tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN July 8, 2016 9:00am-11:01am EDT
food. people are not going home any time soon. >> in all three of the countries it's important to understand what's happening in the domestic front. prior to beginning the syrian uprising, syrian/turkish relations which had long been strained had begun to improve markedly. this is referred to as this outreach to the arab world yet when the demonstrations began and assad in syria refused to yield to the protesters, relations between the two countries deteriorated rapidly and turkey become one of the most virulent opponents. and then conditions of course continued to deteriorate and we
had not just an insurgency but civil war and turkey was implicated in that. the assad regime has been proven to be far more resilient, there are reports he was going to fall in two months, four months. obviously none of that came to pass. turkey has continued to have a relatively open porous policy, not only to individuals and human beings but ammunition to aid rebel groups and some gas passed to syria, not by the government. this came from the context this arab uprising and arab spring where initially the turkish, those parties had been defeated in the case of egypt, parties that were supported largely by the king of saudi arabia and uae, they found themselves
isolated in the policy in the region. since the death of king abdullah that there has been an attempt to try to counter growing iranian influence but conditions remain strained. civil war in syria has taken a tremendous toll inside turkey itself. primarily but not exclusively because it has served as one reason why there has been a revival of the kurdish issue of politics and this is taken on increasingly bloody dimensions and of course the turkish government rejects the presence or any suggestion of establishing policy in north syria. most of those who are outside view that the kurds occurring to fighting against isis as one of the best forces and aid in the fight. in terms of domestic front in turkey, what will happen next? there was recently a change in
prime ministers, parliamentary elections are likely to take place in the fall and president is hoping that he'll obtain additional seats to enable him to change the constitution to amendment it in such a way he can turn is into a presidential one, thus contributing further to the turn in turkey. this is inextrickable from what's happening in syria. something brief on the economic situation, prior to the outbreak of the uprising in the civil war in syria, southern turkey's immigration with iraq and syria was one of the major successes that an cara could point to. the overall volume wasn't great but it was contributing to a diminishing marginalization of the areas bordering those two countries. the conflict in syria has dramatically reversed that trend. security conditions in the southern fron tier have deteriorated and baghdad has always periodically blocked trade from turkey to protest some of the positions that
ankara has taken. in addition, tourism which was a very important contributor to the gdp in turkey has taken a terrible hit as a result of the refugee crisis and also as a result of the increasing spill over into southern turkey of the violence from syria. now it terms of government spending on refugees, in the first five years from 2011, 20 to 15, the turkish government spent $9 billion but the amount it's spending has been increasing to 500 million per month. if that spending continues, we're looking at a higher cost to turkey going forward. in terms of the refugee presence themselves, certain the presence of syrians to the south has strained the capacity of turkish schools and trained hospitals and other services and housing and food prices have risen. when it comes to the refugee's impact on other elements, there's differences among analysts. for example, if one looks at --
there does appear in the initial period to have been a positive impact on domestic consumption. a certain degree to which the refugees may have contributed to growth but most economists feel that has probably reached its limit and this contribution is not likely to be a lasting one. at the same time, one would expect along with this an impact on inflation. and so while the figures differ, it does appear that inflation regions with higher refugee populations and inflation there is higher than it is than is the national average. this is understandably due to greater demand for consumer goods and housing and so on. as for the unemployment rate, there's always this issue of to what extent are refugees creating jobs? to what extent are they displaying people from jobs? the statistics are not always clear or the picture is not completely clear. there are studies that suggest that at least 300,000 syrians have entered the turkish labor
market so there's some suggestion that this has created -- added to the unemployment rate in turkey but a lot of these jobs are new jobs and are also the result of increased demand as a result of the increased presence of the refugee. there's also some evidence that the place of turks, particularly turks in the lower levels of the employment market, that they -- that they have been displaced from some jobs. some of them have been displaced upward into positions much overseeing refugees others have lost their job. it's a very mixed picture in terms of the economy and in terms of unemployment. all right, let me turn to lebanon. lebanon on the front lines of the humanitarian crisis as was mentioned in the initial presentation, the statistics differ but anywhere between one in four or one in five living in lib none is a refugee. that includes palestinian
refugees. lebanon has the highest per capita refugee pop illegal immigration in the concentration in the world. and i will say a little bit about palestinians in a minute about t but it is important to keep in mind all will be shaped by earlier experiences and that's the case when it comes to lebanon and the case of jordan. living below the poverty line, the syrians and palestinians. officially they had an open door policy with those fleeing the conflict. that began to be modified in 2015 which unhcr was instructed to stop registering refugees from syria and sponsorship system was put in place and new more string ebt residency renewal regulations were also put in place, which then left syrians open to possible detention and deportation for
staying in lebanon without the right paperwork. the political context here is also very important and it was alluded to earlier in one of the questions. lebanese government -- the best one can say about it, it's in gridlock. lebanon has not held a presidential election since 2008. the president who was elected then, his term expired in 2014, lebanon is being governed by the council of ministers of the cabinet where we have different ministries controlled by different sectarian groups which limits the possibilities for cooperation and coordination of policies. and the lebanese government historically has been ill-inclined to attend the needs of its own citizenry and that has certainly not changed in this particular situation. this kind of absentee state will not feel overly compelled to ease the burden on poor
refugees, we end with syrians in lebanon. lebanese government did not allow for establishment of formal camps, they are crammed into rented houses and informal tented settlements many of whom engage in various forms of a agricultural labor. the security situation in lebanon is ten youous, there is a challenge from isis in the northern part of the country and concerns about the infiltration of radicals of various sorts into? of the palestinian refugee camps. in that context, a promise by saudi arabia to provide $4 billion to assist lebanon in further reinforcing its military, that deal was anulled several -- couple of months ago and had to do with lebanon's reaction to the storming of the saudi embassy in tehran where the -- the saudis felt the
lebanese were not supportive of them. this is all -- it's all part of this larger regional complex in the role that hezbollah, a domestic political party in lebanon and an ally of iran, and therefore a nemesis of saudi arabia. the saudis are continually unhappy with the role they play in government. it is not about what the lebanese had to say about the storming of an embassy. turning to the economic impact, because the president of the country has been without a president it adds to further perceptions of instability. zero gdp growth last year. there have been increasing protests on the part of citizens with the garbage protest was mentioned earlier, that's one of numerous examples of dysfunction, corruption and civil rights abuses in the country. as for the refugees themselves,
they are -- they find themselves in extremely marginalized position and many don't have the right to be in lebanon. they end up working -- putting increasing pressure on wages and downward pressure on wages between 60 and 70% of refugee children are working and players are eager to hire syrians and palestinians because they are more vulnerable and they have to pay them less. there are more and more who are engaged in forced labor and in survival sects or sexual exploitation. how much time do i have left? just very briefly, because of the palestinian refugee presence in lebanon is also important. they too have faced cuts in assistance, rising poverty rates. there were recent cuts -- unhcr is the agency that deals with refugees around the world, they do that -- there's a separate agency that deals with palestinian refugees, the united nations relief work agency and they have separate fundsing.
and these cuts that have taken place recently have significantly affected the humanitarian conditions for palestinians. palestinians have since they arrived in 1948, been restricted in the sectors in which they are allowed to legally work. so they are generally finds themselves in lesser paid sectors, which just further increases poverty levels. now, the palestinians in some ways disproportionately affected because of the relations any this with the government in damascus. because of what has happened in the government in damascus, under siege, the palestinian groups have also found themselves increasingly under siege in lebanon. in effect they are a protector to the extent you could think about the assad goflt as a protector in any sort has been undermined. they can no longer really look
to syria as a major ally. let me turn finally to jordan. one minute. okay. i don't think i can quite talk that fast but i'll try. the statistics again in the case of jordan are varied depend whether you talk official statistics from u.n. agencies or the government. the government has a tendency for its own purposes to exaggerate the numbers that are reportedly there. government says they are 20% of the population. and in any case, there are clearly significant -- there's clearly been a significant impact particularly on the northern governance in jordan on the presence of refugees. the majority of whom are not living in camps but living in urban areas on the syrian border. one again needs to see the refugee crisis at this point against the background of previous refugee influxes, 1948, 1990, 91, people living in the
gulf in 2003, after the u.s. invasion of iraq and so on. but these other crises in some ways are very different from the current crisis. the number of syrians in jordan is already greatly exceeded the number of iraqis who came during the previous waves. the kingdom has tried to control the inflow of refugees in the last couple of years so that now from a high of several thousand per day, the kingdom admits somewhere between 50 to 100. some days not at all. jordanian authorities are concerned with providing security. if one can believe these things, contributes -- the third largest number of recruits that have joined isis have come from jordan. so there is a concern about the degree to which jordanians are being radicalized and what that can mean for domestic stability in the country.
maybe i should -- anyway, i'll stop there and i'll be happy to pick up other issues in the question and answer period. [ applause ] >> i want to ask a question, why is it there are so many people showing up in europe on dangerous overcrowded boats and rafts, why did the parents of the young syrian boy who washed up on the beach in turkey, why did they risk their children's lives making those kinds of decisions? it's a real serious question that we started to discuss today. we learned in the first panel that only about 1% of those who are designated refugees will be
eligible for resettlement in a place like canada or the u.s. for the vast majority of the world's refugees, their only hope for getting asylum is to get to a particular territory where they can ask for protection. there are 148 countries around the world, including all of the rich liberal democratic countries that have signed the u.n. refugee convention or its protocol that says if someone meets that definition of a refugee, regardless of whether or not they came illegally they cannot be returned to their country of origin if they are going to be prosecuted. they are doing as much as they can to make it extremely difficult for people in that situation to be able to reach a territory to ask for asylum, they are using remote control,
some of those techniques includes visa policy and sometimes those visa polecies deliberate target nationalities known to be prone to ask for asyl asylum. sometimes governments pay off governments of neighboring countries to do the dirty work, if you will of asylum control, most notoriously, under berlusconi, they paid gadhafi from transporting from libya into europe and today in morocco, the only way for someone to ask for asylum in the european on onenclave, spanish enclaves on pt north african coasts is to get to one of two particular gates. systemically the more rock can authorities will not allow sub saharan africans to get to the gates no matter what the situation may be. together these constitute a catch 22 and it goes like this.
if you fit the statutory refugee definition, the rich countries of the global north say, we will let you stay if you come here but we will not let you come here. now, some of these policies of remote control are specifically targeting asylum seekers and others are targeting other kinds of migrants, whether it's economics or family unification or international terrorists, but regardless of whether the policies are principlely targeting asylum seekers they have disproportional affects on people who may have legitimate asylum claims. today i would like to extend our discussion of the european context and talk about what is happening right here in our backyard with the united states, mexico and central america and cuba. and my goals are to shed light on some hidden techniques of
remote control and also to talk about the way buffer states work. and the way that the buffering of particular nationalities varies from thin buffering and thick nationality bufring of other nationalities, i would like to turn your focus to what some have called the forgotten border. the mexican border with guatemala and belize and over the last 20 years or so, privately but increasingly in public, u.s. authorities are calling this border between mexico and southern neighbors the u.s.' defacto southern border. it doesn't look like a buffer state border though. if you go to that border, you will see people openly crossing, open illegal commerce and people who are evidently heading to the u.s. about 17% of the people who cross this border according to the mexican government are
heading to the u.s. and the mexican government makes no serious attempt to stop them at that border. this is a picture taken within eyesight of the international bridge with the formal crossing point. there are train routes and highway routes leading north with many people, mostly from central america, many asking for asylum in the u.s., openly riding those rails. mexico doesn't have the kind of border wall we see if we go to san diego. but what it has they call a vertical border, a vertical frontier, where there is systemic control on transportation routes leading north to the u.s. and the u.s. has been doing many things, not just beginning with the so-called crisis of uncompanied children from central america but going back to the 1980s to make it difficult to cross that border.
that includes visa policies to make it difficult for central americans to get visas to get into mexico in the first place and policies of encampment in southern mexico and less known policies to prevent central americans from reaching the u.s. border that keep them coraled in the south if you will. beginning in the 1990s, the u.s. has been financing large scale deportations from mexico and currently under the initiatives since 2007, paid for a great deal of capability building of the southern border buildup. a lot of it has to do with data base construction, monitoring of biometrics and linking all of those databases to u.s. systems. and now even air passengers who are arriving in mexico without any other destination in the u.s. are having information shared with u.s. authorities. behind the scenes, there's a very, very tight level of
cooperation between the mexican and canadian and u.s. authorities. one of the things the u.s. is trying to keep people from reaching mexico is to conduct advertising campaigns in central america to broadcast the dangers that are faced in mexico. thousands of migrants have been killed in this transit through mexico, including notorious cases of mass kidnappings and murder. i don't have time to get into it but these are a couple of examples of tids. s running in central america financed by the homeland security but written as if they were produced by national governments. warning people are these very serious dangers. the scale of deportations in mexico, primarily of central americans is vast and under appreciated in the u.s. it's also something that's been going on for a very long time since the ramp up in deportations in 1989, mexico has
deported more than 3 million mostly central americans from its country. you can understand the scale of mexico's bufring if you compare the numbers of the main three nationalities, the northern triangle nationalities and by comparing deportations from the u.s. and deportations from mexico. and you'll see in red the deportations by mexico, beginning in the 1990s, mexico has been deporting the vast bulk of central americans who are expelled from north of the gaut ma guatemalan border and until 2015 under strong u.s. diplomatic pressure, mexico is doing the vast majority of the work of deportations of central americans. the mexican government estimates between 1995 and 2010 it was
intercepting and deporting more than half of the central americans attempting to reach the u.s. with another 25 to 30% being detained and deported by the u.s. and 15 to 20% successfully being able to cross into the u.s. when it comes to central americans, almost all of those who are detained are deported. which is very different from the way mexico treats other nationalities who are detained in mexico. very few are asking for asylum in mexico. mexico has an extremely robust asylum law, all kinds of human rights protections and the whole law is framed within the human rights collections but in practice it's extremely difficult to know one is eligible for asylum. the system i would argue is deliberately broken. now contrast the situation of that very thick buffering of
central americans with what happens to cubans. the distance between cuba and florida is about the same as the distance between cuba and yucatan peninsula of mexico. beginning in the early 2000s, large numbers of cubans began using mexico as a bridge to the u.s. under the u.s. wet foot dry foot policy, someone is intercepted at sea coming from cuba, they are immediately returned to cuba. if they can come to u.s. land, whether it's the beach in miami or whether it's the mexico/u.s. border, they are quickly paroled into the country under the provisions of the 1965 cube san readjustment act and within a year get a green card and be able to stay permanently. the numbers of cubans at the u.s./mexico border seeking admission and almost all are admitted has increased dramatically in recent years. more than 30,000 in 2015 and yet
this is barely discussed in the u.s. public sphere. this is not the object of lots of political heat and smoke the way of situation of central american unaccompanied minors has. but mexico is doing very little to detain people who will definitely be asking for asylum in the u.s. why is that? well, there's very little serious u.s. pressure to detain this population for several reasons, one is the legacy of the cold war that gives cuba alone, cuban nationals alone preferences in reaching the u.s. according to the wet foot/dry foot policy i just described and the strength of the anti-castro lobby in the u.s. and the third is the fact there is not these -- one does not create the optics of disorderly migration gymnasiums full of crying babies and so forth around the issue of cubans because they so quietly go into
the u.s. even when mexico detained large numbers of cubans, they very quickly let them out with an exit permit if you will, which gives the person 30 days to leave mexico and 30 days that person will have taken the bus to lareto or brownsville. in conclusion, we can see very thick buffering of central americans, thin buffering of cubans. i don't have time to talk about it now. i'm glad to discuss in the q and a, the way that a. more sophisticated policy has been developed around extra hemispheric from africa and malaysia and middle east, a large asylum seeking component. but i'll leave you with that answer to why is it that so many have taken these incredible richks to reach a country that
offers them protection? for the vast majority, there is no other choice but doing that illegally. thank you. >> good afternoon. first let me thank you that me as a mediocre diplomats has been invited with the scientists with visual brilliant distractions, i have none of that. what i have is i look every morning into the news and i find a new situation every morning. that's why i didn't bring a script because if i had it prepared yesterday i wouldn't have known who wins the elections in austria, for instance. these are my personal opinions and not necessarily the opinions
of my ministry but are certain overlapping sectors. i have two points that i would like to talk about with you, the first is since this seminar is under the big title of migration and not under refugees, i would like to make a few remarks on germany as a migration country. that sounds to many germans like a clear juxtaposition now. germany has never seen itself as a country of immigration, it's strange because we have had immigration all the time. and not only immigration in a regulated way but also waves of refugees we have had them before. it's nothing really new. after the second world war when the eastern part of the -- were occupied by the russians, it was tens and millions of germans who
flooded into the other part of germany occupied by the american and british and french and found a new home there. they were refugees. i remember as a kid in the house where we lived, there were two refugee families and there was in the early 60s that lived in that house still. we have seen in the 60s, when the german -- the economic mirror took place, that we were actively looking for people coming to germany, not for immigrants, looking for working guys who went down to the southern european countries from portugal to turkey and were actually looking for young strong male workers coming to germany to help our economy. and they came. and maybe some of you know a little german know that we didn't call them immigrants, we
called them -- workers. if you think a second about that, it was quite a clear program that said you come as guests and you work and then you're home again. and if you had asked at that time, most of the turk irk or italians who came, they would have said the same thing, i go to germany, which i don't like because it's too cold and the food is not nice, the food is not good, i work here and make a lot of money and then i go back to istanbul and buy myself a house and open a shop. that's what most of them would have said. but you know as it goes and the money is good, you stay another year, you marry and have kids and they go to school and all of a sudden you reach a point where you can speak better german than turkish and your kids would say, if you go back to turkey, i won't join you. i feel much more at home here. so we have had immigration with all of those faces of
immigration but actually we did not admit it. we did not have a law regulating that. in our public life it was not a topic to be honest. that has changed recently. it changed already in the '90s when we had refugees from the balkans coming in, not so much as we have now, that there were strong groups in society who asked for having something like an immigration law or better regulation of immigration and giving them those who came better rights to become germans and to stay. this is on its way now. we still do not have an immigration law as such. we still do not have a good procedure. so for most people who come, the only little door that legally opens the way into germany is
asking for asylum, which leads to a big -- as we call it. because many who come out of other reasons, legitimate reasons, of course but who cannot 5d met those reason would ask for is a eye lum. and that is a big problem that we have to solve which is now really a hot topic in the political world and society world in germany since we have seen last year's influx of immigrants, you have heard the numbers. 1.1 million came into germany, if you did your math for the u.s., that would mean 4.5 million because you have four times more the population than we have. and this is a country that has the infrastructure for
immigration, used to that and built on immigration, we don't have that yet. these 1.1 million is quite a big group to deal with. and if you permit me that as a german, what i watched from here was exciting. i think it's the greatest challenge that germany has faced after reunification. so in those 25 years since then, and if you talk to germans, if i talk to my own family now, there's fierce discussions everywhere and the dividing lines go straight through the lunch tables of families. people are very excited about that and people are very strongly counter or pro and it's a topic that brings out i would say some of the best and some of the worst of my country. let's start with the worst.
you have heard we've seen a aggression, attacks, arson against refugees and immigrants. the newest figures came in only this year about the first quarter of 2016 and we have say strong -- the figures went up about right wing attacks on immigrants in the first three months of 2016. and our authorities do everything to fight against that but i can't say we're still up to keeping that under control. the other consequence is that we see the emergence of strong right wing populist party, which to me that didn't come as a surprise because i did political science at the university and there was also among the parties et cetera. to be honest, i expected it earlier to happen because if you
look on the politics of as the federal chancellor in the last ten years, she being the head of the conservative party of germany, the christian democratic union, moved her fields of activity more and more to the left you could say. abandoning the draft, military service and homosexual marriage, the exit of nuclear power, all of these were clear aims of the left wing and green parties in the '70s and 80s. it was america who realized that. that's why you see about the i watt our social democratic appeared has lost its influence terribly. they are at 19% of public support and they used to have 40 plus frnltsz by moving to the
left she opened up on the right a void i would say. we have had a kind of at a boo of right wing party. whenever one right wing party emerged somewhere in a federal state, the npd and other more of them, very early in their addiction was a bit too radical, branded as neo-nazis and disappear. normally after three or four or five years they would in the next elections disappear. we didn't have it as a constant factor in german politics, even though all of our neighboring countries have those strong wit ring populist parties. now the point is there where we also have one, ifd that emerged recently in three state elections. very strongly and i'm quite sure they will not be gone so fast.
we'll have to deal with that and for first time out of her own conservative party, strong opinions that her party should move to the right. i'm not sure they would go for that. the second big topic i would like to comment on a little bit is the european union. when last autumn this big influx of refugees came into germany, i mean we've heard the details in the presentations before me. to me it was very clear, this cannot be a german problem. this must be a problem of the european union. i was personally very shocked to see the european union always considered to be also a union of values, it has been founded as a union of values. obviously at that point when
deal being with refugees, did not show any more common values anymore. it -- the union almost broke up on that line. you see if you go through the points of view of the different governments of the european union today, it's almost impossible to find a common sense at least or thank you so much, go through the history of the european union, whenever there was a big challenge, they hammered out a compromise. sometimes it was a compromise that made everybody unhappy but still it was a compromise. and the european union that's also developed in that way, hammering out compromise even though it was bad compromise. but in that topic here, we are quite still far away of compromise. and that really for me is the biggest challenge now. it's -- if you permit me that, even bigger than the refugee
crisis itself, that the european union might not be able to cope with that and might break up, which would be a ka tras trow fee for europe. a war torn continent, let's not forget that, for the first time with the european union has found to a very long period of peace. to me a compromise in the framework of the european union would have at least four elements four core elements, the first being we would need a common immigration policy that is quite clear, a common immigration policy. it's impossible that every country has its own ideas about that and then whoever arrives at the european shores would just choose window shopping which country offers me most and then go there. point number two, even though it's not popular, we will have to construct a robust border protest, that would be part of the package. once we have immigration policy
with legal doors into europe, we have to protect against anything else. i'm quite sure about that. we will need a coordinated integration effort. we will have to not only as the governments and political forces in our member states but also the societies itself will have to bring a great effort to integrate people from other cultures and other religions and different mindset from ours, that is a big task for the union and fourth, i would say is a balanced distribution of refugees. if you say 1.1 million for germany, that is a big number of people. if you see that the european union has almost 500 million citizens, then 1.1 million is not all too much if it is -- shouldn't be a problem. we've heard that before. so we will have to have a balanced distribution of
refugees. those are my thoughts that i wanted to share with you. my time is almost consumed and if you have questions, i'll be very happy to answer them. >> that gives us a little additional time for questions. so again, if anyone is wanting to ask a question, please come up to the mic on the right. again, please ask a short question to the point. >> i have questions.
portugal, recovering space, broken friends, have to pay for things that they didn't cause. i live in europe half of the time. in poland specifically. and the pols say listen, it's not our problem. we didn't benefit by it. why do you want us to pay for it. if saudi arabia, if iran, iraq, the united states, turkey, created this incredible disaster, let them step forward and pay for it. >> let's hear from the panel.
>> with regard to points made this morning, i'm not here as an expert on humanitarian -- i'm not -- is this on? yeah. i guess i would just go back to the points that were made in the first presentation which are related to the question of a common humanity and the degree to which there is a sense that we have responsibilities toward each other whether something has been created by our own -- our own governments or not, i don't think that -- i personally
wouldn't want to compare the u.s. reaction if i have to put myself in that american citizen i have to speak from that perspective, with the reaction of saudi arabia. i think with qatar or any of these other countries that have played a major role in fostering the disaster that syria has become and refuse to take any serious responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. so i think that -- i mean, this isn't -- take off my international relations hat and put on my hat as someone who cares about a sense of belonging to the human race and a sense of responsibility toward other human beings and that that would hopefully be a motivating force. but i mean, i don't really feel this question is directed to me. i mean, that's -- trying to -- >> someone else?
>> yes, diplomat -- i would not comment on other countries but certainly it's very clear there are international obligations that the polish government subscribed to. they are a member of the united nations and very clear rules of international law, however you have to behave when refugees knock at the door. the government is part of that big game. it has subscribed to that treatment of refugees worldwide, you cannot say at the moment somebody knocks, i didn't do t those are international obligations. >> one question per questioner. let's move to the next question. >> one question per questioner. maybe perhaps there will be another chance. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> question for the professor about if the refugees are
relocated in other countries, what effect would this have eventually on society having lost so many -- probably the selected group of people who are able to leave the country, how would this change the future prospects for syria once the country is in peace? >> it's an extremely important question. it's difficult at this point to say because the outflow is not stopped. so we don't know at what point what a constitute -- if you can call the baseline once syria would be looking toward rebuilding. we don't know how many more people leave and how many more destruction is going to take place. the longer we do know, the longer people tend to be abroad, the further away they are and less likely they are to return. i'm sure there are many studies
that must be in the process of being conducted now that will help us understand better exactly not just sort of regionally how these refugee flows occurred because that i think is fairlily easy to see but to get a better handle on the socioeconomic class of people who have left and how that's changed over time and how that also interacts with people's employment, to what extent are we really talking about and which parts of this crisis are -- these primarily agriculturists who have left and are they people who tended to leave the country entirely and among the 5 or 6 million people we have who are internally displaced? that's also important. how many are going to be in syria at the end but not where they started. and what are the responsibilities for their going back to their original homes? so i think it's a moving target at this point. it's -- i think it's very, very difficult to imagine what things
will look like -- if this ends in two years it will be one set of perimeters we're looking at. another five yeerars or ten yea, it's something very different. mentioned this morning, which is extremely important, is the degree to which syrian children are or aren't being educated. if the future is in the children, and many of them as a result of being unable because of economic circumstances to continue their educations. and you're looking at, you know, an entire generation of children who are either i will literal or who are -- i mean, if they have the good fortune of actually being able to integrate into a surrounding society, or to be accepted into europe and maybe they get an education in a different language, then what does that mean for the possibilities of contributing back home afterwards? these are huge questions. some of the kind of things i think about.
what are these major population movements -- syria is the most dramatic one, right? we've also had dramatic ones in iraq and those are not necessarily ending because iraq is not yet, you know, healed, by a long shot. libya, the devastation and destruction there, humanitarian disaster there as well. what is this going to mean for these -- to call them failed states doesn't even begin to capture. what does it mean for whatever structures remain going forward? what does it mean for the possibility of rebuilding? i don't know. >> this is a question -- [ inaudible ] the program you proposed for the migrant crisis in europe, your number two was robust border controls. how does that work in with the
agreement where your pms travel freely? how forecast would it be? >> that is very easy to answer because the agreement was about traveling freely in between those member states but it never related to the outer borders of the area. so, that has nothing to do with each other. >> as a professional engaged in financial forensics, i'm interested in the corruption involved with this. in "the new york times" a couple of weeks ago there was a description of the $6 billion that had been achieved by the transportation, if you will, of the refugees. it was reiterated this morning. there has been no comment by any
of the presenters about the endemic corruption that exists in all of these countries. and i'd be very interested in knowing your viewpoint as to what and how that may have affected this whole situation. >> if you would like to speak to the problem of corruption in mexico. there's always a gap between what the law says and how it works in practice, but in the mexican case, the gap is absolutely enormous. and every survey, every bit of anecdotal evidence, no matter what your research method is, shows there's very widespread corruption. that the police more than any other group or as much as any other group present a real threat of danger to migrants, that includes many asylum-seekers passing through mexico. just one data point. a few years ago the central
authorities conducted polygraph tests on the migration border agents along the southern border. more than half of them were unable to pass those polygraphs because the level of extortion and various other kinds of shake jouns is so extreme. it's a very serious problem. >> just a couple of things. i was -- i remember when the outflow from turkey really became dramatic. i was wondering -- understood no state is completely capable of controlling its borders or shoreline, but it seemed to me that a state with a capacity that the turkish state has would be able to do a better job of stopping this outmovement if it, in fact -- or the people who were in power had control over those things were actually interested in doing something like that. the proof is the dramatic decline since this agreement
reached with the eu. but i raised this actually in a session with people who had done volunteer work. i expressed my surprise that i hadn't really seen any reporting about how the -- beyond knowing what it cost for people who wanted to leave turkey to get to greece and understanding that, you know, these ships are often rickety and people die along the way and so on. but what this -- of course, one would imagine the mafias and the different aspects of the process from selling life jackets, which apparently in many cases are stuffed with cardboard, which leads them to sink as opposed to having any serious flotation device in them to shore patrol ships that would spear some of
these dinghy-type ships and cause them to sink and let others go by, presumably because someone paid for their passage out and others had not done so. the degree to which there is collusion not just among various sort of traffickers and so on, but also among state authorities in these various population movements is important to highlight. i would say that. the other thing i would say with regard to corruption is that, you know, when we look at -- this isn't specifically about refugees, but if you look at the record of the united states in afghanistan, for example, and the so-called humanitarian assistance that's poured in in the billions of dollars, same thing in iraq and stuff that just -- you know, no one can account for anymore, it's not just a country like syria. it's not just a country like lebanon or turkey or jordan that has a problem with corruption. [ inaudible ]
you mentioned rise of this right wing, germany especially, from my perspective there's a big rise -- sharp rise of right-wing parties and right-wing supporters all throughout the world. including, you know, even here in the u.s. this is very interesting because with the globalism, you know, especially in europe. the nation states will disappear and it will be all us, not me and you. and politics is very important, especially in accepting refugees. what do you think about this rise of right-wing -- how will it happen in the future? how will it -- it will affect your opinion in accepting
refugees and despite rise of right wing, how will it be seen -- because it will also get a response because politics is all about christianism, anti-islam, those kind of issues. thank you. >> well, this morning, by very short, we could have had the news that we had the first popular right-wing president in a union. it was the green candidate who won. this is a very concrete phenomenon. look to france how strong they have become recently. we'll see what will happen in the next elections. you cannot ignore it. and on the leftish part of public opinion in my country, i always find that people have
obviously a problem accepting that democracy brings things like that. in a democracy you have to respect people's vote for those parties. i can speak only for my country. we have, of course, clear rules. we have our constitution and red lines that you cannot cross bult but within red lines of the constitution, people have, of course, the right to vote the party they think represents their political beliefs. i may not share their beliefs, but if you call yourself a democracy, have you to deal with that. and i think the other established parties have to prove they are up to the challenges and gain back some ground for themselves. i think we have reached the point where they understood that. they have to be in much more contact with the electorate and
share a little more of their concerns and maybe get back more of that ground. >> i'm not sure how much difference i think it means in the case of middle easterners. the way the u.s. has conducted policy under democratic and republican administrations, in some cases it's been more violent in one part of the region, depending on which administration we're talking about, but the record of the last several decades is not one that is -- you know, is one that seems to illustrate the values the united states proclaims to be bringing to the world. i mean, this idea of supporting democracy, people living in a place like iraq, which was under the most brutal sanctions regime in history for over a decade,
repeated invasions, drone warfare now. if this is what one gets with a democratic administration, i'm not sure the rise of a donald trump phenomenon for people who have lived with these realities for decades, i'm not sure that makes a whole lot of difference. on the one hand, they might be shocked with the brutality or the retic, but they've had to live with brutality of the policy, so i'm not sure it makes much difference. >> thank you. my question is for mr mr. biedermann. the refugee crisis in europe might even be worse than the current existing crisis because of the stresses in division it's
creating. might you please -- i'm interested if you would not mind speculating on the worst case. how troubling, highway bad could that get in terms of the divisions within the union? thank you. politically and so on. thank you. >> of course, i'm not a prophet. i'm not cassandra either. no, i'm an optimist. i think that the project of the european union is so big. after having a europe in 1945 that was completely destroyed, mentally and physically to create a political body that might be able to abandon war. i meej, i'm the first generation in europe that has never seen a war. this is thank you to the european union. that is a project that is so big and so important. not only for us europeans, because if it goes well, it might offer a kind of organization to other parts of the world, too.
where people still think that wars or fighting might go on forever. we managed now for 70 years to hammer out compromise and to solve our problems without blood shed. it's a utopia we're trying to realize there. i can't imagine that we give it up just for one particular topic that should be solvable, as i said. europe is big. europe is strong. economy is running -- i mean, it's a rich part of the world. let's not be so shy about that. we could absorb, of course, refugees and we should do so. but i pray every morning that this project survives because it's so important. it's not typical for a diplomat to pray every morning. i know that. i want to get the panel's thoughts on the questions
professor asked our keynote speaker. each of you have offered a degrees of at least part, maybe all of the situation and each of you have implied certain solutions. mr. biedermann you had the four points and perhaps have proposed an approach most concretely. here's the question, at least the way i would phrase it. one could look at your diagnosis and solutions as ones that will work only if we hold to a relatively narrow expansion or no expansion of the 1951 refugee convention, definition of refugee or one could look at your solutions as really underscoring that that regime really needs to be dissolved or completely rethought and ask the question, who is refugee in the first place. i'm just curious what you think
about that. are your solutions a challenge to the refugee migrant distinction or do they require that we maintain that distincti distinction? >> i think the distinction still is a good thing, even though in reality it poses, i mean, enormous problems, as we all see. but there is a difference between somebody who flees a country where his or her life is threatened compared to somebody who is look for an economic better life. it's not the same thing. we should keep the red line here, i think. as you know, in reality it's so difficult to find black and white. it's really difficult. but just consider if we -- if we opened those doors and considered everybody who considers himself or herself a refugee as such, the numbers would go up and i'm not sure about political stability then
in our countries. >> i think it's important enough to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i think the biggest problems with the u.n. refugee are not provisions of the convention but things added onto it. i think if the convention were opened up from scratch at this particular moment, the result would be much worse for people in desperate conditions than what we have right now. personally, i would like to see many more legal mechanisms for people to apply for protection regardless of where they are. speaking now as a citizen of the world rather than as an analyst, i would be willing to trade more punitive enforcement measures in return for a serious, wide, legal mechanism. [ inaudible ] >> that is. if someone in syria is in turkey or some part of syria that's not
under the control of a persecuting group, that that person be able to apply for asylum in the u.s. or canada or qatar or wherever. and then travel directly to that place of refuge. [ inaudible ] >> well, so, for example, if the doors are left completely open, then that means when asylum seekers come to a place like europe, and if they have their refugee status determination, and at the end of that are found not to be -- to fit the refugee cry tia, then what happens? typically, people are not deported. and in general, i'm not in favor of mags deportations but i would rather have a system that makes it possible for people to come to europe or another place of refuge, have a serious refugee status determination than the current system which has this very, very deliberately high cost and human lives because of the impossible transit.
>> this is a question for professor fitzgerald. leaving aside the refuse -- just considering economic issues and cultural issues, how many refugees per year, in the coming years, do you think the u.s. could accept from the middle east? what's the cost per individual, up-front cost that you estimate? how do you think it could be financed? >> you know, for most of the 2000s the u.s. has been accepting about a million legal permanent residents per year. and right now we're just taking something like, what is it, 30,000, 50,000 refugees.
a very, very small number. clearly, the united states has a massive capacity to take more refugees. if you fly from los angeles to new york, it's a big country. and there's a lot more room for refugees. i think we need to be honest about the fact that up front there are costs. resettlement something incur costs in the first few months and few years. that depends on the human capital of the person who comes. if those investments are made early on, then they will reap returns in the future. but i think we need to be serious about the fact that, yes, we need more congressional appropriations for settlement. no -- [ inaudible ] >> to mention some figures? i would be interested in some ballpark estimates of the costs and -- if this makes sense to you. >> i don't have specific estimates to give you. what i can say is this is
something that would require congressional action. it's not something the president can do to appropriate more money towards refugee resettlement. that would require congressional action. clearly, there's no political will to do that now. >> the refugee crisis that started in 2011, immediately after the arab spring, is not quite a crisis anymore since it has become quite a constant phenomenon. medical practitioners in the receiving countries say the real crisis is the fact that they cannot afford to to provide enough, you know, enough care, especially mental care, because these refugees are suffering from ptsd, from the sexualization of torture and they see this as the real crisis. some of these clinics, they are called ethno clinics have their
locations -- or names classified. because some of these victims testified to clear human rights abuse. and my question is, has there been a movement towards documenting the stories of these victims who testified to these abuses to their care givers to build an oral history, an oral archive of the human rights abuses. like in bosnia, you know, because whatever happened in bosnia happens in terms of torture with middle eastern refugees. has there been at least in germany a movement towards collecting this witness testimony so as to persecute prep traitors of human rights abuse? >> i don't know.
>> so, if there are no further questions, i would like to thank our panelists. [ applause ] thanks to all of you for attending this event. >> your presentation was very interesting. i could have learned a lot about our country. i mean, all the figures you had were really -- the first of two days of live coverage of the democratic national committee platform hearings begins this afternoon
at 3:00 p.m. it's taking place in orlando. members will debate and vote on the party's policy positions going into the presidential elections. coverage of saturday's session starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. the economy added 287,000 jobs in june according to the labor department today. and the unemployment rate rose to 4.9%, which the associated press said was a sign more people had entered the job market but had not been able to find work. the ap says, the hiring spurt marked a sharp improvement from may's dismal showing with just 11,000 jobs added then. a modest 144,000 jobs had been added in april. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday afternoon at 1:30 eastern -- >> memoirs always you have to be wary of because not only are memoirs just bound to be self-serving to a degree, but the -- they also -- most of
these people did not want to close too much. in some cases, they may actually dissem bell and try to mislead people. >> historians talk about the techniques used by cia and russian foreign intelligence service to gather intelligence dating back to the cold war and how that has changed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. at 6:00, an examination of race relations and post-civil war memphis. >> many whites thought, this is it, it's finally happening. it really is happening. a full-scale black uprising and they panicked. mobs of white men armed with pistols and clubs formed spontaneously downtown, marched to the scene of the shootout and began shooting, beating every black person they could find. >> the 1866 riot that resulted in the massacre of dozens of african-americans and the assault on freed women, also the role of federal u.s. colored troops stationed near the city. and just before 9:00, author and
journalist walter isaacson talks about franklin's passion for what he calls america's national character. >> his view was that small businesses and startups would be the backbone of a new economy. and, indeed, one of the things his group did is leather apron cloth was they made a set of rules and maxums on how to be a good startup entrepreneur and innovator. >> and a road to the white house rewind sunday at 10:00 a.m. >> and in the music of our children, we are told to everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven. and for america, the time has come at last. >> you know that every politician's promise has a price. the taxpayer pays the bill.
the american people are not going to be taken in by any scheme where the government gives money by one hand and takes it away from the other. >> the 1972 republican and democratic presidential conventions where richard nixon accepts the nomination and george mcgovern accepting the democratic nomination. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. in less than two weeks, c-span will have live coverage of every minute of the 2016 republican national convention followed by the democratic national convention. and every saturday night atle 8:00 eastern, we'll take a look at past conventions and the presidential candidates who went on to win their party's nomination. this saturday, we'll focus on incumbent presidents who ran for re-election. dwight eisenhower at the 1956 republican convention in san francisco. the 1946 dpement convention in atlantic city with london
johnson. richard nixon at the 1972 republican convention in miami beach. 1980 democratic convention with jimmy carter in new york city. the 1984 republican convention in dallas with ronald reagan. george h.w. bush at the 1992 republican convention in houston. bill clinton in chicago for the 1996 democratic convention. and the 2004 republican convention in new york city with george w. bush. past republican and democratic national conventions saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. next, the congressional black caucus holds a briefing on law enforcement and efforts to provide aid for community policing and police training. live coverage starts shortly on c-span3.
we are waiting for this congressional black caucus meeting to start shortly. in the meantime, the united states capitol was placed on lockdown for 40 minutes, possibly due to a gun on the campus. the lockdown was lifted at about 9:40 a.m. the hill reports representative dennis ross of florida told the hill a staffer was seen in the building with a firearm. a second lawmaker commented the firearm made it past security.
capitol staffers were told during the lockdown to go into a room and stay away from external windows or doors. people were prevented from leaving the capitol. the session briefly gaveled into session and gaveled out during the lockdown as they sheltered in place in the chamber. the closure came as lawmakers and public were grappling with news that five police officers were killed in dallas hours before.
with are standing by for live coverage of the congressional black cause cuss briefing on law enforcement. while we wait for this briefing to begin, we'll show you some of this morning's "washington journal" on gun violence. >> joining us from baltimore is a black lives matter activist and community organizer joining
us from baltimore good morning. welcome back to the program. >> it's good to be back. >> so, gosh, where to start. louisiana, minnesota, dallas. what's your reaction, sir, to everything that's been going on? not just this week but in general in the country? >> we shouldn't have to protest. people shouldn't have to be in the street to heard. people protest as a last resort. we know the police have been inflicting violence in communities for a long time. it wasn't until we were in the street in 2014 that forced a conversation at the national level about this terror that was happening in communities where we see in louisiana, where we see in minnesota, are two black men who should be alive today but they're not alive because an officer chose to kill them. we think about the lack of convictions that have happened across the country in the last two years. what we know to be true is the courts are not saying the officers are not involved in the death of these people. the courts are saying their
involvement is not criminal. that reminds us that we need to make sure that the laws, the policies and practices actually hold police accountable because the police have incredible power to take people's lives, but they also operate with impunity. they aren't held accountable by any of our structures. these cases remind us that that's not okay and my heart goes out to victims of all violence as we think about what's happened over the past 48 hours. >> our guest will be with us for the next half hour. we'll put the numbers on the bottom of the screen and get to your calls. a little confusion, mr. mckesson about what kind of protest this was. some called it a black lives matter protest. some were saying it wasn't. that the organization doesn't even have a branch or anything in dallas. a, does that matter? bk you clarify anything for us? >> yes. two important things. the movement is bigger than any one organization so it's confusing about this moment is there is an organization that
has a name, that is the same thing as we call the movement. so, when people think about this moment, they think about the black lives matter movement which is more expansive than any organization or any one person. there is an organization called black lives matter. the organization didn't start the protest but it is one of the organizations that is around the country, but there are so many activists and organizers pushing to make the world more equitable and just. when we think about the protests in dallas, in minneapolis, that were in baton rouge is that it's at its root people coming together saying, we know the world can be together and here's how. let me find other people who believe it with me. >> let's get right to the phones for our guest. david is calling from swanz borrow, georgia. you're on the line with dwayne mckesson of black lives. >> caller: good morning, y'all, c-span. how are you doing? >> good to see you. >> caller: i'm going to throw a little history at you. y'all are listening to
politicians. and talking like politicians. please quit it. as americans we need to speak as americans. what is going on in our country is fascism, plain and simple. it's age old. gone on forever. they call the people over there in the persian world radical muslims. sir, it was started by corzani at the end of world war ii when he set up a fascist state in egypt and it's moved up into the middle east. that is the plain and simple of it. and until like what y'all are doing with black lives matter point out that it is fascism and that -- >> good morning to all of you. thank you so very much for
coming on short notice, but this is an important day. and we need your coverage. we need your attention and we need for you to tell our story to the mempb people. i'm j.k. butterfield, i chair the 45-member congressional black caucus. collectively we represent 30 million people in america. over half of whom are african-americans. so, we come to this place each week to represent our constituents who are in pain. as of june 30th, just awe few days ago, 491 americans have been fatally shot by police. most of those were african-american. at this same point last year, 465 were killed by police. last night, despicable crimes were committed against dallas police officers. and when the dust settled, five of them were dead as a result of
an organized execution by criminals who possessed guns and used them to the extreme. and so, the congressional black caucus convenes today to tell america we're continuing our fight to remove guns from the hands of would-be terrorists and criminals and require background checks for those seeking to purchase firearms. we need legislative action now. we don't need to leave the hill this week or any week without assuring the american people that we understand the problem of police misconduct in america. we understand the murders of innocent black americans. we ket it. we understand the problems faced by our law enforcement officers. i don't want to diminish that in this conversation today. we understand the problems faced by law enforcement officers. most of whom put on the uniform
every day and serve and protect our communities. republicans, what are on earth -- why are you recalling and not giving us a debate on gun violence? why not give it a hearing? give us a debate. give us an up or down vote on our legislation on gun violence. why? last night while on the floor we were advised that several hundred proceed tegsers were en route to the capitol, demonstrating and protesting and exercising the first amendment rights by demanding that we, as elected officials protect their sons and daughters and their grandsons and granddaughters, their brothers and their sisters. at 10:00 p.m., the congressional black caucus, along with other members from other caucuses, went outside of the capitol at the west front and we met the demonstrators. we spoke to them. we embraced them and we help lead their march to the white
house. they told us, with unambiguous clarity that black lives matter. that the movement is serious. it is organized and they demand legislative action now. and that we don't leave this place until it's done. i applaud -- we applaud the demonstrators last night for telling us that the deaths of baton rouge -- that deaths in baton rouge and falcon heights give them the energy and determination they need to pull off the band-aid of the stain of irresponsible police killings in america. the two acts of murder this week that we all so sadly know must be addressed by law enforcement. it must be addressed by the congress of the united states. if we fail to act, this will be a long, hot summer. in the rally audience last evening, a young lady held up a sign that read, i we want more
last night than i slept. end of quote. colleagues, america is weeping. they are angry. they are frustrating. and -- and when i say congress, i mean the republicans in congress are refusing to address gun violence in america that targets black men and black women and hispanic men and hispanic women, and yes, even police officers. the congressional black caucus is frustrated. you want to say we're mad? we're mad. we are determined to take our advocacy now to a higher level. this is our responsibility to our constituents and and we thank you so much for covering us today. we ain't going to let nobody turn us around. thank you so very much. at this time it is my honor to yield to the dean of the u.s. house of representatives. not the dean of the democrats. the dean of the u.s. house of
representatives, the ranking member of the committee on judiciary, the honorable john conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're all here with a heavy heart and some growing anger about the process that is going on here in the congress. as i've said before, and i'll say it again, we need to adopt gun violence prevention legislation to expand background checks to all gun purchases. and we need to reinstate a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons. and at the same time, i also believe we need to take a comprehensive approach at addressing the issue of building and strengthening trust between
local police and their communities. i've dedicated a lot of my time in congress to policing issues, to gun violence prevention, introducing legislation, chairing town hall meetings across the country and meeting with the grieving families of both citizens and fallen officers alike. and as a part of the controversial 1994 crime bill, i was able to pass the federal pattern and practice of enforcement provision that allows the department of justice to investigate state and local police departments, most recently like ferguson and baltimore, were unconstitutional and discriminatory. now, i've introduced the law
enforcement trust and integrity act. which would provide local incentives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure the incidence of misconduct will be minimized through appropriate management training and oversight protocols. and now we're working on negotiating a version. law enforcement trust and integrity act to bring before our committee. however, like too many well-intended efforts, we're stuck trying to push toward a finish, but negotiations are still going on. we have to be able to find agreement on major items like accreditation standards, best
practices, body cameras and even data collection. the real challenge is now finding the support that will bring this bill forward in the committee. so, we must begin toe de deal w these tragic shooting deaths of alton sterling and philando castile, who have been -- which have been avoided. and with better training, particularly in detentions and use of force as addressed by accreditation standards and best practices provisions that are currently in negotiation. so out of respect for all who have lost their lives, both law enforcement and civilian, we must dedicate ourselves to engaging the difficult issues to make lasting change in our
communities and heal as a nation. we must debate and we must vote. that's what we're here for in the congress. thank you. >> thank you, congressman conyers. next is congresswoman sheila jackson lee from the subcommittee on crime. >> mr. chairman, i stand here today with members of the congressional black caucus, each of whom have hearts and minds. and i know that we will hear soon from congressman john lewis under whom many of us were tutored, along with the late dr. martin luther king. we're advocates of nonviolence. we're students of protests. but we also as our hearts are
broken, as i mourn with my fellow texans for the loss of five dedicated law enforcement officers, who now have mourning them their families and children and community. they died in the line of duty. as members of the united states congress, i've watched my colleagues fight for justice and equal treatment for all. and they've tried over the bodies of those who have been lost in gun violence. as we watch the protests that have gone on and those that will come, america should know those protests were nonviolent. they were crying out for action. they were crying out in pain. but i never heard one person talk about an attack on law enforcement officers or undermining the laws of this
nation, for we are a nation of laws. you will find that the movement that many of us were involved in, the protest movement, the violence came toward us. we did not offer any violence. so, today we stand here answering the call of leadership. each of these members will go home to their district. they will seek peace and understanding, but they will respond that there must be action. so as we mourn the loss of those fallen last night in a criminal terrorist act of killing five officers, the largest since 9/11, we mourn mr. castile, we mourn mr. sterling and we mourn all of those and we ask that the nation sees us as leaders of peace. we're asking the speaker of the house, we're asking the majority
leader, to now realize that an ar-15 does not discriminate. it finds itself in the hearts and the bodies of many that we love. so, we're calling on the passage of no fly, no buy. we're calling on the passage of a -- closing the loophole, but we're calling on a passage of bringing together police and community, the law enforcement and integrity act. we hope there will be roundtables of discussion between police and community that and that we'll be in the midst of those discussions calling on peace and then, finally, let me say, we cannot do this without resources. resources for police, resources for young people in pain and, resources for community. we are fighting for monies that are needed to bring our communities together. i'll join with congressman conyers on the judiciary committee to fight for legislation that will respond to
the needs of police and respond to the needs of community. my hard heart is broken and we will pray this weekend in houston, marching for peace, nonviolence and the action of the united states congress to take violent guns and violent people off the streets of this nation. >> thank you, congresswoman sheila jackson lee. the congressional black caucus is the conscience of the congress, the gentleman from the fifth district of georgia, mr. lewis. >> thank you very much, chairman butterfield. my wonderful sisters and brothers of the congressional black caucus, they're like a
family. we pray for our nation, for the people in louisiana, minnesota, for the police officers and the people of dallas. there's not any room in our society for violence. as sheila jackson lee said, we respect law enforcement. these individuals were doing their job. in dallas. there needs to be greater training of law enforcement. sometimes i feel that maybe not
only those that engage in nonviolent protests but police officers need to be taught the way of peace, the way of love, the way of nonviolence. to respect the dignity and worth of every human being. that's what we were taught. we were arrested, jailed and beaten. we didn't fight back. and today we feel the pain, we feel the hurt of the people in baton rouge and minnesota and dallas and all across our country. but whatever we do, we must do it in an orderly, peaceful, nonviolent fashion to have redeemed the soul of america and bring us together to create what dr. martin luther king jr.
called the beloved community, because we all live in the same house. and it doesn't matter whether we're black or white, latino, asian-american ornatetive american, we're one people, we're one family, we're one house. we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters. if not, we will perish as fools. we have too many guns. there's been too much violence and we must act. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman john lewis. you led the way in 1963, '4 and '5 and you're leading the way today. thank you so very much. the next speaker will be the
congressman from the second district of louisiana, congressman cedric richmond. >> today i stand here speaking and i would have to say today it's probably the angriest i've ever been while addressing the public and the media. and i share the anger of our young kids. when we look at this congress, we can do nothing but conclude that they are co-conspirators in the devaluation of the lives of men and women of color. and that the systematic devaluation from mass incarceration to the lack of investment in communities show that we have little faith or concern about their futures.
let me also say al green, congressman from texas, reminded us yesterday doctor king's quote of, in the end, it will not be the words of your enemies that you remember. but the silence of your friends. and john lewis will tell you that during the civil rights movement, one of the reasons why it was so strong was that people of all walks of life came together to talk about injustice. we're calling on our friends from every community from the human rights community to the jewish community to the hispanic community. we're calling on all of our friends to join in this about injustice. and let me just say, yesterday a few of us joined together and
those in judiciary requested the chairman of the judiciary to convene a hearing on the use of deadly force. baz we thought this country was at a tipping point the youngsters in our country were so frustrated, so angry, having not seen any action while their friends and family are mowed down in the streets, that that frustration was at a tipping point. we again today call upon speaker ryan, chairman goodlatte to convene an adult conversation about the use of deadly force, the need for ar-15s on our streets, the needs for higher capacity magazines, no fly, no buy, but if this congress does not have the cuts to lead, then we are responsible for all the blood shed on the streets of america. whether it be at the hands of
people wearing a uniform or whether it's at the hands of criminals. we bear that responsibility if we don't act. in closing out, i'll just say, as the congressional black caucus, we stand here today in a lot of pain. we stand here today very angry. we stand here today with our hearts very heavy. but we stand here today with our resolve stronger than it's ever been that we can lead this country and we have to show the leadership in this country to make this country that it should be, the country we want it to be, and the country our precious children deserve. so, i just want to thank you and thank my colleagues, who i have learned so much from and their leadership on this issue. and we're not just the conscious of this congress. we're the intellectual capacity of it, too. at some point, they'll start to listen and start to follow
because the answers to our problems are contained in the intellectual capacity of this group. so, thank you very much. >> thank you, congressman richmond. please receive the congressman from the 33rd district of texas, congressman mark beasley. >> good morning. now my second term in congress and i can tell thyou that this the saddest day for me being a member of congress. what happened in the city of dallas last night, i represent part of dallas, is -- not only as the saddest day for me as a member of congress, but i can't think of any other event in the dallas metroplex in my lifetime that has been this solemn.
i was on the phone earlier this morning and i spoke to one of the police officers who was -- the family of the police officers that was killed. i talked to the mom and aunt of one of the police officers that was killed. the police officer lived in ft. worth, the district i represent, and he grew up in the district i represent. and his parents still live in the ft. worth area. and i roundly condemned the violence that took place last night and what happened to those police officers is absolutely horrible. it was hate-filled, what happened. the police officers and the protesters were getting along last night. they were taking pictures with one another last night. the gunmen, the people involved in this senseless act had nothing to do with the protesters. and the protesters and the police, according to some reports, after the shooting
happened, even helped each other last night. and yesterday we had and to talk about what happened in minnesota. i have to tell you, i have a 10-year-old son. he seems more like his mom. he looks like both of us, but he's more like his mom. and right now, he's a cute fifth grader. going into the fifth grade, a cute fifth grader. but i worry about him when he gets older. when he gets into high school. what if he's out with friends and he smarts off the wrong way?
and i just don't want anything to happen to him just because maybe he shoots off or maybe he doesn't do something that someone doesn't like and has something happen to him. that could be prevented with just better understanding between the community and the police department. and just because i want that for my son does not mean that i don't support the police 100%. without the police, we would have anarchy in the streets. we would have no order, and the country that we live in wouldn't be the country that we know today where we have a free press, where we have freedom of speech, where we have the right to gather and protest. and that is all that i want. i want the police officers to be protected. but i do want to know that when my son gets a little bit older,
and he starts -- and his voice starts to change and he starts to put on weight like his dad, that he will be given the same benefit of the doubt that any other kid would be for maybe having a smart mouth or maybe not doing what the police officer says that he didn't think he should have been doing, or whatever the circumstances may be, i just want him to have that same chance as any other kid in his school. thank you. >> thank you, congressman veasec. the next and final speaker before we open it up to questions and answers will be from the gentle lady from chicago, congressman robin kelly, who returns to washington each monday night with horror stories from her community in chicago, cook county, illinois. she not only is the only member who comes back and brings us these horror stories, but we have stories from los angeles
and new york and san antonio and it just continues to repeat itself every week. but thank you, congressman kelly for your advocacy. >> thank you, chairman. the united states is on edge, and we have to decide if we're going to go over the cliff with gun violence and senseless murders or are we going to take a step back and find the space for peace and solidarity. i associate myself with everything my colleagues have said. our black men and boys cannot be continued to look at as animals in a jungle that are dangerous and shot all too often. but also, we cannot -- i come from a family of law enforcement, and i texted my cousin in new york last night and my nephews in chicago and told them to be safe, because i know they're trying to do the right thing and they're trying to protect us. we have to find peace together. we cannot continue like this. we have to be the leaders in finding the solution to this gun
violence problem. it's the commonsense gun laws, but it's police community relations, getting more african-americans into the law enforcement field. it's sustainable communities. wlie are people picking up guns not books, or pens and pencils. we have to get to the root cause, also. we have to work together. congresswoman lawrence and i dropped a bill yesterday that deals with all of those components because it's not just one thing. it's not just one thing. it's all of those things together. and i vow, and they know, to foyt to the end. i haven't stood up for a moment of silence for a long time because i feel like we stand up, sit down, and we don't do anything. it's time to act. it's time to act for everybody, whether you die alone, you die in a mass shooting, or you're a police officer who is senselessly murdered. thank you. >> thank you, congresswoman robin kelly. i thank you all of my colleagues. we're open to questions. your name and organization.
>> cnn. the police chief in dallas this morning talked about the suspect who died. he said he wanted to kill white people. he said he wanted to kill cops. he said he was upset by the black lives matter movement. you all have been explaining lack of gun control action for part of this problem. i wonder if you have any concerns with the black lives matter movement, some of the folks in there, and some of the things people have been saying about the police leading to these kinds of things? >> we have to be intelligent enough to separate the issues we're confronting today in america. the congressional black caucus not only supports black lives matter, but we embrace black lives matter. each member of our caucus feels that sentiment, and if not, he or she can speak for themselves, but i know all of them individually standing before you, and we collectively embrace the ideals and goals of black lives matter.
there are multiple issues we are facing in america. we have talking about, number one, about taking away guns from terrorists and would-be terrorists and criminals who use these guns to kill 491. 491 police shootings in america so far this year. at this same point last year, 465 americans were shot by police. senselessly and unnecessarily. so we've got to separate that, as congressman veasey said a moment ago, this does not discount our support for law enforcement all across the country. we said in our private meetings and public meetings that 99.9%, 99.8% of police officers in this country are wonderful men and women who put on the uniform each day and they serve and they protect and they defend us and they defend our constituents and
our communities. so i want us to be intelligent enough to separate the issues that we're talking about today. if someone goes in a building and assassinates five police officers, they are a terrorist. by any definition. they are a terrorist, and they're not part of the black lives matter movement. what their motivations were, criminal justice system and law enforcement will figure that out. i have seen the early reports this morning, but please, ladies and gentlemen, let's be intelligent enough to be able to separate the issues that we're debating today. at this time, i yield to congressman al green from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, a comment. the nation is in mourning. we are a country that is suffering. and that suffering emanates from the loss of innocent human life. innocent life, whether it's at
the hands of these assassins who killed police officers or at the hands of persons who represent the constabulous, any loss of life is something we deplore and that we must always protect innocent life. i'm a former president of the naacp. served as a judge of a small claims justice court, and a lawyer. i assure you that people of good will denounce any statements that have been made with reference to the shooting of peace officers. we absolutely, adamantly, totally oppose anyone who would advocate shooting police officers. we totally, completely, without hesitation, equivocation, or reservation, want to make it prospockiously clear, what
happened in dallas, texas, was beneath the standards that human beings have set to live peacefully with each other. and we want to make sure that those persons who are involved in this are prosecuted to the fullest extent that the law allows. just as anyone who harms a person who happens to be an innocent citizen with a taillight out. that person has to be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows. there was reference to the congress of the united states of america, before we can get these acts of congress to pass a legislation that my dear sister advocates for, that mr. richmond has talked about, before you can get an act of congress, you have to have a congress willing to act. the congress of the united states of america has refused to
act. on issues of importance to the american people. the speaker of the house has to be called on the carpet for what he has failed to do. make no mistake about it. the speaker has the power. he has the political power here to call and convene a meeting to bring in the head of the fbi and demand that he account for an investigati investigation. if he can do this, he can demand that we bring in the appropriate people so we can find out what's happening in this country. that is his responsibility. and we will not let him off the hook. >> thank you, congressman al green. there's no question that the power to address this issue is in the hands of speaker paul ryan. and i hope he