tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN April 14, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
claverack is not connect to the bulk power services but you receive services from another transmission system what does that mean for your cooperative in the event of a major cyberattack on the grid? >> in the event that there was a cyberattack that took down the grid, we would be affected by that. if penelex was affected and taken down, we would also be without power. >> mr. spence, whoever, there was a newspaper article yesterday that indicated that the fbi and the department of homeland security had machine warning the power industry over the last month about a potential cyberattack. what role as the electricity information sharing and analysis center, what role might they play in distributing this kind
of information? >> thank you, congressman. that was exactly what the information sharing analysis center does. we -- in fact, i'm not aware of that particular one. we do dozens of these a day. we get information, post it to industry, have several thousand participants in industry who receive those notices every day. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> the chair recognizes mr. meadows. >> mr. cauley, did i hear you correctly, did you say in the event of a cyberattack the longest period of time that people would be without power is an hour? is that what you said? >> thank you for allowing me to follow up on my -- whatever i said. my point -- >> sometimes i don't hear correctly. i wanted to give you a chance. >> the point i was trying to get to but i rushed, it's a very
difficult form of attack go from a cyberattack -- it's easier to steal information or disrupt things, it's challenging to go from a cyberattack to causing physical damage to the equipment. even in the ukraine attack, there was no damage to equipment. so that once they realized what was happening, they basically could defeat the computers and have people go to the station manually flip the switch, a mechanical switch, and put the power back on. so my point -- i would love to continue working on this and get some actual data to support that, is that it's very hard to transform from a cyberattack into long-term damage that would be measured in weeks or months because you have to hurt the equipment to do that. >> that's my focus, not turning a switch off here or there or, you know, tripping a breaker or
making a jack go out. that's minor. i guess the type of cyberattacks that we're seeing and hearing about in classified settings, not directly related to the electric utility business are very sophisticated. so being able to come in and -- so i assume going into a generating capacity. let's say you have a generator. you know, there's all kinds of controls and switches to make sure that you don't run into problems with the electrons. put it that way. so all of a sudden somebody coming in, nefarious, not just turning a switch off, can scramble it in such a way that would create unbelievable damage, certainly from a standpoint of generating capacity. i'm -- i don't want to talk about it in an open forum like this, but i guess my concern,
are you not having those kinds of conversations which are more than just turning the power switch off as happened in the ukraine, but really causing long-term damage either to generation capacity or transmission capacity? >> yes, congressman. i -- i have the privilege of going to very similar highly classified briefings as well. but i also have 35 years of experience working in substations with equipment. and i understand the threats of black energy or aurora or those things. it's very difficult to transform an action that the predominant behavior we're seeing today is surveillance-type behavior. destroying that in -- >> that's comforting to know. that's real comforting what i'm going to do, i'll follow up with you and mr. spence as it relates to this.
because it -- again, it's one of the number one questions that i get is just a real concern -- it's about hitting the grid and most people don't understand the interconnectivity between utilities and so a lot of that gets blown out of proportion. yet at the same time your confidence level f there were a cyberattack on an investor-owned utility somewhere in the midwest, that the damage they could cause in your opinion would be minimal? >> the damage on the -- >> physical damage. >> on the systems, that would be their business risk. on the grid it's very difficult. it's very unlikely to put the grid out for one to two weeks. >> so what you're saying mass outages for multiple weeks or days are, in your opinion, is going to be a weather-related
event. >> or the other thing is a physical attack, which is shooting and explosive devices at the substation, those are the two things that can get into that one to two-week and beyond. >> but those are a lot easier to anticipate and plan for. >> it's very complicated to do 20 sites at one with a physical attack. that risk is mitigated as well, but that's the one i worry about the most. >> that's very helpful. i'll follow up with all of you. i want to say thank you as a member of my local r.e.a., i have a great affinity for my r.e.a.s. >> thank you very much. >> i yield back. >> thank you. i have one more question, mr. spence. my colleague from pennsylvania highlighted that too many coal power plants have closed. are you concerned that having fewer generation facilities online makes the grid as a whole
more vulnerable? >> i am not. in fact, mr. cauley and his team are also responsible as part of their doodies to evaluate with detailing modeling region by region the impact of retirements of any sort on the grid of major power stations. they have evaluated this multiple times and have found that we continue to maintain an adequate reserve of capacity should we see more retirements than actually forecast. even with the forecast, the retirements which are many, particularly on the coal side, we still have adequate capacity to meet all of our projected needs for power. >> thank you. >> all right. i look forward to working with each and every one of you. welcome your input as we move forward on this initiative. thank you all for your testimony. your comments have been helpful to today's discussion. if there are no further questions, i would ask unanimous
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. a unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by memberses or witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearings. without objection so ordered. i would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony if there are no further questions to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
veterans with ptsd. we will hear from steve feldman and michael fallon. that's live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. ahead of that, a news conference with senate democratic leaders on the merrick garland supreme court nomination. harry reid and others will again call for senate republicans to hold hearings on judge garland's nomination. earlier this week the judge met with the chair of the judiciary committee, senator grassley who reiterated he would not call for a hearing on the nomination. again, you can watch that news conference today live, it's coming up at 12:30 p.m. eastern time, about 20 minutes from now on c-span3. until then a discussion on homeland security and the visa waiver program from today's washington journal. >> our guest is nahal toosi, foreign affairs correspondent for politico. her work available online at politico.com. this is the headline, the
president and his aides decked by the visa crackdown. is the administration struggling to craft a new anti-terror screening process ordered up by congress last year? explain. >> last year in the wake of the san bernardino attacks and paris attacks congress passed a -- changes to the visa waiver program. the visa waiver program is a program that lets people from 38 countries come to the u.s. temporarily without a visa. congress decided we needed to have a few more checks. they said people who from those countries who travelled to iran, iraq, sudan since 2011 have to get a visa before coming to the u.s. the thing is implementing that is harder than it sounds. >> this involving about 20 million visitors yearly according to the white house. 38 countries participating. as you indicated under the screening process it must be approved by the department of homeland security. how stringent are those regulations? >> it's a system that is very
popular. 20 million people come through it, like you said. and now to track down the people who have visited the four countries that i mentioned or who are dual nationals, it's a challenge. the visiting part of it is easier. but a lot of people have complained about that, they say you can be an aide worker from europe who goes to one of these countries. you can be a journalist, you shouldn't have to get a visa to come to the u.s. because you do those things. that's one challenge. the u.s. tried to have exceptions for businessmen, aide workers, but that's not easy to define. who counts as a journalist? on the other side, it's a dual national problem. a lot of people are dual nationals and they don't realize they're dual nationals. it's something you passively get, not actively seek. so a lot of people are getting
caught in that. >> iran, syria, iraq and sudan. >> right. >> let me share another headline from nbc news. the wife of the san bernardino shooter used what was called a fiancee visa to enter the u.s. it was a legal path for her to come to the u.s. but now it's coming under a lot of scrutiny. >> correct. that is not part of the visa waiver program. that's an actual visa you have to get to come here. when people apply for those things, marriage visas or fiancee visas, there's a lot of scrutiny. you have to wait, fill out all sorts of forms. prove this person you want to marry or are married to, it's a real marriage. they'll interview you, ask you questions about this other person. but it sounds like this woman and her soon to be husband privately corresponded on social media about their jihadist leanings. to check on someone's social
medial interactions publicly is hard enough, but the private ones are harder. our consular officials didn't catch it. >> so let's take it in a different direction. if you want to go to iraq, syria, or russia and need a visa, how does it work for an american going into those countries that require visas? >> you have go through a process. if you want to visit russia, it depends on the type of visa, if you're going as a business traveler versus tourist. if you're going as a business traveler or journalist to russia, you have to get somebody in russia to formally invite you. that's one example you have to do as part of the visa process for russia. iran, i can tell you, for example -- iran does not recognize dual nationality. if you're an american who wants to go to iran, you have go through a number of hoops to get there, to get prer mission to visit. it doesn't always come through.
we have three congressmen trying to get visas to go to iran, they have not been responded to. if you're an iranian american who wants to go to iran, they won't let you come in on an american passport. you have to get an iranian passport before you can come in the visa laws across the world vary quite widely. in some places it actually is very much a strike against you to be an american because, you know, these are countries that are not necessarily friendly. on the other hand having that blue passport gets you to so many places in the world than other passports. and front-runner donald trump saying it's time to end the program. end it how if his plan were to be put in place? if you want to end the visa waiver program, that's huge. the visa waiver program is used by business travelers, tourists, used by all sorts of people. that would be huge economic challenge to the united states if that were to go away. plus if all those people still
wanted to come to the u.s., i guess they would have to get visas now which would mean more money to be spent to have consular officials and others screen these people. i think it would be a challenge. on the other hand donald trump has proposed a lot of things that would be challenging. >> our guest began her career i milwaukee at journal sentinel and covered foreign affairs for the associated press. you were in islamabad, one of the first reporters to cover the killing of osama bin laden. >> that's correct. >> what was that like? >> it was insane. no other way to put it. it was one of those stories you always thought, okay, that's the big story. will it ever happen? you think it will never happen. then when it happens, you're like, wow, it's actually happening. i was on my way to cover a completely different story. i wanted to write about absentee teachers in pakistan, it's a major problem, chronic
absenteeism. then i got the word on twit their osama bin laden may have been killed. we turned around, rushed back to the office. when we heard, we rushed there and spent about a week talking to neighbors, everyone we could think of to try to piece it altogether. >> how did you get there? >> we drove. it's about two and a half-hour drive from islamabad where i was based. we drove. we grabbed whatever motel room we could find. i went there without any luggage or anything. one of my drivers back in islamabad had to come separately, get my stuff, bring it to me. it was exhausting. that first night, i slept one hour. that was it. back on the streets the next day. >> i have to ask you, when you saw where he lived, the compo d compound, it seemed to be a relatively small compound what
were your impressions? >> the news that came out originally was that he lived in a mansion in a suburb of islamabad. you have to understand, for people based in islamabad, when you first heard that, you were like, my gosh, have i driven by him every day? it was terrifying. you thought maybe you had -- he had been there all along. then it turned out it was a two and a half drive away from islamabad it wasn't a mansion, it was a large house. larger than the norm but large family homes are standard in pakistan but people live with extended families. it didn't look like a mansion. i had a friend who wrote about was it really a mansion or not. he was told by a pakistani real estate agent, no, no, no, it's not a mansion there was no swimming pool. our guest is nahal toosi. her work is available online at
politico.com. diego joins us from the independent line. good morning. >> caller: thanks for talking about this. i heard a bit about it on the internet when it passed. it does seem like bad policy to me, it's making racial profiling legal and hurting the economies of this country. my question, would this apply to an american citizen who is a dual citizen of one of these countries that's no longer being waived? >> there's a related tweet from a viewer saying my father was born in iran, i was born in the u.s., do i have iranian citizenship? to both of these points. >> right now, no. it does not apply to americans who want to go overseas. but the european union is deeply unhappy with the changes to the visa waiver program. and it has threatened to reciprocate. you know, the visa waiver program is supposed to be a reciprocal agreement. so there is a possibility that
the european union, including south korea and japan, they might say everyone who is iranian american, syrian american, iraqi american, sudanese american also has to get a visa now if they want to come visit us. there's a possibility of this. i don't know if if will happen, but for, no. americans wanting to travel abroad are to the affected by this. that being said, if your father is iranian, yes, the iranian government considers you an iranian national. that's the answer to that. the thing about dual nationality, there's no international agreements on it. nothing where all the countries sat around and normalized a rule. that's part of the challenge with implementing this law. the u.s. is having to figure out its own approach to nationality in an international vacuum. >> let's go to anthony. district heights, maryland, good morning. democrats line. >> caller: good morning.
thank you for taking my call. my interest is i -- you know, the country and the security of the country, we have this new technology and we have not -- hello? >> yes, we can hear you. >> caller: okay. go ahead. >> caller: the technology that we have. we hear a lot of excuses about we can't do this. we can't do that. we have books -- i mean laws that govern security. we hear excuses all the time about what we can't do as the young lady was saying, we can't do this we can't do that. i feel with the technology we need to just get serious about tracking people and their travel, what have you. let's get serious about it.
>> thank you. we'll get a response. >> i think anthony is hitting on something that's very interesting. yes, we do have a lot of technological prowess in this country to do a lot of these types of things. at the same time implementing those types of procedures does require manpower and money. so what i often hear from a lot of people in the government is, look, congress makes all these requirements to bring -- pushes all these requirements on us but they don't fund it. they don't give us a way to pay for it. on the other hand when it comes to something like determining whether a person is really malavonent, filling out a form or tracking them online, it doesn't capture everything. you often need that human element. you need that interview. you need that person to interact with another person and see from facial queues and everything what they could mean and what
their intentions could be. it's hard to say let's just rely entirely on technology. we are talking homeland security and the visa waiver program. mark is joining us from washington, d.c. good morning. >> caller: good morning. this is great. i'm glad you have this on the air. thank god for c-span. i work with a lot of people that come here from different countries, i'm in the food service business. they came here as students, now they're not in school because school is too expensive. they end up working. so if you wanted to track people and get a handle on the situation, i would go to the employer. you would probably cover two-thirds of people that you wanted to find out what their visa status is.
>> thank you, mark. we'll get a response. >> that's interesting. but there's a lot of different types of visas out there. an employer-based vooisa is don here to a certain extent. the employer route is important in tracking someone and making sure that person is legal. it's just more complicated. people eventually switch jobs, they switch to becoming legal permanent residents if they're a student here, they're here on a student visa, once the visa is up and studies are up, they can't stay unless they get a job and switch to a different kind of visa that allows them to continue to stay. in some cases they might get married to an american so they get a spousal visa. there are efforts to try to make sure everyone is here on the correct vooisa.
one of the big challenges is when people come here on a tourist visa and they overstay. there's no real way to track people who overstay. one of the big debates about illegal immigration, a lot of it is focused on people who cross the border illegally. but about 40% of people who are here, undocumented or illegal, is people who simply overstayed their visas. >> how closely have you been following the story in europe with the syrian refugees? >> a fair amount. this headline got attention in the "washington post." a social welfare utopia takes a nasty turn on refugees. the piece points out that in denmark and across europe a once tender embrace of those fleeing conflicts on the continent's doorsteps has evolved into an unu uncompromising rejection. that's what happening? >> i think the danish -- i had
conversations with danes about this. to them it's a question of how much they can absorb. for america, a country with more than 300 million people, it might not seem like a lot to have a few thousand show up. but for a place like denmark the numbers are so different. it's as if the u.s. was absorbing more than a million people a year. many of whom are coming without real assets, with a lot of need. in some cases traumatized. so simply because they already have a generous welfare system for their own residents and because they want to make sure there isn't the inequality in their society so the people who do come as refugees are able to get a lot of the same benefits, they want to make sure it's there. but they're realizing they literally don't have the resources. it's oftentimes from what i'm told by danes, to a matter of numbers. it's so much to try to absorb. >> back to the visa waiver program. a tweet from one of our viewers.
will this apply to americans traveling to mexico, canada, england, other visa waiver countries? >> my understanding is no. because at this stage, this applies for people who want to come to america. it does not apply for people who want to travel to other countries that are in the visa waiver program. as i was mentioning earlier, if those programs decide to retaliate and take the same measures as the european union has said it might do, then, yes, it could apply to americans of iranian decent, syrian dissent. the european union has said it might stop visa-free travel for all americans to europe because they feel like the program right now is out of whack. it's not truly reciprocal. that's not necessarily because of the changes we recently made to the visa waiver program, it's because the u.s. refused to let
in five european union countries to the program. countries like croatia, romania, poland, bulgaria and i forget the last one. the eu already feels like all of its countries are not being treated fairly, so it's already threatening to say, you know what? we'll stop visa-free americans f to us. but i don't think they'll take that step. that would be a huge economic blow to them. >> another question on the case involving the woman in the san bernardino california and the spousal visa program. the viewer saying why don't we interview and vet these people? >> we do interview and vet these people. trying to get a visa to this country is difficult. it's expensive, especially if you wanted to come and move here as a wife or a fiance of some e someone. it's a lengthy process.
some argue it should be lengthier, harder. what we found during the congressional debate is a lot of the people would have thought that would have wanted to crack down on this program actually said that when it comes to the fiance visas, they don't want to mess with cupid, that undermines peoples desire to get married. it's unfair to say the program does not have any vetting or interviewing. there's a lot of it. >> bob, good morning. springfield, virginia, republican line. >> calle >> caller: thanks to c-span for having this. my question has two parts. one has to do with the risk of brexit, the british exit from the european union. the other one is those who have overstayed their visas and the question of how one would begin to get their arms around the issue of those who overstayed in terms of what you do with them as a policy matter.
>> the question is a good one. the brexit situation, it's too soon to tell. if britain decides to leave the european union, it's hard to imagine that it would necessarily leave the visa waiver program. that's a program that the u.s. decides this country can join. this country can't. right now there's 38 members in that program. and a lot of them are not in the european union. i don't think that britain leaving the eu would necessarily affect its roll in the visa waiver program. as far as visa overstays in this country, it's a major challenge. you know, how do you track someone who simply just doesn't show up to the airport to leave? how do you find that person? what do you do? how much of a violation is a violation? if someone overstays a few days, does that count? it's difficult.
i think there probably are some technological solutions that would help track people. it's a question of how much money and manpower we want to invest in that. these are questions that are worth posing to lawmakers. to my knowledge nobody has come up with a good system yet. if they have, you know, i just don't -- i don't know how far it will get if there's not enough funding. >> nahal toosi, kirk is next on the democratic line. >> caller: thank you for c-span. >> sounds like you're listening in the car on c-span radio. good morning. >> caller: i believe the visa program is to protect us against terrorists, i'm sure your guests agrees that the majority of the terrorists who attack the united states are from saudi arabia, but that country is not on the list. thank you again. >> actually, he makes an interesting point. a lot of the critics of the recent changes to the visa
waiver program, especially when it comes to the dual national angle or the travel angle say, look, if you're going to crack down on potential terrorists, why don't you target people who have visited saudi arabia or pakistan or afghanistan. those countries are not targeted. when was the last time a sudanese-european national attacked america. the same thing for dual nationals. why not target pakistani dual nationals who want to visit america or saudi or afghan or libyan. the list could get long. recently the department of homeland security did say that anyone who traveled to libya, to yemen or somalia also falls under the visa waiver program exceptions. they did not include dual nationals, but the travel angle was included. i asked why don't you include other countries that have -- that are known to produce terrorists, who have attacked
the united states in the past? the response i got was that the u.s. feels like those countries, their governments are being helpful in trying to track down terrorists. working with the united states in the war against extremism. i -- it's interesting. it's strange. and it's something that i think that we're constantly asking them questions about. this is from jay sanders, you can track visa overstays by requiring bonds, and that would defer the costs. >> i think people would be open to creative discussions about this. >> lydia is next from texas. good morning. >> calle >> this recorded portion of washington journal. let's go live to the capitol on the merrick garland supreme court nomination.
>> how is everybody? >> we'll get started -- we were told everybody would be here in a minute. >> it appears that durbin merrier in the appropriations committee, they're tied up in a markup they're having, senate held confirmation hearings public in nature on supreme court nominees for 100 years. if republicans refuse to uphold
that standard now, they'll be setting a new low in transparency in government. today we're giving all members of the senate to do the right thing, tell mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley to do their jobs. give judge garland the confirmation vote that he needs. the process that is so important and has been so good for the country over these many years. out of sight meetings where republican senators slip out of back doors to avoid reporters are not transparent and are not nearly enough. there will be no transparency if senator grassley fails to call an open hearing, a hearing when chief judge garland can present himself to the american public. and when he does that, the american public will focus on him and they will be as impressed with him as we are. we hope our republican colleagues will join us and sign
this letter. senator schumer? >> thank you. we're so pleased that a number of our republican colleagues changed their mind in recent weeks and decided to meet with judge garland after all. the meetings are an important part of this process. but they're only the first step. it's every senator's right to meet with a judge, but it's the american peoples right to have him explain his legal views in an open and public hearing. having a private meeting away from the press and out of the public eye and then moving on is not doing your job. doing your job is holding a hearing, asking tough questions of the judge, and then voting yes or no. the republican reluctance thus far to hold hearings is evidence of the judge's qualifications. if he wasn't qualified to serve or held views way outside the mainstream, republicans would be
eager to show the american people to try and justify their unprecedented obstruction. if they thought that judge garland was not meritorous of a yes vote, they would have a hearing. because they know how good he is, they don't want a hearing. they know what will happen, and that is the american people will see how good he is and there will be huge pressure on the senators to vote yes. judge garland is qualified. he's well within the mainstream. republican leaders know it. they also know if they hold a hearing the cracks in the dam will get bigger. we expect to receive answers to a standard questionnaire and support from judge garland in the coming days. and democrats look forward to doing our job. reviewing documents, preparing for a hearing. and we hope our republican colleagues will rethink their
refusal to have hearings and join us in urging the republican leadership to reverse course. we're happy that several members of the republican caucus have already called for hearings. but it's time for them to put their money where their mouth is and pressure their leadership to do the right thing. we'll keep pushing forward towards a hearing but senate democrats know we have a job to do. the american people sent us here to do that job. and so we are initiating a letter, hopefully signed by democrats and republicans and this letter simply says to mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley, do your job, hold a hearing. i have good faith that every democrat will sign it. and then we hope our republican colleagues will sign it we hope the public will call their senators and say sign this letter. it's doing your job. and, again, to repeat, we knew
this would be not a week process but a month by month process. i believe that the pressure is continuing to mount. that republicans, particularly those up for tough re-elections, are having real trouble with this issue. and as we move forward in the next several months the dam will crack, republican senators will either by their conscious or by the public requiring them to do their jobs and we'll have a hearing. if we have a hearing, all bets are off in terms of the republicans saying i'll definitely vote no, once they and their constituents see judge garland, he'll become justice garland. >> thank you, senator schumer. shank you, senator reid for your leadership. it's hard to believe we're actually having to have this discussion about whether or not the third branch of government
will be unable to fully function for over a year. when we look at the constitution, it's very clear what needs to be done. the president has done his job in nominating an incredibly qualified person to fill this vacancy who has in the past been overwhelmingly supported in a bipartisan basis for the current job that he holds. and now it is time for us to do our job. so, we are asking colleagues to join us. we think it would be significant if we had the majority of the senate, if we had virtually everyone in the senate saying to the senate republican leader we are ready to do our jobs. as many of you know, i've spent time asking citizens in michigan and here around this community what would happen if they decided not do a big part of their job for a year. just decided i don't like this
part of my job. i'm not going to do it. every person asked said that's simple, i'd be fired. so the reality is the public understands that when we have a job, we have to do our job. that's what we are saying to colleagues, that's what the american people are saying loudly and clearly. so we're asking republican colleagues to sign the letter and to step up and to do their jo job. >> thank you very much, i wanted to start by saying i think the republicans when it comes to the question of whether they will do their constitutional job or not have a basic choice. they can take that path and allow a hearing and then allow a vote on judge garland as they should, a remarkably qualified individual to serve on the supreme court in terms of appellate experience i'm not sure anyone has ever been nominated with the degree of appellate experience that he
has. that's one choice we can make. the other choice is simple. they would be allowing extremism to triumph over the fear and efficient administration of justice by the supreme court of the united states. the highest court in the land. not just any court. so if they allow that extremism to triumph, they will have made the wrong choice. maybe one of my constituents said it best. her name is jane from southeastern pennsylvania. she sent me a letter in february about two weeks before i met with judge garland. i won't read the whole letter, but she said to me, i quote, please do your constitutional j job, unquote. and ended by saying, quote, any opportunity to take part in a judicial nomination is a privilege that deserves respect. each one of us have that
privilege. we should accord that privilege the respect that it deserves. give him a hearing and give him a vote. >> questions? >> senator -- [inaudible question] >> i didn't hear the first part. [inaudible question] >>i don't know. i leave that to the political scientists to prognosticate. i will say this, this is an issue that we're hearing about from folks across the political spectrum. this is not limited to one party, democrats, republicans and independents are calling my office and i think calling offices all over the country telling us do our job, give him a vote. >> do you have any objective indication that this is actually damaging in pennsylvania? there's so many issues, like
this is something that could actually -- >> you mind if i step in here? >> go ahead. >> i was shown yesterday, some of my colleagues were, a poll that was taken in ohio, in-depth poll by one of america's great pollsters, clearly it's having an impact in ohio, pennsylvania is no different. how could it not? people believe we're here to do a job. all they're asking, there will be some hearings held, so we can have a full supreme court. so bob being the nice guy he is, he wasn't in on that meeting yesterday where we had those -- that -- those numbers given to us. i would -- i would certainly suggest that pennsylvania's no different than ohio. >> they asked the question directly would it influence how you voted on senator toomey if you knew he was against hearings? and a large percentage of
people -- sorry, not toomey, the ohio senator -- portman, a large percentage of ohioans said yes, including a large percentage of republicans. you know where it had the greatest affect? not democrats, independents. independents, the polling data shows, do not like playing politics with the constitution. that's just what the republicans are doing. >> senator reid, this has not been a busy year, do you think there's any chance of getting overseas corporate tax reform done by the start of next year? repatriation by the start of next year? >> well, miracles never cease. who knows. but we are not doing much. i can't imagine we'll get into much technical tax reform this year. we've been talking about that for a number of years, with the republicans just stopping everything. and i think the contrasts speaks volumes. we are on the floor last evening
talking about the ability to move forward on an energy bill. that's been three years in the making. it was originally done by senator shaheen. she tried so hard for years. it was filibustered not once, not twice, but many different times. we're in the minority. we're responsible. we're allowing that bill to go forward. we worked on it. it's a good piece of legislation. not perfect. but we just have a different outlook on life than they have. and they -- you know, their tax policy is not our tax policy. i would hope we could do major tax reform, but i don't see it coming. >> on the supreme court -- >> yes. >> -- there may be some republicans who decide to take meetings, but mcconnell shows no signs of doing this. other than letters, procedural tactic, what else can do you for the remaining months of the year to try to get this moving
forward? >> i can't imagine that senator mcconnell thinks this is helping his people who are up for re-election. i think that that's pretty clear that all the helping his people up for re-election. i think that that's pretty clear all the evidence points to the contrary. but he is appealing to a very small base, namely the koch brothers and their minions. we just had a bill here on the floor, it was all worked out until the koch brothers stepped in, it was faa bill. it was tax provisions left out of the bill by mistake in december. but the koch brothers are so powerful, they had 30 different organizations, each with different names, and to the public they don't know but i'm telling them every one of these organizations is a front for the koch brothers. they want the senate republicans
to do whatever they want. and it's interesting to note the day after they came out with this letter these 30 people, republicans knew they were from the koch brothers, they were immediately wanting to go forward with that legislation. and on the supreme court, they're heavily involved in the supreme court battle. the koch brothers want to be able to control the united states senate to keep people of stature like merrick garland from being on the supreme court. they would be happy leaving the court just the way it is. as senator grassley said, what's wrong with having eight in the supreme court? he said that back in iowa. we're making progress on this. they're facing the music. we feel that the public is on our side, and that's no big secret. and this is to their detriment. and we need some strong republican senators other than e two that we've had to step forward and do more than just have meetings. we're glad talking about
progress we've had 18 republicans say that they'll meet with him now. doesn't sound like much, but it's progress. and all the republican meetings have not been in private like the one that the chairman of the committee held was in private. not only was it in private, he went and stumbled over chairs and stuff to get out of the back room to run to his hideaway so he didn't have to see anybody. all right. we've done enough on the supreme court. >> thank you. >> thanks everybody. >> thanks everybody. >> we'll be back on capitol hill this afternoon for a hearing on the benefits of service dogs for veterans with ptsd. a house oversight and government reform subcommittee will hear from veteran cole lyle, steef
feldman and michael fallon from the v.a. that's live at 2:00 eastern time here on c-span3. book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books. at saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern book tv is live from maryland state capital for the 14th annual annapolis book festival. then at 7:30 p.m., the book "chasing ghosts," the policing of terrorism in which they examine the costs and efficacy of federal and local counterterrorism efforts. on sunday night at 9:00, afterwards with ellen malcolm, founder of emily's list. she discusses her book when women win, which looks at the rise of women elected to public office. ms. malcolm is interviewed by kathleen waters of virginia. >> we wanted to raise money. and we thought if we gave women credit by raising early money then they could go on and raise
the additional money they needed to win. so we were like little political venture capitalists. we were going to go out there. in today's terms we were the kickstarter for women. and emily stands for early money is like yeast, we make the dough rise. and we've been doing that ever since. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. members from the european parliament discussed efforts to combat the islamic state and other terrorist groups following the recent attacks in brussels. members debated intelligence sharing, islamic radicalization and the migration crisis in europe. this is the first hour of that debate.
>> translator: the minutes from yesterday's sitting has been circulated. are there any objections thereto? no thank you very much in that case those minutes are adopted. we now move to the first item for this afternoon, a statement from council and committee on counterterrorism following the recent terror attacks. i will get the floor first to minister. >> thank you very much, mr. president. president, honorable members, mr. president, a european response is required to the horrific terrorist attacks we witnessed in brussels on march
22. our citizens are right to expect concrete action to counter terrorism both from the government and from the eu. now, obviously we share your strong will to fight terrorism as was expressed by your representative on march 24th. she said europe will not bow to terrorism. our unity and determination to uphold our values and rights are only made stronger. action must cover every aspect of the threat from prevention to protection and prosecution. and right she is. so, yes, the eu must build a coherence internal security policy that delivers resource and protects human rights. parliament has a key role to play in this. for example, strengthening and strengthening border controls and security and information sharing is key to maintain the
freedom of movement without internal border controls. and all of us will have to understand that our internal and external security are closely interwoven. in other words, internal and external security can no longer be kept separate. an integrated approach is needed. now, to give you a brief update of events immediately after the attacks in brussels we convened to justice and home affair ministers for a meeting on march 24. vice president also present together with representatives from europe the associated countries and interpol. the belgium ministers briefed our colleagues about the attacks. ministers in a joint statement condemned its acts and extended our sympathy to the victims and their families and our support and solidarity to belgium. they also set out a number of priority areas for action building on the efforts which
are already under way. we did not start from scratch. unfortunately terrorism has been on the agenda for years. and at the very forefront since the terrorist attacks in paris in january 2015. priorities have been agreed and considerable progress has been made towards implementation as set out by the eu counterterrorism coordinator in his latest report of march 2016. but more needs to be done. the minister's statement once again underlines the urgent needs to increase the systematic feeding in qualitative and quantitative results. we need to make optimal use of the tools we already have. maximum feeding and use by the member states is critical. in particular this is too, and focal point traveler at europol.
the objective to agree on a number of actions at the council in june. secondly, as of january 1st this year, the european counterterrorism center at europol is operational. been asked by france and belgium to support investigations after the paris attacks and brussels attacks which europol is doing not only information collection and sharing but also the analysis. therefore at the extraordinary meeting ministers decided to set up a jointly team of national council members to support the law enforcement authorities in investigating the wide european and international dimensions of the current terrorist threat. special attention will be given to the commission communication
on smart borders and int interoperaability. a priority for the presidency, it is important that customs, police and law enforcement officials can quickly and effectively consult our common databases. privacy by design will obviously play a key role moving forward on this. and, yes, parliament's role will be important once again. council has been added to the agenda in april. the road map with concrete deliver some inner open ratability will be prepared for the june council meeting. and there's more that we can do. together we need to speed up the negotiation of pending legislation. i'm referring in particular to
the firearms directive and the terrorism directive as well as the targeted amendments to the border about systematic controls of eu citizens at eu external borders. as the statement of march 24 points out, we need preventive measures as well as repressive measures to effectively counter terrorism, which is why it is also important to progress on prevention of radicalization. as you know radicalization awareness network and its working groups are actively sharing experiences and best practices. now, the internet referral unit at europol is full operational capacity in 2016 and made significant headway in cooperation with internet companies to remove online terrorist material. we know there is a strong political will in parliament to make progress on counterterrorism measures. and we share this determination. and we look forward to working with you in order to advance as quickly and effectively as
possible. thank you so much. >> translator: thank you very much, madame minister. now on behalf of the european connection preside connection, president. >> translator: presidents, madame president's office of council, ladies and gentlemen, the terrorists do not respect borders. once they're in europe, they can strike either in or outside of europe. and they are attacking our way of life and the values. on the 22nd of march they struck in belgium, in brussels, a city which is dear to us, which we love, full of our friendships. the place will be live in harmony with our neighbors.
and the commission is in mourning because in those cowardly attacks we lost a young italian woman full of energy, intelligent, smart, radiant. and she will be fresh in memories for a very long time. let me pay a tribute here to each and every one of the victims. let us have a thought for each of them. for each of those lives that are brought short and thanks to everyone who send the wish and all the best to their family and friends of the injured. can i salute the daily work of all of those thanks to whom we were able to resume the normal course of our activities in a
feeling of security, feeling safe, and may continue use of our freedoms particularly out of moving around and traveling. it is incumbent on all of us to make available all the necessary tools and instruments to ensure everyone is able to go about their business and do their jobs. that's what the commissioner has been working on for many months now to improve, air passengers, checks at the external borders, additional cooperation between member states and for remembering the essential cooperation between the secret services and the intelligent community. it is essential that we increase our game in terms of exchanging information. cooperation is strength. only last week the commission brought forward a new proposal. in particular in the way in
which the president and future information systems can be -- can improve the management of external frontiers and thereby reinforce internal security in europe. we need to be aware even as we speak there are certain information systems at eu level which provide the bodyguards and the police forces information about the movement of persons. but as too often when security matters are at stake the problem is not so much a lack of instruments but the failure to use existing tools and instruments and deficiency on the cooperation side. information is there, but it can drift into the sand all too often or arrives at its destination too late. therefore we must have more interconnection and greater
int inter -- terrorism in europe is not -- anti-terrorism will not be effective until and such time as prepared to cooperate with each other more and with the european agencies in particular europol. this is why when we talk about combatting terrorism we must recognize no one can give lessons and lecture anyone, and certainly not belgium, but we cannot lecture belgium. it's a great country which has been sadly tried and no finger pointing at belgium, please. [ applause ] let us not forget this is not the first time that indiscriminate terrorism has struck in and out of europe. and there's a connective failure first and foremost because for
decades now we have been able to draw lessons from such attacks. i remember european councils in 1999 and then in 2001 or with my good friend and others where we swore that we would have a proper exchange of information between information services and now is a time for action in the field of security and indeed in many other areas. renders us vulnerable and europe needs a proper security union. and i'm counting on the backing of this parliament to bring to fruition all the proposals which the commissioner has brought forward and can be the precursors of that european union which i hope we will see
materialize. back to the attacks in paris, thereafter the commission brought forward legislative and nonlegislative measures in a package concerning firearms. and it took six days for the commission to drop those proposals, not six months -- six months later, i cannot yet s see -- it's important we move to adoption thereof and the commission continues to walk away even if we have not seen forward movement there. and we will do so in the next few weeks to make sure that we can advance our security agenda. and we will give an ambitious road map with its content and timetable for implementation. the commission will be counting on the cooperation of the european parliament and of counsel because we are talking here about the security and liberties of our citizens, which is above all else a common obligation. thank you very much.
[ applause ] >> translator: thank you very much, president and commissioner. the floor to mr. viva, honorable president of the commission, i'm very grateful for making it clear to us for what we're talking about today. we're talking about the 37-year-old mother who leaves twin childrens behind. she was killed at the airport. and the people who loved brussels and died in the metro and the young teacher -- muslim teacher who was on her way to school in that metro. three cases, three innocent victims and that happened in our european city. and what we need to do in view of the epp is prevent.
but we also wanted to say thank you to the firefighters who come to the place immediately after. they didn't know whether there was still danger, but nevertheless they assist the people who spent hours over time to help people, the policemen and soldiers who came from -- was in brussels and in strasburg to make sure we are safe, i would like to thank everybody who defends and protects europe. then i would like to talk about the question of responsibility. because when we look at legislation we will see whether we do enough. colleagues know it is not enough what we're doing. more security means more cooperation within europe. and commission can be assured they have the support of the epp. when you're talking about new
european agency, we need -- many states. that must reach an end. and ministers of the interior are the ones responsible for making sure that kept so under hand and for months we've been asking for information about passengers on airplanes. and now we see after a lot of hard work on thursday we are actually going to talk about something that's important for us to know and interesting to know who regularly visits syria or afghanistan. and we need that information, that data. colleagues, we need more. we have an agreement with the americans. and the banks that look at the finance of terror, why are we not doing this? why are we not in a position to
find our own data, to evaluate that data and find out how terror is financed? we don't have that possibility in europe. here we have the americans working on our behalf that we need to have standards in europe that we can be responsible ourselves. europol, we don't see that people volunteering when collecting information, but europol must provide information and finally, colleagues, the internet has lost its innocence. in the internet we see hatred. we see new terrorists being acquired by the internet. the internet is now obliged to make sure that there are rules applying to what we do on the
internet. and we need a structure that makes it clear. and we need to sort of network authority that makes it clear what goes on there. we need a security agency and the commission will certainly get support of the e.p.p. and finally, i would like to express my thanks because what we can say is the terrorists basically want our way of freedom, the way we live, and therefore what we come up against is hatred. live the way we've always done, continue to live the way we know is right. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> translator: a question for you. >> translator: thank you. i've got great respect for you.
i agree with much of your remarks. two questions, you say that for the investigative authorities it's important to know who is coming into europe. and we know how many -- we know demand or see placement on airplanes is what is always called for when it comes to the storage of that information that is not some add-on extra. it's essential for democracy. is that not just as important? >> translator: speechless. we have a debate as europeans here. and we are faced and challenged by terror. and then i'm really amazed about the questions that are asked. we do want data protection. we see very high levels of data protection. we're not going the way of the
americans when we're talking about combatting terrorism. we have our own solution. but in today's world we can see on google and facebook every single day that data are powerful tools. authorities have access to that information, that's why we need pmr and very grateful for the question because we can hear who is actually refuting to provide this data our authorities need. >> translator: and the next speaker. on behalf, yes indeed. >> translator: thank you, president. over the last year sadly on too many occasions france has found itself having to debate
terrorism. of course a risk of disallusi disallusionmedisallusio dissolutionmedissolution, but we can't allow to get used to terrorism. so many others have lost their lives. life is sacred. and it's the basis for modern society. i'm saying this that because if we're to fight terrorism, first and foremost we have to ask ourselves how it's possible that our children can have denied the very heart of our civilization. i know this is a delicate argument. behind this ideology of death, we shouldn't be looking for islam. rather than looking into radical islam, we should be conjuring on the phenomenon of the
radicalization of islam. islam itself is a religion of peace. this ideology is based rather on a desperate type of radicalism. children of a phenomenon of people around the world losing their fruits, rather than having anything to do with islam. it's to do with the western failure of multiculturalism. under the label of multiculturalism very often people take a community approach. in other words, there's a concept that men and women from different origins cannot live together but need to separate themselves out into distinct social groups. we have to tackle that. the first way we respond to these attacks is to look at what you might assert a citizenship which entails rights, but also values and duties that we all
share. that line of thinking must be accompanied by urgent action. first and foremost the national governments must wield the existing instruments such as dna data exchange, fingerprint data exchanges, and fighting terrorism our main weapons are intelligence and investigation. europe sadly is lagging behind on that front. but the terrorists are united. and we're responding to them in divided ranks. we need to rely on the european intelligence, not an um teen type of coordination but a real network of information with a european counterterrorism public prosecutor able to fight terrorism right across europe.
we have to be determined also in our foreign policy. i'm watching very closely what fredericka -- doing. there because it's part of a cynical game of regional interests. if we're to fight isis, we need to start by fighting those who are buying oil from isis which it acquires in the areas it have taken over. we cannot have people in the west attacking us on the one hand while at the same time doing business with those who are funding it. none of us has a magic wand to do away with terrorism. but we can all be cohesive and work together in humility and unity. [ applause ]
>> translator: thank you. a question for you. -- is speaking, sorry. interpreter's mistake. >> sorry, apparently i was told i had a question for you. it's often moments like this that when we as a chamber come together. and we all come together to condemn the acts that we have seen over the last few months and in fact years in many of our countries. but after each attack we have questions. a few days after the brussels attacks many of my constituency tweeted how we had confronted a muslim woman in south london and asked her, quote, to explain brussels, unquote. his tweet upset a lot of people. another twitter user applied, what has a muslim woman in south london got to do with the horrific event in belgium?
so while his original tweet may have been offensive or clumsy, it also demonstrates that we are all looking for answers. whether we have no faith, another faith or are muslims, we all want to explain brussels, a city we know so well whose citizens have buried family, colleagues and friends prematurely after these appalling acts. last month i opened a conference european parliament organized by the foundation attacking extremism and terrorism. what was interesting about this conference is while there may be people in this chamber who call for more european agencies to solve all these problems, none of the speakers or the experts present claimed that there was a single solution on metaphor kal silver bullet. instead they spoke about the need to tackle terrorism at various levels. at an international level, militarily, use of intelligence and diplomacy, international level, upholding the rule of law, defense of our values and security of our citizens, as well as on a community level to
tackle extremism at its roots. and we spoke about the drivers of terrorism. some searching for an identity or sense of belonging. others radicalized in prisons. some violent individuals looking for a new cause, others with grievances over perceived unfair foreign policy. yet more others vulnerable and flawed into believing that there's a violent cut to paradise in a world of temptation. are we really clear about what we as meps can do to tackle this issue? yes, we can vote for a new pnr system that takes account over concerns of data protection and civil liberties. yes, we could encourage our intelligence agencies to work together. but this will only happen if they can trust each other to share confident enough to share information, not if you force them. for those of us who represent constituencies where young people have been radicalized, allow me to suggest one more thing we can do. at the conference last month i invited the unity of faith foundation or tuff project from
lon do to speak about how they harness the power of football to give a sense of team spirit and still -- at the project i met a young lady who told me how she almost went to syria after being recruited by social media such as snapchat. the project's founder when he found out about this made a few phone calls and gave her the choice of going through the gate of the airport to syria or the gates of the stadium of the premiere league team that she supported. and when she arrived at the stadium she was so overcome that she knelt down to kiss the pitch and now through her experience encourages others not to be recruited into terrorism. think about how much death and destruction that one act could have prevented. as the project founder said one of the best ways to counter terrorism is to prevent people from becoming terrorists. there must be similar projects in many of our cities that we can support and encourage. and if not, let me know -- while
we may not be able to stop -- by giving security and law enforcement agencies whatever tools we can in a free and open society. and by supporting projects that stop young people becoming terrorists. and by all of us saying that we will not treat all muslims with suspicion, we will not drive more people into the arms of extremists. we will not let the terrorists win. [ applause ] >> translator: thank you. a question for you. >> thank you very much, mr. president. last year in paris, a young romaniaen couple was shot dead
sitting at a table, you know, the terrorist in paris. afterwards the european union set up a center to counter terrorism with europol, 45, 50 people. it's a small measure to counter terrorism. don't you think the european union needs a real urgency to counter terrorism with a special intelligence service to counter terrorist with special antiterrorist troops to be pulled together by the member states finally to fight this terrible situation? >> translator: thank you very much. >> well, thank you very much for your question, but actually the answer is no. what we need is better share of intelligence. when you speak to intelligence experts, they say actually and when they're candid moments they do not have confidence in the intelligence services in other countries. how do we make sure we build that trust so that intelligence can be shared? and let us get away from
whatever the problem, the solution is more europe and more agencies, actually, if we sit in these european agencies, we will ignore the young people in many of our communities who've been radicalized at grassroots level. for far too long we ignore this because we want to make grand speeches in this chamber about european solutions. what we have to avoid is -- what we can do is encourage these organizations to learn together and come together, but what we can't do is use it as an excuse. >> translator: thank you now for the liberal group. >> first thing what i want to do is to thank for your words to my country, to belgium. and also i agree with him what we have not to do now is repeat the speaking strong words and solemn declarations. that moment is there now to act. and to do a number of changes. and i agree fully with you. and that's the opposite of what saying is the fragmentation is
the problem in europe. and say everything, yeah, or intelligence service and police service have to work better with each other, well, i can tell you we hear that already decades. this so-called recipe. it's not a recipe. we need european capacities. and that's also the lesson from history. whether the americans, the federal bureau of investigation was created in 1901 after a terrorist attacks were the mckin li, the president at that moment of the u.s. was killed and then decided to do so. in germany exactly the same story. the bundes -- was upgraded and really created as a federal agency after the terrorist attacks. that was their lesson from history. and it stymies to come out that your group coming out that we
take european capacities and european capabilities to solve the problem. let's be honest, let's face the reality. i have here a long list of all terrorist attacks of the last year. in madrid they were known by the french and british police, in london they were followed and even partially arrested by the french police. the london attackers, the attackers attack museum in brussel was a french terrorist who was known by the french authorities and even by the germans intelligence service. in "charlie hebdo" the same story. they were known by the british authority before the attacks. the same as salah abdelsalam who was not stopped at this roadblock because the french didn't have it in their files. well, the belgians know very well who is salah abdelsalam. and the same the germans did a few weeks before the attacks in paris, they found weapons and they didn't inform their french
colleagues at that moment. the same now again in the attacks in brussels where apparently the swedish got information and have not send it to the belgium authorities. how many attacks are still needed before everybody understands that we need on the european level a real investigation capacity as fast as possible. [ applause ] and let's face it, let's face the reality, we have the possibility to do so. terrorists don't know borders. it's only our police service and our intelligence service who know borders. and we have a possibility, we have a possibility now to change that, to build that up, because we have the file on e rururopol. my thought is to do a few amendments in the second reading, not to delay it again
by the end of the year but immediately in the coming weeks. and i think three changes that can be done. first of all, changing the -- and give them the possibility for an investigation capacity and not only coordination. first proposal. my second proposal is that in article 6 of the regulation we give finally to europol the possibility to launch an investigation or to oblige national authorities to do so. they don't have even that possibility today. and then finally, maybe the most important problem, article 7 of the regulation, today is that national authorities of europol have to filter the information towards europol. i thought it was the opposite what they have to do, that is to transfer the relevant data to europol. so my proposal is that instead now of talking again about coordination, coordination,
cooperation, cooperation, enough of these words, that we build up and that we use the europol to put that in place. and also to exchange naturally the role of the european prosecutor. because the european prosecutor cannot only be responsible for financial fraud. we need to change also that so that the prosecutor is responsible also for transnational crimes like, for example, terrorism. so that's my proposal. instead now of in the coming weeks fixing a little bit an old file of europlo to use it in the coming weeks to make a leap forward and to do what the americans have already done 150 years ago. thank you. [ applause ] >> translator: thank you. a question. >> translator: thank you, president. this will be my last time
question this afternoon. not insulted by my request for information, you said yet again brussels, copenhagen, paris recent attacks, the perpetrators were well-known to the authorities and yet you stand up here for no reason storage of data of air passengers, which is not going to solve that problem and which is actually going to mean -- it's going to tie down hundreds of millions of euros which we need to invest in efficient europol and joint investigation teams. thank you. >> i think, mr. president, at all storage of data can be useful. also, passenger name records at a condition that there is also the capacity to analyze it, to
transfer it from one authority to the other, that there are not walls between the different databases. and that is the reason why i'm proposing this european capacity for intelligence and this european capacity for investigation. i think that besides the fact we're going to create 28 databases is also necessary from the commission from as fast as possible forward with a horizontal system of mandatory sharing of information without what it is in fact not a useful tool otherwise. also an initiative i'm asking -- >> translator: thank you. i would remind colleagues that we have two other debates coming up. and we'll be able to go to matters in detail there. >> translator: thank you very much, mr. president. first of all, can i on behalf of the ngl group repeat our dismay
at the recent attacks in brussels. our thoughts are with the victims and their families. and our condolences go to all the french, the belgian people and the eu nations and people who have suffered from attacks. we paid a heavy price in blood but also applies to syria, libya, india, other places as well in the wider world have been the -- of similar terrorist attacks. and the basic problem is the injustice and distribution of wealth. that is at the root of this. and the european union is not entirely without blame here. we have seen examples of eu member states similarly following the united states of
america. we have seen support going to extreme islamic groups and also to isis. the european countries must not -- we've got a historic obligation to refrain from giving in and succumbing to an anti-islamism. we cannot simply accept this -- these attacks being used as a guise for importing new draconian measures which will further cut off people's freedoms. the most effective way of tackling the dark forces of terrorism is waging war injustice and inequality and also putting an end to invasions and aggression which provides a seed bed for terrorism.
i believe that recent events have shown the bankruptcy of our policies both within our frontiers and beyond. and combatting terrorism is not going to be done by simply introducing more measures. it's making sure we can clear the bases for social growth and unemployment in the future. that's the best way. thank you very much. >> translator: next. >> translator: thank you, president. colleagues, we cannot help but be disgusted at the waste of human life as a result of these terrorist attacks planned in cold blood. we also stand by the victims and their families and loved ones. but how can you not be alarmed
by the way these things can go in the midst of all night and how we cannot be outraged given measures have been planned for years despite that these terrorists were allowed to move freely. how can we not feel scandalized by the fact that our countries are continuing to trade with middle eastern countries promoting the most violent and extremist forms of islam? surely we have to ask ourselves about what's been going on in our society, which has promoted hate speech and people condoning violence? the ideology of exclusion, reduction of society to mere production and consumption. now, if we respond by setting up police states, constantly monitoring our slightest moves and stigmatizing our fellow citizens of muslim faith even more and adopting a rhetoric of
warfare dividing well between them and us, if we do all that, then the terrorists would have won. on the contrary the best response we can give them is to reflect the matters of belgium and europe, unity and diversity gives you strength. let's pool our strength in an intelligent way to fight their murderous projects. and above all let's take at the heart of our projects we restore human dignity for every individual. lastly, mr. president, i would like to -- excuse nothing, forget nothing, resist, try and understand otherwise you will maintain evil. you can't fight hatred with hatr hatred. eye for an eye will lead to a whole planet being blind.
we have 130 reasons to fight. we have another 32 reasons after what happened in brussels to believe in this cause. thank you. >> translator: i have a question for you. i had overlooked it, but i hope we can still have time for it. you have the floor, madame. >> translator: i seem to gather from what you were saying that you were acknowledging some mea culpa for the attacks. are you saying it's our fault that they're killing us? >> translator: first of all, let us not forget that terrorism promotes certain ideas. and what i was saying is that isis and other extremist
islamist bodies have had support from the western countries, big countries, both economically, strategically and politically. and even today there are countries which are our allies such as saudi arabia and turkey, they are also providing support. and the european union is also involved in this and must share this part of the blame. thank you. >> translator: thank you very much. >> the fundamentally you principle freedom of movement people services or goods may well have been well-intentioned, but it can only remain so if it's reactive and updated daily integrating and responding to both external and internal threats and pleasures -- pressures. it's fundamental weaknesses lie
in the tur jit, lengthy and often outdated process what now fast moving not mainly on the european continent but also on a global scale. but more fundamentally on the sa sack ri -- to civic society and citizens trying to connect 28 member states, varied cultures and processes at a time of crisis, the eu is unable to anticipate events or be able to react at adequate speed to these events. while this is not an approach capable of countering or indeed beating terrorism, when there is a threat it's important to think like the adversary, not bury one's self in mindless dialogue and consultation with the objective of projecting a sacred cow. by the united kingdom endured some 30 years of conflict and
terrorist activities before a resolution in northern ireland was found. the uk has much to offer the european and international community on how to counter terrorism, not least money laundering a key element in terrorist funding and financing. but in contrast the eu seems purely focused on unified border control and a central intelligence agency. but these so far have been total failures. critical weaknesses only serving to facilitate the recent terrorist atrocities. now, again, the united kingdom has led the way in combatting international counter terrorist efforts and is a founding member of the global count terrorism forum. and the uk will maintain those responsibilities, eu member or not. in contrast, the eu reaction to the migrant crisis has been unhelpful in extreme and its
reactions unhelpful. and just like those of a rabbit in the headlights. the eu has border control context which consumes several hundred millions of euros, but is nonoperational and little more than a data collection and analysis agency. stats fine coordinate the activities of member states in border control, according to its charter. but in fact it has no operational capability. it has to rely on nato, individual member states and other operational forces to do anything useful. indeed we've got a basic conflict of interest here for frontex in that the eu mantra is open borders with no control. the eu probably never imagined that its open border mantra would encourage the movement of criminals, terrorists and weapons. the result has been that a number of countries have had to
take unilateral action to defend their borders and actually as a result breaking their treaty obligations. but just look at intersend, set up as a fledgling european intelligence agency, yet another failure. doing little more than gathering data. the collection of data such as fingerprints mentioned already by others at the borders within europe has been a disastrous example. only 17% of migrants at key points of entry have been fingerprinted. and to make matters worse, even if their fingerprints have been taken, no one within member states has been allowed to share that data. there could be no greater gift to terrorism than being invisible and untraceable, yet this is what the european union approach facilitates. we've talked about pnr, well
that's stuck in debates as we well know, but there are issues about privacy and human rights. and i do wonder having been criticized for the comment of -- sorry, frontier europe, are we not actually building that? for too many in this parliament the response is and rectification of these failures we need more europe. and we heard that this afternoon. what would anyone put more money into an approach and into structures that are broken, ill conceived and ineffective. but they can be addressed just not by doing more of the same. that is the definition of an idiot. it could well be argued that the eu should stick to matters it can usefully address and do well, but stay out of matters where it does not have the experience or capability. general michael hayden, ex head of nsa in the u.s. said, security is a national issue.
now it's time the eu and the parliament opened its eyes to what's going on -- >> translator: ma'am, please conclude. >> -- and just bear in mind that the future is and should be recognized bilateral agreements based on good data exchange, trusted data exchange and experience is the way forward. not trying to get 28 member states to do the same thing. >> translator: thank you very much. now for the next group, mr. degraffe. >> translator: mr. president, my condolences to the recent victims in brussels. it's bitter and poignant that those attacks could have been avoided, national borders should have been closed long before because these islamist heroes traveling freely between the netherlands and belgium, and of
course creating these ghettos. those perpetrators have become heroes there as martyrs. and i think that everyone who has allowed that to happen is -- shares the blame whether they're members of this parliament or the commission or the member state governments who plead for opening the doors, opening the frontiers. and then people die as a result. how was this in remembering the victims grieving for the victims when a part of this parliament itself has created conditions and created conditions for those attacks and other attacks. and i believe that all forms of counterterrorism has to start with acknowledging the causes of terrorism. and you do not want to see that. and to name the names, the
origin -- the source is islam. and since for 1,400 years it's been the source. and 240 million people have been killed over that period in its name. it's not friendly to our western values, cannot be integrated into western cultures. and to the commission recognize we've got to change tack because the way to go is closing the national borders and stop massive immigration and stopping islam in its tracks. thank you very much.
>> translator: we have a question. >> translator: sorry, could you just let the colleague put their headphones on first? where is she? please, go ahead. >> translator: thank you very much. do you really think that closing the borders would be the solution to dealing with this? do you think, for example, the netherlands all by themselves could fight against this type of terrorism? it's crazy listening to you saying how all muslims are terrorists. i think you need to re-read your history books. it's war that is causing these people to flee. please be reasonable.
[ applause ] >> translator: yes. i think we're denial here, permanent denial of the situation in belgium, in molenbeek, and other parts of brussels as well, there were people dancing in the streets when the attacks in molenbeek. ahead, a hearing this be afterno afternoon, michael fallon from the veterans administration coming up a live at 2:00 eastern
time here on c-span3. while we wait for that do get under way here is a portion off today's "washington journal." >> representatives judy chu is a democrat from southern california. her district includes pasadena. she's also a member of the house judiciary committee. thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you for having me here. >> a tie ruling on immigration could be a major tangle. the piece points out that the president's last-ditch effort to offer more than 4 million undocumented immigrants protection from deportation reaching the supreme court next monday but eight justices may not have the final word. the story points out a tie vote would bring the victory to texas and other states that have blocked the program in lower courts. explain what the supreme court will be taking up and some potential scenarios. >> yes. the supreme court will be taking up the daca and dapa program
that president obama authorized in this last year. this is something that would provide relief to about 5 million undocumented immigrants. it would expand the daca program which allowed the children of immigrants to be able to stay here and it would also provide relief for parents of those who are undocumented, who are here as children, the so-called dream act students. >> if it is tie, it goes back to the lower courts, president doesn't get what he wants. where does this put these 4 million illegal immigrants? >> they would have to wait and hopefully another case could be heard later on. >> how likely is that, and what do you expect to hear? will you be inside the court on monday? >> i don't believe that i will
be. i'll be on a plane coming back from california. but we have high hopes that there could be change. we know that the president's authority is clear, that he does have the authority to prioritize who gets deported and who does not, and certainly he can prioritize violent criminals, these people who are within the daca and dapa program are not violent criminals. >> part of the issue as you well know is the president's use of executive actions. here is what house speaker paul ryan said on the house of the floor about the president's case and about his executive order. >> article 1 states that all legislative powers are vested in congress. article 2, article 2 states that the president shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." those lines.
that separation of powers could not be clear er article 1, congress writes laws. article 2, presidents faithfully execute those laws. in recent years, the executive branch has been blurring these boundaries to the point of absolutely overstepping them all together. as a result, bureaucrats responsible for executingi the laws as written are now writing them at their whim. . doesn't just throw our checks and balances off balance, it creates a fourth branch of government. this creates a fourth branch of government that operates with little or no accountability whatsoever. >> speaker of the house paul ryan on the house floor earlier and representative judy chu, to his argument on the president's executive actions. your response. >> actions like this have been
done by presidents before. george h.w. bush actually was able to let 1.5 million people here under executive authority under his family fairness program. it was an astounding 40% of those who were undocumented. he did it through his executive authority. so we certainly have precedents. i believe that the president's legal and constitutional authority is clear to be able to prioritize those who can be allowed to stay. >> and you joined your colleagues, about 185 democratic colleagues, in filing a legal brief before the supreme court. what is your case? what's the argument? >> that there is precedent, that there is the legal and constitutional authority, and in fact in 2012 the u.s. supreme court ruled on something similar to this. >> let's turn our attention to politics. this is a tweet from hillary clinton looking at the popular vote and showing where she is at in comparison to bernie sanders
as of april the 6th. receiving about 9.3 million votes. donald trump, as you can see, 8.1 million. bernie sanders in the popular vote, 6.9 million votes. of course, this going to the point that she's winning the popular vote even though bernie sanders has won so many contests lately, 7 of the last 8. many of them had been caucuses, except of course winning in wisconsin as well. to that argument, your response. >> i would point out that the delegate map does not add up for bernie sanders. for instance, there's been much made of his victories in the last few states, including wyoming. yet the amount of delegates was only split between the two candidates. >> and yet that was the argument that hillary clinton was making eight years ago when she was challenging barack obama and she stayed in the race all the way through until june before finally withdrawing. >> well, i think that bernie sanders could continue up until the convention certainly, but
i'm just saying that ultimately i believe that hillary clinton will be the victor. >> our guest is representative judy chu, california's 27th congressional district. our phone lines are open. 202 is the area code, 748-8001. that's our line for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents on on the independent line, james from detroit, michigan. >> caller: good morning to you and mrs. chu. >> good morning. you are on the air. >> caller: yeah. well, good morning. i just have a question for mr. is chu. being that the justice department and the president of the united states have went through the court system over fast and furious, and have been denied and a subpoena came down where they had to deliver information friday april 8th by midnight, which they failed to do. now being mrs. lynch, the
department of justice, should know what a subpoena is, should know what the law is, and should know that she has to comply. so where do we go from here being that she is blatantly breaking the law? >> thank you, sir. we'll get a response. >> well, i do believe that in the case that's before the supreme court, the issues certainly will be vetted and that the proper documents have been filed and i do believe that the constitutional authority of the president is very, very clear. there certainly has been precedent set. >> let me ask you about something we talked to congressman dent about. seeming more and more likely that the house this year will not approve a budget plan. tomorrow is the next deadline and house republicans admitting that they're going to miss the deadline. >> and i think it is a terrible shame. i think it's horrendous considering what kind of issues that we have before us.
we have the zika virus. we have opioid addiction. and we have the flint, michigan water crisis. these are issues that need to be taken care of right now for the health and the safety of the united states. we need to pass a budget. >> let's go to barbara from mannedville, louisiana, independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm wondering why you feel that immigrants should come in to the united states when we can't even care for our own citizens. >> actually, immigrants are already here. there are 11 million undocumented, and they are a part and parcel of our economy. in fact, there are several businesses that would fall apart if we didn't have these immigrants, including the agricultural industry which is
so important to california. so we need to have them here. in fact, it would cost between $100 billion to 200 billion mr. to deport them all. this is an impossibility but it would also cause great harm to our economy. >> are the first chinese-american -- >> we leave this recorded portion of today's "washington journal" to take you live to capitol hill and a house oversight of government reform subcommittee hearing on the benefits of service dogs for veterans with ptsd. this is live coverage on c-span3.