinton who has a history of dishonesty. this is a very tough election and really the candidates -- even talking with some of our peers, it was like where do we go who is really going to be the best candidate this year.
and this is a difficult, difficult choice because they're so extreme. >> so what does it come down to for you? >> caller: well, the -- after looking at all the instances, i actually favored rubio unfortunately he did not, you know, did not have a chance here. so i voted for cruz. but honestly i -- it wasn't somebody that i totally totally backed at this point because i'm still so unsure of all of their -- of all of their stances. they really have to -- would
really have to take a hard look at where these candidates -- what they're wanting to do to our country. >> well, chris, you mentioned marco rubio. marco rubio and the delegates that he accumulated early on in the process could still be a factor come convention time if a donald trump doesn't enter the convention with that 1237 number needed. >> i was looking at the overall delegate count this morning. marco rubio is still ahead of john kasich. marco rubio has more delegates than john kasich. so yes, they matter but what is i think a misconception is the idea that marco rubio can tell these people what to do. it will be a free for aulll. a number of people who are
unbound and it's up to the candidates to convince the delegates to support them. >> carol has a question about the democratic superdelegates the unpledged delegates who could change their votes. she asked can't superdelegates change their minds ahead of the convention. and there a story in the "wall street journal" about theegates coming under pressure right now like the momentum bernie sanders campaign is starting to show in recent states. >> the simple way to explain that, a superdelegate is simply someone who can do whatever they want and they often, you know say yes, we're supporting hillary clinton but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will he said up supporting hillary clinton. the fact is if hillary clinton by somesaid up supporting hillary clinton. the fact is if hillary clinton by some mathematical miracle for him defeats hillary clinton in pledged delegate there will be a number of these that will be under pressure to say, well, if
by state voted 70% for sanders over clinton, am i then subverting the will of the people by supporting hg. hillary clinton. and that is the argument that bernie sanders is taking to the superdelegates. >> so the answer is yes, they could switch their votes. >> jonathan swan is our guest. here is the home page of the hill newspaper. it's the hill.com. or call in and ask the question. we have john than swanvhave jonathan swan with us for about another 25 minutes or so. bonnie is a republican in maryland. good morning. >> caller: i'm so tired of everybody saying that donald trump is getting bad coverage. he's the one that comes out with
that crap and then so he can get free tv coverage. and he calls ted cruz lying ted. well, he put a thing in the paper ted cruz cheated. donald trump cheated and bragged about it. and did you notice every state donald trump goes to he says oh i love it here, i think i'm going to buy property. or when obama went cuba oh, i think i'm going to build a hotel there. it's all about donald trump. he doesn't care about the people. he owes more where he's borrowed against everything he owns than he's worth. people need to wake up. he's doing it for donald trump and his family. he is nothing more than -- i mean, it's sad. he's in it for him. he's a crook. he cheated people out of money. they go in they buy these condos and all, and he sells the
trump name. he doesn't build anything. he hasn't. his father did it. >> all right. that's bonnie in maryland. did you want to weigh in on any part of that? >> i might decline. >> we can go to james in forth worth, a democrat. james, good morning. worth, a democrat. james, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i want to thank about the dishonesty bargarbage about hillary clinton. she's fighting against a corrupt system that has robbed the middle class of their standards. and they have been throwing mud at her ever since. and for people to believe this stuff and buy it on television and actually going back and looking at her accomplishments and the things that she's done and consistency of her honesty and her dedication to the lower income people, to the middle class to the children of our future, and support somebody as dishonest as donald trump, go back and look at his -- i'm
going to send those people to hawaii. hillary clinton is probably the most qualified, the most educated and the most sincere of any of them going. and if the republicans want to win this white house, the only chance they've got is to put john kasich in there because ted cruz is a complete fraud and donald trump is completely dishonest. thank you very much for taking high high my call. >> exit polling in wisconsin showed nearly 9 in 10 identified sanders as honest and trust trustworthy versus 57% said the same about hillary clinton. twice as many democrat voters were excited about what sanders would do in office versus hillary clinton. some of the interesting findings this wisconsin reflecting some of the larger trends in the race here. >> yeah look people shouldn't i think get too exercised -- i
mean the dishonesty question is one that has plagued hillary clinton and it's probably given her -- she's 100% name idea. it's probably already baked in. probably hard to change that. but if donald trump or ted cruz is the nominee, betting markets would have hillary clinton strongly favored on win. >> let's go to lansing, michigan and independent mary is calling in. mary, good morning. >> caller: good morning, c-span. there is something that i'd like to talk about, the power structure of the dnc and the rnc, their delegates and the fact that we the people apparently -- our votes don't count. the fact that we pay for these primaries in each state the citizens. now, my family has a saying, who does the paying does the saying.
meaning whoever runs the bills that pays the bills in the household they get to decide what the rules are. apparently the rnc and the dnc have decided they are the ones that get to do the deciding. they don't want do the saying so they need to start doing the paying and the american taxpayer should not be paying for the primaries. and i don't believe -- i'm going to make it my personal mission to try to get this practice stopped. if they want to choose who is going to be the nominee, then they better start paying for these primaries because we can use that money for our roads, our bridges, our education and so on. and i pledge me with my representative this friday in my hometown, he's having a town hall, and i'm going to say the very same thing to him. tim walberg up in michigan. and i will see him friday and
i'll tell him the same thing. thank you very much. and america, wake up. >> i hope tim walberg is watching and prepared for the question when you ask. jonathan swan on the primary rules and the process and the convention rules going forward that we'll be finding more about as these conventions -- possibility of a contested convention continues to come up. >> yeah, and people should now really start paying attention to what happens in a contested convention because it's now more likely than not that one will happen. there are all sorts of misinformation being spread about the rules. the fact is that, yes, every convention the rules are set by something called the rules committee. so there are a set of rules that were used in 2012 but they were set by mitt romney's people. these rules will be revisited, revoted organization potentially redrafted. so basically people should just
know we don't know anything yet. but we are very, very likely heading toward as contested convention. >> jonathan swan first time guest on our program, national political reporter at the tillhill newspaper newspaper. you can follow him on twitter @jonathanvswan. daniel is up next a democrat in wisconsin. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my comment goes to bernie sanders, democrats in general, that they should have started building a coalition as far back as 2010. and i'm talking about the census first. anybody that returned the census card participated in the system.
but if you can't even get people to respond where they live how can you prevent gerrymandering. in 2010 the democrats never showed up and we lost the house. 2014, never showed up lost the senate. so democrats need to start building the understanding that -- we leave this recorded portion of washington journal and take you live thousandnow to the campus of carnegie mellon university for a campaign rally with hillary clinton. >> wow. what a crowd. we are so fortunate to have hillary clinton here today to
talk about her future for america. secretary clinton has been somebody who has been breaking down barriers her whole life. and will continue to do that. she's somebody with a great heart but also with the smarts to move this country forward and to get things done. on april 26 western pennsylvania is going to be clinton country. while there are other candidates out this talking about building wall, we know pittsburgh --
can you feel the hills? how about it hall of famer fran coy frachb franco harris. he knows what backing means. there are so many great times that i remember here on this stage where the class played in 1982. and today a historic moment in pittsburgh. if you think about pittsburgh in the 1980s, it is so much different than it is today. we were looking down the abyss of economic collapse. we were looking airport country and around the world as a city that had lived its time and a city that had died. and if you see it today, the way that it has come back you can understand there is hope when you invest in people and there
is hope when you have a vision of where to go. when you understand what unites us makes us stronger and what divides us makes it weak. when you are not afraid to look at challenges but you take them on and you address them. and that is how pittsburgh came back. and that's why mayors across the country progressive mayors all over this country are backing hillary clinton. because she understands our past. she knows are we're at. and she has a vision for our future. an america for all. it is my honor to introduce the next president of the united states secretary hillary clinton!
>> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. thank you so much. wow. i am thrilled to be here at carnegie mellon university. and to be in this great american city as the mayor so rightly said, a city that has not only built bridges, but moved into the future demonstrating absolutely that you can have resilience if you are resourceful, if you don't give up you keep working together. we can make it here in pittsburgh and america!
i come out of a tradition of american progressivism which lives with all our hearts that we are one country, one people, one future. and we have to work with each other lift each other up we have to with respect each other. we have to demonstrate by what we do that our diversity is an asset. it makes us the luckiest nation in the world to have the challenge, the dream, the aspirations of countless people. but what i want to do if i'm so for nat as to be your president is to knock down every barrier that stands in the way of any
american being able to fulfill his or her god-given potential. every american deserves the building blocks of a personal future that will help us build america's future. so i've been very clear in this campaign. i take a back seat to nobody. when it comes to being a progressive but i do believe if you are a progressive, you need to make progress, you got to get things done. you've got to bring people together. and that's what i intend to do. i think there are three big tests the next president has to meet. and if you think about it, you're actually doing a big job
interview. you want to know who are these people running for president. where do they come from, what do they believe, what have they done in the past. what have they not just said but what have they accomplished. and can we count on them, can we count on them to stand up for americans and america? so here are these tests. number one, can the next president actually deliver results that make differences, positive differences in the lives of americans of all ages? you got to be able to ask that. well, i think one of the ways you look is what have you done already. who have you helped. who have you fought for. who have you taken on. who have you stood up against.
now, the second test is can you keep us safe and continue to lied the world on behalf of american values. and the third is can you unify america, can you bring us together, can you end the divisiveness that has become all-too common if ourn our politics. so when i think about producing results, i think about my grandfather who came with his family as a young immigrant to northeast pennsylvania to scranton. i think about how he went to work in the scranton mills when he was still a teenager and he worked there his entire life.
and he built a good middle class life in those times for his three sons. and then his sons went to college. penn state and when they got out of college, i know it's a little school up the road, when they got out of college, they had a better future. and my dad was a small businessman and bymy mom had a really tough upbringing, but she got through it and she showed restill resilience and grit that was such a great example to me. every one of us has a story. your own families, you've seen the struggles. maybe not in your time but in the prior generations. and what has been so extraordinary about america, this amazing experiment is that
we delivered. we weren't perfect and we had a lot of problems to overcome. but we delivered. and we never gave up. and we just kept going. and, yes, sometimes we fell short of our own dreams but that didn't stop us. so what i want you to understand as i look out at all of you, particularly those in front of me this election is much more about your future than anything else. it's about what kind of country will be waiting for you as you make your decisions over the next years and what kind of world will be out there. so i want you to imagine with me what we can build together. imagine an economy that creates enough good paying jobs for every american to feel that he or she counts to have the purpose and dignity that comes
with a good job, the purpose and dignity that comes with a good job, with a rising income. imagine that we put millions of americans to work again. fixing our infrastructure our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our ports, our airports. not only what we can see, but what we can't see. no person in america should ever drink water contaminated by lead or anything else! imagine that we once again become the manufacturing engine of the world. that we are building what the world needs. what is creating our future. i was just over at the robotics institute and -- i saw the
extraordinary work they're doing. in medicine. in manufacturing. in the kind of home care delivery that will be part of our future because of the work done at this great university. by the faculty, by the students. i want us once again to believe that we can make the future by making the goods that we then can export around the world. i know we can do this because not only at the robotics institute but in many places across our country, i have seen that future. i know what we can accomplish. but we've got to make sure our tax code rewards that kind of work. we invest in research again at the level that we should from the federal government. so that's why for both
infrastructure and manufacturing, i've laid out very specific plans about how to do this. we need a national infrastructure bank that can continue to fund the kind of work that needs to be done in our country and in manufacturing. i have a $10 billion plan that will invest in the kind of inventions and productivity increases that can come right out of this great university and put people to work! and i want you to join in one of the great goals that has ever been set by human beings and that is to combat climate change and begin to reverse the effects of greenhouse gas emissions! i care passionately about this
because i actually listen to the scientists. and when you ask the republicans, who are running, you know they all say, they all say, well i'm not a scientist. well i bet carnegie mellon can help teach them about climate change and what it means for our country. but it's not only because we face this existential threat but because there are economic opportunities if we put our heads together and work to create them. i was there in 2009. president obama and i had to crash a meeting in copenhagen during one of the climate conferences, literally had to stalk the chinese and the indians. they kept telling us they couldn't meet with us.
we're on the way to the airport. on the way to the airport? meeting's not over. so we sent out scouts through this huge convention center. and word came back. they're way in the back. they're having a secret meeting. so the president and i said well i think we'd like to attend. so off we went. and -- they had been -- they had been dodging and avoiding us for days. so we marched up the stairs and the security guards were saying no no no. president obama and i just kept smiling, hi hi hi. and the room they were in was all, you know covered with curtains so you couldn't see who was in there. and so the president just went up and kind of pushed through the security guard's arm and his arm went up so i ducked under the security guard's arm and we got into the room and the president said we've been looking for you.
and then we pulled up chairs and we sat down and we said let's reach some agreement so we can start to move the world toward actually facing up to dealing with and reversing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions! and that's why i was thrilled agreement in paris. my opponent said oh no he didn't like it. it wasn't good enough. you know don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. we finally got 195 countries on board! so now here's our challenge. some country is going to be the 21st century clean energy superpower. as things stand right now, i think it's going to be germany, china or us. i want it to be us and i want
carnegie mellon to help lead the way! i'll tell you what. i have set two big goals. i have set a lot of them about climate. i want a north american climate agreement. we need to be working with canada and mexico as we redo our glid grid. we need to be understanding how we challenge states on top of the president's clean power plan to go even further and i have said let's have half a billion more solar panels deployed by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to power every home by the end of my second term! these are jobs that have to be done right here in pennsylvania and across the united states. and these are opportunities for us. and i really challenge all of you to think about what each of you can do to contribute to our efforts to take on what is the
21st century global challenge. now, i believe, too, that as we move forward with these big opportunities we've got to do more for small businesses especially to help young people start their small businesses, follow their dreams! i have been told and i believe it to be true that carnegie mellon has the best return on federal dollar research money coming to any higher ed institution in the country. and one of the reasons is because you have made it easier for faculty and grant students and maybe even undergrads to start businesses. i want to unleash that. i want to see millions of new american small businesses because that is where most of
the new jobs will come from. so i want to open up opportunities for you. i also want our economy to be fairer. so imagine that people who work full-time get paid a minimum wage that doesn't end up in poverty at the end of the year. and imagine, imagine that finally women get equal pay for the work we do! this -- this is not just a woman's issue. this is a family issue. if you have a wife or a mother or a sister or a daughter who's working and they're not being paid fairly and equally when they go to the store, when
they're in the supermarket checkout line the cashier doesn't say, oh okay. you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar. foryou're an african-american woman, you only have to pay 68 cents on the dollar. or if you're a latino woman, you only have to pay 58 cents on the dollar. last time i checked, there was no woman's discount for failing to get equal pay in the first place! now, everything i've just said the republicans are against. every single thing. and you know i'm proud that we've run an issue oriented campaign. and the democratic primary. as far as i can tell the republicans have run an
insult-oriented campaign. but make no mistake about it. they are going to do everything they can to take back the white house. and if they get the white house, plus a republican congress we will not recognize our country. this is one of the most consequential elections. we have to build on the progress that president obama has made and we have got to go further! and, and here's one of those inconvenient facts that you might want to share with your republican friends. our economy does better when we have a democrat in the white house.