tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 30, 2016 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
want to encourage that. >> that's great. i add one other thing. even though food is often viewed as a kind of primitive thing. >> that's foundational. >> but research into the kinds of foods that are consumed and whether they have any impact on cancer prevention or cancer formation should also be part of that as much as possible. >> it's a great point. i was just now talking about the health care record data, the movement and change that's happening in the country is that people want a full picture of their health, not just their health care, and so whether it's environmental exposure data, they can geocode location or healthy habits or dietary habits that's what we need to see to understand how they got to a place of having cancer and/or how they got to a place of cure. >> i want to amplify karen's last points here and point out that first of all this is a critical time to talk about themes for health for the future
and some of us need health care some of the time but all of us need health and well-being all of the time. so i'm hoping that in the future we continue to talk about patient-centered care a tremendous advance and talk about person-centered care that brings the wellness and prevention themes into discussion. also, population-centered care. we have a country growing rapidly diverse by the day and many of you may know the projections by 2043 we'll be a majority minority country. i'm the sop of korean immigrants so i'm very, very sensitive to those issues and we can talk about diversity not just by race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of disability, geography, income and other dimensions so we need health to care for all populations throughout the life course, talk about health and
well-being, not just about health care, and i'm hoping that those are some of the themes that we can start integrating as we move the discussion forward. >> great. i think we're going to go to q&a now and i ask you, please to not give us the summary of the constitution when you ask a question and if you could state your name and ask your question as quickly as possible pack to this gentleman. we got a couple of -- >> mike miller, senior health science adviser, my question is what do you think the role is for behavioral economics to prevent cancer and outside tobacco. it's been used so much in tobacco. thank you. >> i think we already have data
and research. so there's a lot of behavioral health we should do more research about that. it goes back to the behavioral health and the community, not only the individual. when a person is diagnosed with cancer it affects the entire family and community. i welcome that question and think there should be more research and i would love to get the impression from karen. >> it's such a great question and we are still struggling with health care and the broader prevention agenda. one caution would be that we wouldn't want to place too much the focus on an individual's choices. that is a part of the equation. there is a broader context in which they make the choices and behaviors and we certainly know that in the public health world and to me the bigger strategies
that we can take that create these healthy environments and i don't mean just having a nice leafy green vegetable at the grocery store, truly having public safety and economic opportunity and education. those seem to be the communities based upon data, underlying strong structure that overall the gaps and disparities and life expectancy are reducing and that people are having healthy lives. underlying characteristics of communities even more than health behaviors seem to dictate gaps in life expectancy. >> howard, thoughts there? >> i agree with my colleagues. an area of fascinating research. we look forward to more studies. from a broad perspective the question is this can perhaps help individuals at some level. what is the broader impact on health? that's an unanswered question but i think the research endeavors ongoing are fascinating and should be
followed closely. >> if i may at a broad level, i'm violating the rules, aren't i, secretary, there's a broader way to look at this, you think of the world of social impact bond so thinking about the behavioral economics of the whole system, not the individual so how do you bring the business community, health care, public health, rest of society to encourage them to invest upstream instead of investing downstream in health care. how do we create the loop there is an opportunity for reinvestment and reward it properly. how do we take our care payment levers and find a way we can use those to invest upstream, the community is behaving differently. >> the gentleman here in the orange tie. >> my name is jay sweeney and i represent the private health club industry. we've been working to build on that important question, working hard to promote tax incentives
for exercise to lower the cost of physical activity. one of the things from a policy perspective when we go up to the hill and talk about this, oh it costs too much to do something like that. i wanted to get your sense what have kind of time line are we looking for this research to show the return on investment and very real data, because we all know intuitively increase healthier life styles and lower disease costs we'll reap a tremendous return. i wanted to get your sense of where we are on that because that say problem from a policy perspective. >> whoever wants to answer that. >> we need it yesterday so get going -- i'm teasing -- not really -- the -- here's something i would say that i sensed from the business community in the last three years in particular that i've been paying more attention is they have evolved, i'm not speaking for them, but just reflecting what i heard from the business community employers is that they saw good progress in bending the cost curve for their employees through a variety of
mechanisms encouraging prevention and screening and even some irnglings there's some wellness programs that may work but they quickly realize there was much more to health than their health care benefits package and what they did in the workplace that there was a context in which people were going home and living and then there was the set of family influences and cultural influences, so they're increasingly wanting to be a part of the broader community health conversation. you're seeing this in nashville, where nashville health led by bill frist and the chamber of commerce bringing health care sector thinking who policies you're describing might make a difference in their community that may be unusual. everyone's feeling a sense of urgency because not only because of the cost, but increasingly because of some of the data that was reflected earlier that we're beginning to see some plateauing of life expectancy in the u.s., and in fact, some of the gaps are beginning to widen for some populations that didn't have that before. >> i think the biggest
challenge, i read everything that karen just said, i ree, but the biggest cllenge wen cont incentivize good behavior, good healthy lifes either to transportation or time off to be able to do that. if we're going to do that, we have to balance everything because otherwise you create more health disparities. so that's a policy issue. >> it's interesting. the bpc spends a lot of time and effort on health care costs generically, and of course, when you look at the federal budget and you look at those aspects of why the deficit is growing so rapidly, health care costs i think become the fastest growing part on the expenditure side in large part due to chronic disease. so this is not only an individualized issue, this is a
massive macro tax issue affecting the public as a whole as well. this lady here. we have a mike here for you. >> thank you. my name is chandler lyland and i'm a nurse. i share with dr. koh parents who were not born in the usa necessarily. my mother was a korean born bride. fusion cuisine i think my mom invented it and -- >> sounds good to me. >> because we know obesity is a major contributor of cancer and many, many children spend days in school and school time is constantly being monitored as being excessive in cost. we do need to look at the fact
that school lunch time ought to be considered as lab teachers not to be involved, they need their break but the school lunch time lab time would incorporate a tiny bit of exercise and nutrition, completely and totally there's peer pressure, and sharing and it just the whole big picture is related to quality of life. thank you. i could go on but don't want to -- >> you all agree with her comment? >> yes. >> this lady right here, i'm trying to get to everybody if we keep our questions short. >> i'm selena from pink ribbon red ribbon and focus on women's cancers in developing countries. could you talk about prevention
opportunities in sub-saharan africa and latin america. >> first of all i want to congratulate you guys. i was supposed to be with you in congress but i have no voice as you can actually see. that was supposed to be on wednesday, correct? >> yes. >> so first of all, they're doing amazing jobs related to breast and cervical cancer, and we have the project echo, which is led by dr. ellen baker, who works in the mideast in our office and we lead project echo. that's a challenge that we also had to realize. it's not all about united states. it's about the world. cancer is a global issue. we talk about how we're dealing with eastern europe, central europe, sub-saharan africa. because of the lack of human resources, they don't have
pathologies, they don't have the time to shake the pap smear, that's one challenge. the other challenge we've been so successful with hiv now that the women are not dying from hiv and cervical cancer, and when they're in their 30s and 40s, so i think everyone should be paying attention to the foundations that are working there. one challenge that i have seen and i pledge we are going to be helping that from our own institution is we are cataloguing with nci right now, one of the things that was discussing how we can do this. find out how many universities are in a town or in a city in africa and what we are doing so that we can amplify the work instead of creating all the same silos that we have here. if we do that we would be able to succeed in the work done in africa. please everybody in this room
look at that data and information and what they are doing, look at what acs is doing and nci is doing. there's a lot of when you look at the rates when we die here, it's 20 years younger, 30 years younger for women in africa, and that's a crime honestly. we have the resources, knowledge and telemedicine. it cannot be new mexico and vanderbilt. it has to be all of us together. >> i want to thank you for raising the global context. we're fortunate in the united states we have cancer death rates dropping as dr. wonder pointed out 25% less in the last 25 years. globally that's a different story. they can make progress in developed countries like the u.s. and low and middle income countries around the world cancer issues are getting worse, some 8 million cancer deaths around the world and the number is projected to go up to some 13
million by 2030. this is a deployable conversation and whatever we learn in this country we should work with global partners, each country has a different culture and political system. this is truly a worldwide effort going forward. >> i thought that gentleman back there just raised his hand. yes, you. yes. >> thanks, bill dietz, redstone center, george washington university. thank you for this panel. my question is about meat consumption which is a significant contributor to cancer. nice paper by doctor -- >> the cattlemen are outside, they'll come in after you. >> i'm not sure who should answer this question which i'm coming to, and we know that there's a direct route of meat consumption to colon cancer and indirect route mediated by obesity, and the dietary guidelines called for a reduction in meat consumption
and based this argument on the increased sustainability of the food supply because meat production is a major source of methane. so increased climate change. so yet meat is also a valuable source of protein and iron in the american diet, so what's the policy strategy to reduce meat consumption, thereby reducing methane production, thereby improving cancer rates and reducing climate change? >> it's a very easy policy question to answer. i'm going to ask dr. koh maybe as a public health specialist if he has any thoughts on this and i may offer a couple of comments, too. >> as you mentioned the dietary guidelines just released started to address that anyway and there is increasing emphasis on fruit venlgable consumption and balanced diets, mediterranean diets that addressed that issue directly or indirectly.
i think in terms of getting the message out and having people have a more balanced diet is really a hugely important issue for the future. karen has weighed in on that and may want to say more. i'm not sure there's an easy answer for you right now but it is an issue that's been raised and flagged and direct lay dressed in the 2015 dietary guidelines and also addressed explicitly by w.h.o. and other dietary groups. >> which is why i didn't think i'd direct this question to karen as much but interested in secretary glickman's response. >> i figured. go ahead. >> we have to also realize the reality of why some of the people are eighting the meat. first of all i'm a dairy farmer so that's why i have to put it out there. processed meat is even a bigger
issue than real meat. the other issue working with us there, when we did a survey in the district of columbia and defined why people go to, poor people and the first thing that they will do is buy meat. the answer was they would never have meat when they were kids because they were poor. so they really wanted to give that to their kids. the other thing is, go to a supermarket, see an elderly person buying cat food. it's not for the cats. they don't have cats. so it's not only about the macro picture of what we have to do. we have to start with our community. this is a big issue access to good food like karen mentioned before. before we go with the policy find out how we can help people to change their habits. as a dairy farmer i probably eat
red meat once a month. i eat chicken or fish and it was a big cultural change for me. for breakfast i used to have a fresh porterhouse, with 32 ounces of milk. that's essentially breakfast in a dairy farm, plus eggs. so i think that we had to change -- >> and cheese and salt. >> i know, i'm lactose intolerant now. [ laughter ] >> yes, you may. >> just bill's point about in the dietary guidelines for americans we recommended redu reducing meat intake for some groups that have dietary pattern that's high so for men and young men i think it's an important message to just has been discussed that a lot of men go to meat first and we want to recommend it. we link that to we the federal government link that to some of our programs, so that where we can, like in meals on wheels for seniors, like in school feeding programs or head start programs,
link those guidelines to the ways that we're paying for and providing food in those programs. that's one mechanism we try to drive down sugar and salt consumption, et cetera, et cetera. i think the other piece about the decisions about consumption flags for me an important local policy issue is that the whole conversation we've been having about the share of responsibility at all levels of government and by society, if you look at actions that communities like new york city take, where they have really been leaning forward about portion size and calorie displays and using every bell and whistle and flag they can to get the community to understand to change their culture, to change their choices when they're standing there or reading off of a menu in the store that has to compliment policy and scientific recommendations so that we can give everybody again sort of information they need to make the choice but also make the choices available that are the right healthy ones. >> i just add as a policy issue,
it's more political than medical, is half the proceeds of american agriculture are in livestock, 50%. so when you add fruit, vegetables, grow crops, everything else, 50% is in livestock. so this is a huge, just think about the monumental sociological impact of livestock as part of this diet. in addition to that, a huge part of crop growth is to feed those livestock, those animals, and there is no question that we've created an environment in this country in large part because of our affluence, where people have wanted meat, plus it tastes good. they've learned the taste is very good and this is a growing trend worldwide not so much with cattle but with poultry and hogs. in china, massive growth of meat consumption. but so that's, that leads to the political aspects, as you can imagine, on capitol hill and
affects the school meals programs and everything else, without getting into what's right or what's wrong. what is missing from this is the relationship between the health community and the agriculture communities on discussing these issues. the only real confluence is in the dietary guidelines, which usda works cooperatively with hhs. so i've been at meetings on food and agriculture, where there are virtually no medical people in the room, and vice versa, so it's not rocket science to understand if people aren't talking to each other about these issues, then people get kind of stuck in their own ways of thinking and they don't realize that these are in fact the political aspects of complicated and we have to do that much more than we have in the past. >> you noticed secretary we do work cooperatively in the last, certainly since i've been there, i don't know if this was started
under howard's tenure on developing a research agenda. we have, we, hhs through my office and usda have a shared work group that's inner agency and looks at dietary and nutrition research so we are in addition to the policy angle of dietary guidelines working on going further upstream on the scientific agenda that needs to be developed and in some cases looking as we've published in that research agenda at climate impacts and food sustainability to try to understand that better and build a scientific agenda. we i think recognize there needed to be a lot more communication and working much more together, including for example in the anti-microbial resistance world, through taking an approach that's broader, we've been working with usda through hhs. i want to give people a sense that we recognize there needed to be more conversation and we've created structural ways to do that. >> i also think the medical community themselves, that's just not physicians but everybody else, needs to be involved in this discussion particularly as they relate to
their patients, their customers, and i suspect that's a very small part of the dialogue that goes along when people actually go to see their physician or health care provider. >> one thing related to nutrition, we are now getting a lot of research in terms of microflora of the power and we already have some relationship of the amplification on melanoma. when you keep looking at that research as we progress in that research that's also going to change how we are going to look at nutrition. >> okay, let's see, i've got, there is this lady right here, try to get a couple more, if you can ask your questions, in fact, we have about five minutes, so we'll get you, and you had a question and you a question, we'll get three and answer all three. >> my name is dawn donovan kinder, with the oncologist nursing society and also a nurse manager who has been managing oncology units and at the bedside for 30 years in the united states and canada.
so we talk about smoking cessation and how it relates to lung cancer. what are your thoughts on e-cigarettes and vapors. >> this gentleman with his hand up, see him, yes. we'll do all the questions at once, and then you and that's it. >> i'm bobby, a citizen. you've each acknowledged the importance of the local health authority or the local governmental public health department on the agendas that you have been in talking about. can you describe the ways in which more might be engaged in the initiatives that you talked about. >> okay and last question ladies, over with her hand up, see her, left. yes, right there. okay. >> hi, thank you for the great organization that you put together. i just give you a quick background about myself, about a
year ago i became cancer diagnosed stage four by pancreas and liver. i was very healthy, i was eating right, athletic, all the above that you mentioned so this was a very big shock, so what i became aware of was eating, gno, non-gmo, grass fed, i became familiar with acue puncture, ate constitution that not all the people could eat the same thing. so i combined them eastern medicine and western medicine. i only had three to four months but it's been more than a year that i'm alive and doing chemo, and i went to nih, done all the research viral therapy, immunotherapy, so i think it's more about eating and educating all the people and doctors, physicians, to tell the people about what they should eat. i was never aware of gmo,
non-gmos, grass-fed. i wanted to get your input how can we aware people about this and bring the cost down because it is expensive. not that many people could afford gnos, nonhgmos organic. >> so we've had those three questions. i don't know if you want to try to get to each -- >> i'll take bobby's because i think it was directed at me, former ceo of the national association of city and county officers officials and former local health officer, asked the question about how to get public health agencies more engaged and this work public health 3.0 put a strategic framework around the modernization and evolution of local public health, transforming on the front lines just like health care and science has been to meet the needs more about the broader determinants of health while still doing its everyday important week. exciting pioneering work and
done largely without a playbook so in a week and a half's time we're going to produce a report that's going to talk about what are the five key areas and what are we seeing as success and what could the federal government, states and other sectors do to really help support local agencies as they try to support local health and partnership with others. one really important takeaway that is, this is about doing the work they do now well, so that is not to be left behind. however, it does require some change in the way that local public health officials, leaders and agencies are doing the work they have to reach out of their traditional walls and develop new partnerships that takes resources and time and if you're not paying attention to what's been happening to your local public health infrafrstructure this country you ought, to it's dramatically underfunded over the course of the last decade, hit very hard by the great recession and being buffetted by the things we're doing with the affordable care act, changing their business model and role in
place and they're working to lift themselves up from a policy standpoint, the risk we're in as a country, not having a strong public health infrastructure we hear about every day. i hope they continue to step up. we want to be helpful. >> ecigarette issue. dr. koh, i don't mean to push it on you. >> it's very much a double edged sword on one hand, this could be a valuable smoking cessation tool and form of harm reduction. if that pans out in future studies that would be exciting. we have a new source of potential nicotine addiction for kids and the use by kids has jumped ten-fold in the last five years, the fda just put out regulations for this but that doesn't impact advertising for
example so we need much more research to determine its ultimate place in tobacco and public health. these conversations will go on. the united king tom is much more in terms of thinking of this as a valuable reduction tool. that's a fascinating point of view. >> the last question from a patient. first of all you look great. [ applause ] i hope it continues for a long time. >> you know my heart is with you right now and my prayers will be with you. i actually think that we
discussed this in terms of the lack of data and we need to do more research. i think howard and karen mentioned this before, in terms of nutrition, calorie take, high fructose. we need to know more about not only the ingredients but how they work, they were created and give that information to the public. give that information to the local health departments, and the policy makers, but i think it's going to take some years, and but honestly, i think all of the people here it's about the patient, like howard mentioned before, and having you here, being a brave woman, just telling the world that you're going through a pancreatic cancer is, gives me more energy to continue working, not only research related to public health and population health, find out to be able to save people like you. god bless you. >> okay, well, we thank you.
this has been a great presentation, let's give a hand to our three experts who did a wonderful job. [ applause ] our keynote speaker, and i just want to close with this one thing. you know, again, a little bit of a plug for the bipartisan policy center. our job here is to try to bring people together to try to see if there are public policy solutions that we can successfully work across party lines in a bipartisan way to get things done, and i think the area of health research, prevention of disease, something that affects everybody, it has nothing to do with what political party you are a member of, and so we're going to continue our efforts in this regard, and again i want to thank everybody for joining us today. appreciate it. [ applause ]
live tonight the fall 2016 munk debate on the 2016 presidential election. can donald trump make america great again? arguing in support of mr. trump former speaker of the house and fox news contribute why are newt gingrich and syndicated talk show host laura ingram. against, former labor secretary robert rich and former two-term michigan governor jennifer granho granholm. it will be moderated by reggie griffiths live from toronto 7:00
p.m. eastern on c-span2. tonight on c-span, we're reairing last saturday's dedication of the smithsonian's newest museum on the national mall, the museum of african-american history and culture. president obama and the museum director spoke at the ceremony with guests including first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush, laura bush and john lewis and you can watch that at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on american history tv an c-span3, saturday night at 8:00 eastern on lectures and history, westfield state university criminal justice professor george michael describes the relationship between the extreme right subculture and current politics. >> at first, trump said he didn't really know enough about duke to categorically reject the support but a couple days later, trump formally disavowed any support from duke and related
parties. be that as it may, that has not stopped the media from caricaturing trump and his supporters as racist and biggest. >> sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, the 1988 vice presidential debate between republican indiana senator dan quayle and democratic texas senator lloyd benso bentsen. >> we'd push hard for standing up for the american farmer and recapture the foreign markets and i think we can do it with a dukakis bent-sen administration. >> to come in and tell our farmers no the to grow corn, not to grow soybeans, that's the kind of farm policy you'll get under a dukakis administration and one i think the american farmler rightfully reject. >> at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency. >> henry kissinger as he said, wanted to make sure that no agency had particular entre to president-elect nixon. he and kissinger wanted to
control all of the intelligence flow and didn't want the agency in effect trying to sell itself as the premier factor in the intelligence community. >> with the release of the cia of some 2500 daily briefs of nixon and ford, historians at the nixon presidential library and museum discuss the changes they've made to the daily briefs. for our complete american history tv schedule go to cspan.org. >> the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. with hillary clinton in the white house the rest of the world will never forget why they've always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span's 2016 campaign continues on the road to the white house with the vice presidential debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim
kaine, tuesday night in farmville, virginia, beginning at :30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. at 8:30, the predebate briefing for the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 016 vice presidential debate, watch live on c-span, watch live and any time on demand at cspan.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. the atlantic recently hosted a series of conversations about the state of national and homeland security 15 years after the september 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. in this first panel, current homeland security secretary jeh johnson and former secretary tom ridge, former obama administration defense undersecretary for policy, michelle flournoy, former democratic and independent senator joe lieberman of connecticut, and former republican congressman and house intelligence committee chair, mike rogers of michigan.
this is two hours. >> good morning everybody and welcome. i'm so glad to see such a packed house as we know this sunday is the 15th anniversary of a day seared in into our collective memories. september 11th, 2001, 19 al qaeda mill grants hijacked four jetliner, flew two of the planes into the twin towers of the world trade center, the third plane crashed into the pentagon, the fourth in a field in western pennsylvania, 80 miles from pittsburgh. i think we know the quens by heart, the attack shocked the world. here to mark that day 15 years later and ask ourselves the question, are we any safer today than we were then? our inspiration for this morning comes from this month's cover story by journalist steven brill. he spent a year investigating
the $1 trillion spent by the government to defend against terrorist attacks. before we dive into our state of national security and the cost of protecting the nation we want to acknowledge the profound loss that occurred on that beautiful september morning. nearly 3,000 innocent people died that day, including hundreds of first responders and here is the story of two of them.
>> there were a couple of days each year you were allowed to take your children to work, and joe loved it. that was his birthday present, that he would spend the night in the flyhouse. we'd have a cake, and the guys i worked with, they would take a milk container and cut out the f facsimile of the building on top of the cake, light it up, tell joe to put it out, he'd throw a pot of water on it, the birthday cake was a little soggy but this is what he wanted. he started dating a young lady whose father was a police officer and he come home one day and says "i'm taking the police test." i said joe you're only 17 years old. he said no big deal. on the other side of the room my son, john, wanted to be the next donald trump. he was going to make $1 million and take care of his mother and father. but in 1984, i came down with
throat cancer. he noticed then how my unit took care of us, and he says, i'm going to become a fireman. i says you're kidding me. firemen don't make millions of dollars. i'm not going to live like a king. but i was very happy, very proud. my father had been on the fire department and he was the first one to be issued badge number 3436, and they reissued it to my son, john, so the badge was only used by two. both the boys would call me when they were working. john would always call around 3:30, 4:00, and that particular night september 10th, we spoke for a few minutes, and i says "i love you." he says "i love you." joe called me in the morning and told me to turn on the television that a plane just hit the trade center. he says "i'm heading south on west side."
this is this say big one." i just said "be careful, i love you." that was it. we had the boys for 36 years, joe for 34 years. ironically badge number 3436. i don't have any could have, should have or would haves. i would not have changed anything. there's not many people the last words they said to their son or daughter was "i love" and the last words they heard was "i love you." so that makes me sleep at night.
♪ >> all right, thanks story corps for that piece. record our one story on 9/11. i want to thank hamilton for their underwriting support. they made this morning possible. thank you so much to them. before we begin, a few notes. we are on twitter. you can use the #atlanticanysafer. we'll have time for questions throughout the morning. with that, let's begin with our secretaries. the first secretary tom ridge reported in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the current secretary of homeland security, jeh johnson here to lead the conversation. [ applause ] here to lead the conversation is steven brill. steven, take it away. >> thank you.
with that said, notice our introduction, i will direct the question to you, i will call you governor and him secretary so we know who we are talking about. >> i will answer to both. >> on september 11, you did answer to the governor and you left your job in a matter of days and taking a job in washington, you did not have a home except the governor's mansion. you had no idea what the job was about, no idea even as i recall you telling me what the salary was. no idea where you'd live in washington, but those were days when people did things like that, right after 9/11. knowing what you know now, i don't know if secretary johnson
did this but let's make believe that he is it. the day he got appointed and if he had called you and asked you for advice and said you know, what's the one thing that i really need to know about this job that's not obvious? what's the one thing i need to watch out for? what would you or did you tell him? >> first of all, steven and atlantic, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this very important forum and i thank you for that. first of all, you should know that the secretary did call. the first thing i told the secretary johnson that there is only three people in town that know how tough your job is and is going to be. yours truly and my two successors. i don't recall the specifics of it, but i did recall generally commenting about how important it will be for him to upgrade the morale of the enterprise. there had been multiple vacancies. it's pretty difficult to lead an
organization when you have key people in the organization, those slots remain unfulfilled. he inherited a rather significant gap in personnel at the highest levels. a forewarned him of the challenge of dealing with hundred-plus agencies, hundred-plus committees and subcommittees on the hill and the last thing i said to him, mr. secretary, as i started this conversation, you got a tough job. nobody in this town knows how tough it is. call me if you can help. we've had several conversations since that time. >> what would you, secretary johnson, tell your successor whether it is a successor appointed by hillary clinton or donald trump as we know that's going to be rudy giuliani, sew knows everything anyway so he probably wouldn't ask you for the advice, but what would you tell your successor? >> first of all, steve, thank you for your journalism. thank you for the work you put
into the article in this month's "atlantic magazine." i know you spent a lot of time on it. i thought, it was very, very helpful. so thank you. helpful in advancing the conversation in a positive, productive way. my message to my successor will be several. one is the nature of our business and homeland security is you are always on defense and in our world -- and tom knows this -- good news is no news. if there is a successful national political convention from the security standpoint or successful un general assembly or successful visit by the president to the far east, it is the result of a lot of hard work and professionalism by who works from us. that does not get reported. bad news is front page news. the good news in homeland security is often no news.
one of the things that we continually have to do is to make sure that our people are recognized for the work that they do on defense, protecting the homeland, protecting the american people, protecting their leader, protecting cyberspace. so we continually need to thank them, stress the good work that they do and recognize it, and project it to the american public, whether it's aviation, security, port security, cyber security. we have our challenges. my other message will be, please continue the work that we have begun on management reform. through the unity of effort initiative that i started a little over two years ago, we've done a lot to make the department a more effective and efficient place, and that work needs to continue. we need to continue to work with congress to get them to embrace some of my unity of effort
initiatives. don't have to call it unity of effort, that was my emblem but there are some things pending in congress right now that will improve the way the department does business, like reorganizing mppd into a meaner and leaner cyber and infrastructure protection agency. that work needs to be continued. that needs to be priority one in addition to the general work of protecting the homeland. >> let me ask you this. this is a hard question by definition. governor, how many terrorist attacks do you think we will suffer in the united states in the next year? >> what type? >> how many? how many? what's your guess? >> well, listen, i think -- i'm not going to speculate on a number. i just think that we need to accept the reality that the threat surface has changed. the number of actors has increased. the profile of those actors is
significantly different than it was on september 10th, 2001. there's an inevitability to the attacks. there's no way, if you take a look at what's happened in france over the past six months, there's a variety of means by which they can inflict their damage and affect the psyche of a country, and bring pain and suffering to families and communities. they had a stabbing in paris. they had a truck running over dozens of people in nice. you had the mass shooting on november 13th and yesterday they found gas cylinders in an automobile outside of notre dame, so i think we should not -- i think we should just accept the inevitable but after 15 years and reflection, what i really think the country needs to do is accept the reality that it is a global scourge. accept the reality that it will probably happen again here. you have no idea how many times, and there's no way to predict it particularly with the individual
actor or single actors, put it in the context of everything else that happens to impact our lives in a very negative way in this country. 400 to 500 people died over labor day. they got in their automobile on friday morning and didn't go home to their loved ones on monday. nearly 40,000 people are going to die in automobile accidents. i'm not trying to say the pain and suffering of a terrorist attack isn't significant, isn't real, it is. but i want america to dial down the hyperbole and hype ventilation. i don't want us to be breathless about this. reflect over the past 15 years. we're safer now than we've ever been. there's still gaps, let's close the gaps and accept it and don't ever, ever change what we do because we're fearful of another attack. >> you sound like president obama. >> pardon me? >> you sound like president obama. >> i wouldn't go that far, but that's okay. [ laughter ] >> let me take a shot at it.
he was quoted in the "the atlantic" in an interview with jeff goldberg saying that he wishes americans would adopt that perspective and look at it that way and he was immediately attacked by republicans in essence for throwing in the towel. are you throwing in the towel? did all those years on the job make you give up? >> to that extent i will associate myself with the president's observation that we accept the reality nobody likes it, we don't want to accept it but it is a global scourge. and let's not be breathless about it. frankly, with respect to the journalists in the media that cover it, there's more coverage on that isolated attack that goes for days and days than there is of the automobile accidents, of the 600 or 700 people that get killed in major urban areas because of gun violence, so let's accept the
reality. it is painful, it affects our psyche but let's not -- let's try to put in the perspective, as the president -- i don't recall those remarks but if that's what he said i think he's right on that issue. >> if i can take a stab on this? >> what's your number? two attacks in 12 months? four? six? three? >> first of all, what constitutes a terrorist attack versus 15 years ago has evolved? >> good point. someone who gets an assault weapon and yells out a couple of isis phrases. >> and if you're asking how many san bernardino or orlando type of attacks will we have in the year 2017, no national security, homeland security, or law enforcement expert is going to -- is in a position to quantify it. >> but will you say we will -- can you even given your job -- can you concede that we will have them. >> we have not ended the scourge, the threat of homegrown violent extremism.
people ask me what keeps you up at night. that is thing number one, the prospect of another homegrown or home born violent extremist acquiring a weapon or a tool of mass violence and carrying out an attack some place here in the homeland. it can not be quantified. it is difficult to detect given the nature of it. in my view what we in homeland security need to do negotiation all the things we're already doing in terms of aviation security, our cve efforts is to continually remind the american people of all the things we are doing, the 10 or 12 things we're doing constantly to secure the homeland but to also say to them there's a role for the public through awareness, through vigilance. i think that the public understands in a free and open democratic society you cannot eliminate all risk. whether it's a terrorist attack
or a mass shooting or gang violence. we cannot end it tomorrow. we can and we should reduce it as much as possible consistent with our values and consistent with our laws. but the prospect of an hve attack is still there and we need to address it. >> i think the secretary and i would agree. by definition democracies are soft targets. just by definition because we're so open. and everyday we've got to get smarter, everyday we've got to try to identify potential threats but the secretary is absolutely right. we're open because we're a democracy and we start closing ourselves, we lose the value system. if america's got a brand, it's our value system and our value system is freedom and we start stepping on our own toes and start undermining our own freedoms they begin to win. >> let me ask the secretary this question, apropos that
bioterror, dirty bombs, air safety, ferries, food security, cyber attacks even, cyber election day attacks, which of those worries you the most. >> it's always an evolving picture and the nation of homeland security is that we have to be focused on all that you just listed? >> so everything is a priority? if everything is a priority how can anything be a priority? >> the way i look at it and i think the way tom looked at it when he was in office is you've got threats that are high impact but not necessarily high probability and then you've got threats that are high probability but likely or perhaps less impact. like an hve attack which could involve as many as 50, as many as 10. >> tell everyone what hve,
especially from those not from washington? >> homegrown violent extremist. so we have at any given time those we consider high probability but then there are also those like the dirty bomb prospect that are plainly high impact and we've got to assess where we devote our resources, what we ask congress for in our budgets to try to prioritize it all. you have to prioritize. you can't say it's all priority. >> but isn't it a fact, though, that if something happens in one of those areas you v you or you will be attacked in congress, especially by the opposite party, for having not have done enough in that area? >> no question. >> we get attacked in congress no matter what we do, correct. [ laughter ] >> dhs is like a political pinata. as soon as something bad happens some on the hill takes a swing at us. >> that's a reality.
in all fairness i think tom knows this i think we've done a lot in the last several years to educate the public and educate congress on a lot of good work that we do. given the current state of the homeland threat, people are focused on the dhs mission and a lot of people see the good work that we do. they see for example how wait times at airports were reduced after we devoted a lot of resources and effort to it. there's always more work to be done. it's still very much a work in progress. our department is only 13 years old. but i think we're -- i'm fairly certain we're improving morale within the department and i think there are a lot of people, particularly in congress, that see that. >> well, you have a ways to go with morale according to the surveys. >> well, the fed survey is
coming out and we'll see how we did. i know participation went way up this year. >> i must say, you must be watching or going to a different set of congressional hearings than i watched and went to when i was doing this article. >> when i leave here, i'm going to capitol hill. >> you said congress is learning to appreciate the great stuff you guys do? i don't see that in any of the hearings. >> i believe people who pay attention on our oversight committees who understand our work do. >> that's a good qualifier. >> but i spend a lot of time on capitol hill and my first year in office i testified 12 times. >> okay. so let's talk about that because we shouldn't let the time go by without talking about your assessment of the job congress does when it comes to homeland security in terms of organizing itself for oversight, in terms of making a constructive contribution to oversight.
it seemed to me -- and i wrote this in the article -- that the most undeniably bad actor in the whole homeland security scenario was congress in the sense of everyone's refusal to cede turf and you have dozens of committees and hundreds of subcommittees who claim jurisdiction and everybody in congress admits it, they just say, well, we don't want to give up on our jurisdiction is. what can you do about it? >> i think every secretary deputy secretary and the agency heads in spite of a decade-long appeal to the congress of the united states to reduce the number of committees of oversight the refrain has been ignored for well over a decade.
i remember the first year that i was secretary i testified on the hill more often than secretary rumsfeld did and we were both engaged in iraq and afghanistan at the time. but it's not just the secretaries. as someone who spent 12 years in the congress of the united states, i understand the importance and the value and the relevance of congressional oversight. it's needed but when it's spread out it's almost a dysfunctional oversight of an emerging department and frankly it would be easier if the secretary, whoever succeeds secretary johnson, has the opportunity to build relationships with a smaller group of men and women on the hill to help him and his -- him or her, whoever will be the secretary, continue to build on his unity of effort. it is so disparate and frankly you still see vestiges of the silos we inherited from time to time. they just run up to their friends on the hill and you need to condense the oversight. and frankly to make the
department a lot more effective. >> the executive branch in 2002 reorganized itself to deal with homeland security. the legislative branch did not. and the way it should work, which is the way it worked when i was general counsel of d.o.d. is you have an arms services committee in each house then you have your appropriations subcommittee in each house and that's who you deal with. we have depending on how you count between 92 and 108 committees and subcommittees of congress that purport to exercise oversight jurisdiction over our department and that consumes time. i read every letter i get from members of congress -- and i get a lot of them. it consumes time to respond to that, notwithstanding that, we have dramatically reduced the time it takes to respond to a congressional letter down to something like 14 days and we actually say something in these letters. the real impact -- and this is how it hurts homeland security -- it's very, very difficult to get an
authorization bill. it's very difficult to get a bill to authorize any of our missions when you have to go to multiple different committees and you're pulled in multiple different directions to get a bill out of a committee, out of a house of congress if you can not look to just one committee to make that happen. that hurts homeland security and i'm hoping that one of these days congress is going to finally grapple with this just to improve the manner which we go about protecting our homeland. we need to do that. tom is right, you have to have congressional oversight. that's key to how separation of powers works but there's a good way and a bad way to do it. >> let me ask two questions related to two specific possibility vulnerabilities and hope for brief answers first of all, of the election day coming for a year plus, cyber has been sort of at the top of everybody's list of potential
homeland security threats. what about cyber election attacks? >> it would be, steve, very difficult through any sort of cyber intrusion to alter the ballot count. simply because it is so decentralized and so vast, you've got state governments, local governments, county governments involved in the election process. it will be very difficult to alter the count. >> but you've offered to help local petitions. >> yes, we are concerned about bad cyber actors generally, state actors, hactivists, criminal criminals that intrude into the internet presence of state election officials generally and so we're offering assistance to these officials by way of cyber hygiene evaluations, incident
response, information sharing. there's a lot of chatter on the internet about what that could mean. it does not mean a federal takeover of state election systems or state elections or even national elections. we don't have the authority to do that. what we do in homeland security, in cyber security, is offer assistance when people ask for it. so i've been trying to educate state election officials about what we are in a position to offer them to help them manage their election systems. >> thank you. tom -- sorry, governor, i want to ask you a last question. you were the co-chair of a report issues last fall about a bio terror threat and the report pretty strongly said that the current government, the current department, the current administration was not doing nearly enough. and my question as i was reading that was well, what happened
from the days of the anthrax attacks when that was at the top of everybody's list, we were spending all kinds of money and putting sensors all over the place that apparently didn't work why aren't we still war reeds about that? it's almost as if we solved the problem but isn't it still a threat and shouldn't this guy over here be doing more about it? >> i think, again, secretary johnson's recognized that the existing system we have, biowatch, is flawed and he's done everything to possibly change it. but steve is referring to a bipartisan commission, one of the few that's actually working rather well in washington, d.c. with joe lieberman, tom daschle, donna shalala, jim greenwood, et cetera, and we took a look particularly 15 years after anthrax, one of the gaps -- and there's still gaps that the next secretary will try to close --
is biodefense. this is 15 years ago anthrax and yet we don't have a strategy, don't have a consolidated effort to build a capability to respond as quickly as we can, we were slow in our response to aich, we were slow in our response to ebola, we saw zika come, we were slow response and this is more to do with agencies external to dhs but that's a real threat. whether the terrorists weaponize a pathogen or mother nature throws one at us i think one of the most serious long-term threats from either source is in the biological area in 15 years after anthrax we're still struggling to have a strategy and an operationalized, a capability to respond quickly with a vaccine. that's a real problem. >> let me give you a half minute to respond if you want to. >> i think tom is right to focus on this.
we are focused on it in dhs. we spend a lot of time on ebola in the fall of 2014 through a lot of courageous effort by our health care community and our military we were able to deal with it in west africa. we were able to limit the manner from people in those countries could enter the united states potentially infected with the ebola virus and we dealt with in the this country in the few cases that cropped up. it's been hugely heroic and successful in west afterkanchts i'm not critical of my colleague because he did a great job of responding but a lot of this is outside is jurisdiction. we always react to an incident but you had anthrax and one of these days our friends on the hill and some other executive agencies, we need to be more preemptive because we know mother nature will throw something else at us and god forbid terrorists do and we know terrorists play around with bio so the fact the secretary was able to lead a very aggressive
response, kudos across the board. but we're always in response mode and at some point in time as we're dealing with multiple threats that the secretary and i have both identified, we have to start thinking preemptively rather than just reacting to the next incident. >> we have to stay on time and we're out of time. >> i'm going to be preemptive and say we're out of time. >> can i say one thing? >> and thank our two secretaries and i'll yield of course. >> one thing. secretary's prerogative. [ laughter ] >> the secret service agents are in the room so go ahead. >> as you probably can tell the prior republican secretary of homeland security and the current democratic secretary of homeland security as well as the two others have a very good relationship. for the most part, 99% of the time our relationship is bipartisan, non-partisan. i spent last night in shanksville with governor ridge. so this weekend we look back what happened 15 years ago, albeit with the world trade center but we have to look
forward. so tomorrow i'm having a program at the new world trade center to mark the u.s. government's return to one world trade center. we are a remarkably resilient country in ways that we don't always appreciate. we come back stronger every time whether it's the boston marathon or 9/11 or oklahoma city and i hope the public remembers that, thank you. >> amen. >> that's a good way to close it. thank you all. please welcome to "washington post" reporter, and the council on foreign relations. near lead the conversation is mary louise kelly, the national security correspondent at npr.
[ applause ] >> good morning. we have an all-star panel lined up to get at the issues of how is isis doing. what is the u.s. doing that's working, what are the limits of what the u.s. or anybody else can do to counter the threat? and i want to dive flight reque -- flight with a question that has been on my mind and i haven't been able to reconcile which is to me what feels like a disconnect between the fact that we keep hearing about battlefield gains in iraq, in syria, the caliphate, the isis territory is shrinking and yet it seemed like there was a long spell this summer where just about every time you woke up and turned on npr or pulled up the "washington post" online there was a new attack to report. and let me throw that to you first because i'm guessing you've been struggling with this question as well. is there a disconnect?
>> well, if you look at the last 12 months it seems like isil is having a horrific year and a breakout year all at once. and it's absolutely true that militarily they're getting pounded and they're losing territory steadily, not as fast as we'd like to see but they're certainly looking at defeat. the caliphate project appears to be doomed. i change my mind everybody other day about how quickly that will happen. but on the other hand, they've been able to project power. project relevance through this new phase which is attacks on the west. many attacks which n which they don't have much to do with, literally, but they manage to get credit for it anyway. and i think what we're seeing now is isil preparing for this transition where they're no longer a caliphate, they're no longer a physical difference syria or iraq but they are in moving to what is essentially their roots which is an underground insurgency and terrorist movement that can project violence throughout the
world and different from where they are ten years ago. they ever cadres that have been trained and have military experience and will now be returning to perhaps their homeland or perhaps to other parts of the world to establish new caliphates or up in centers of control elsewhere. >> and you're saying you see them preparing for the new phase, meaning attacks on the west. it sounds like you would agree with the argument that a lot of administration officials have put forward which is that, to a certain extent, shrinking the caliphate on the ground, gaining militarily against isis might well translate into more attacks. >> it very well could be, especially in the short term. the positive, i guess, that you could see at the moment is the fact that by degrading them militarily they do lose a lot of their propaganda appeal. military defeats are very bad for isil's image. people who are liberated from isil control and are celebrating in the streets and talk about persecution and torture and
mistreatment, that goes against isil's projected image of protectors of muslims around the world so they're being damaged severely through this process. but they still have a core following of very determined fanatical fighters and they also have resources. it doesn't take a lot as we've seen to take a truck and mow down 80 plus civilians in a city street. so those capabilities are still there. >> and lorenzo, i want to bring you in in a second because i see you nodding. quickly, the pipeline of recruits. do we see any slowing? >> it's logistically getting harder for recruits to get to syria and iraq and even hardener the last couple of weeks because turkey has become involved in the ground for what a new way so those corridors are being cut off and also we see isil preparing for this new stage by telling its followers around the world don't bother coming here, get ready to do something at home. >> it becomes less important, that pipeline flowing from the point of view of isis.
lorenzo, jump in. >> what he said is completely correct. we are seeing a slowing down in the projector of foreign fighters going to the middle east. i think at some point we feared libya was going to be the next place and i think isis wanted libya to be the case but that's not going to happen because of the defeats isis has suffered in libya. where are these people going go? all these people are radicalizing and it's fair to say particularly in europe we're talking about an incredibly large number of people. the french estimate it's 10,000 to 11,000 people which are in a place for people who are are known to be radical but cannot be charged. that's the big problem. in a way to some degree law enforcement intelligence saw syria, iraq and libya as a place where people would go. now they no long ergo there, they are bitter because of the
defeat so the caliphate has suffered. it makes sense to think that at least some of them will try to carry out attacks in the west. plus you have the returnees because a lot of the people that are being pushed away from syria and iraq and libya they're going go somewhere. they're likely to go to europe or other places. these are people probably trained the, battle hardened, further radicalized and, again, the idea that they will carry out attacks in the west, whether it's part of a very organized plot directed by isis leadership directly more to a more spontaneous way with the attacks we've seen over the summer, that's a likely scenario. >> do you agree with the assessment that isis is at the same time having both a banner year and a disastrous year? >> i think that's, again, i don't bring in much -- anything interesting to the table but, yes, it's absolutely true. and i'm obviously the trat ji was to solidify its territory in syria and iraq.
that's the motto of isis, here to stay. and that's not happening but at the same time they are spreading, they have a strategy to spread in different parts of the world. whether it's directly to different provinces they have been building, some of them quite solid, some of them just enough duration i would say or through a tactic of basically co-opting loose network of radicalized individuals, some of them used to fall under the al qaeda umbrella, some of them are simply random group of radicalized individuals. i'm thinking of a place like bangladesh which has traditionally been very moderate, has not seen a lot of jihadist activities but have seen these homegrown clusters of people oddly enough radicalized partially by people who come from the west. it's very interesting how the west is partially exporting jihad to a lot of muslim majority countries but all these dynamics, whether it's isis present or whether it's
projecting influence to propaganda, that's part of the strategy. that's one way isis will survive even with a demise of its territory. >> sara, let me bring you in. farrah was, until recently, until 2014, the first ever special representative to muslim communities for the u.s. department of state. which says something in and of itself. that they created this position and decided to reach out in this way. you were telling me right before we came on stage that you visited 80 countries in your work. 8-0. >> yup. >> what did you see? >> so i'm going to give you sobering news that you already know. things will get much worse before they get better. this is far bigger than isis and if you're thinking about the fizz cphysical battlefield, you missing the point. you need to think about the ideological battlefield. so when i think about the mass change that's happened since 9/11 and i think about muslim millennials which is the group that i was engaging with, the
sobering point for me as i traveled all over the world, whether it was a muslim majority country or one in which muslims live as a minority, the data point that muslim millennials are dealing with a crisis of identity is really important for your audience to understand. because obviously isis can't be isis if it doesn't have recruits, neither can a. q. or boko or any of the other recruits. so how powerful is the ideology and how is it spreading both off and online and what are we doing about it? so i would say to you that as we look through that identity crisis and you begin to think about why one billion muslims, that's the number under the age of 30 globally, are dealing with this. you think about 9/11 and you think about them asking questions that generations before them didn't ask in the same way. and there's sort of a perfect storm where ideas are able to be spread among their peer group all over the world and when
they're asking how to be uber muslim, answers come from the bad guys and that ideology is percolating in all parts of the world so whether it's dhaka, whether it's paris, detroit, san francisco, it's there and i don't see a mammoth effort to face the threats we face ideologically. >> what do we do? what effort should we be undertaking? >> the good news is in the 15 years since 9/11 we have piloted a whole host of things that deal with this sort of persuasion piece, this ideological war that's happen iing and by the w, i don't mean winning hearts and minds. that's not what i'm talking about. >> you're over that? >> we're getting peer influencers to provide alternative content for the young person so that they understand themselves in a
different way. and so when we think about what you do all day everyday at your amazing center in the online space and understand what's happening to young people and you combine that with what's happening offline, when these kids are talking to their peers about hey, how do you do this? how do you be a muslim in this way, we need answers for them. so i'd like to see countries, not just ours but around the world, spend much energy and effort learning from what question understood from the pilot programs of these pure influencers and scale them proportionately so we're fighting isis with the best tool kit we can and not just pretending that we're fighting this. we can fight in the hard power space but we're not doing that in the soft power space. >> so you're talking about recruiting good guys? countering like with like? >> we know what will work but we haven't scaled it up. >> tell us a story that helps
personalize what you see as you go to muslim communities around the world meeting young people, meeting their families trying to figure out what to do. is there a teenager who jumps to mind that you met in your journey. >> there are dozens of stories of young people who talk about the crisis of identity but i'll give you one from europe since we're talking about this, and this is going to sound silly but it just goes to how simplistic the questioning is. i remember being in denmark in 2007 after the danish cartoon crisis happened and i was talking to a bunch of young kids who were all muslim in a room and we were talking about what it felt like to be muslim in denmark at this time and what that cartoon meant for them and how they were thinking about their identity and a young woman who was -- identified herself as being of iraqi origin said "i'm danish, i grew up here, i speak danish, i don't speak arabic, my imam tells me i'm not a real muslim."
and i said -- and everybody in the room sort of looked at her so she said "but look at me." so we all looked at her and nobody could understand what she was talking about. she said "look at me." and she went like this. she was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. she said "my imam told me if i dressed like this i'm not a real muslim." that is so simple, that is so basic, that is so absurd to most of you in the audience, but for her, she was tearing up as she was telling me this story. there was no representation at this time for her to feel like she could belong as a modern young teenage dane who happened to be muslim and i'm not saying that's happening in that exact way everywhere. but that idea, that emotional piece of wanting to belong and trying to find something is a really important piece for us to understand. >> lorenlorenzo, we heard farah things will get worse before they get better. does that square with the research you're doing? >> i think we've seen a peek in
terms of people radicalized and mobilized. farah brings experience -- >> why have we seen a peek? >> a variety of reasons. initially the emotional appeal of what happened in syria, but obviously it was the initial movement, the creation of the caliphate, a very savvy propaganda effort on behalf of isis. i think we in the west focus on the negative parts of isis propaganda. 80% of the propaganda isis puts out is actually positive. it's a message of we're bringing a perfect society where you can be a perfect muslim if you come here. and most people go to that part, if i can think of stories, i think of other stories of young girls who have been interviewed after having gone to syria, tried to go to syria and after being shown videos of beheadings and so on and they said "well, we just ignore that, we didn't want to look at that." when you go online you look at the stuff you like. so people are attracted to the savvy message that isis puts
out. there was a savvy effort done directly one on one online which very much resembles grooming that pedophiles do. i have to say there's also very -- again, sticking just with the west the online component is enormously important but the off line is equally important. i think sometimes we think it's all about the internet. we all know how isis uses the internet but off line activities and networks are as if not more important than online activities. the problem is i think a lot of these activities are legal for propaganda efforts which, you know, whether it's the first amendment in the states or whatever other laws and constitutional protections enough europe, they're not illegal per se. how do you stop it? how do you intervene? that's where farah's work becomes important. >> i'm interested when i asked for an example, you both just mentioned cases involving young women which is something we didn't see much of with al qaeda. i'll flip to this any of you but
lorenzo, you take it first. as you look at people who are attracted to isis or other radical groups, as you look at the people being radicalized, do you see patterns? what are they? >> there's really no profile. in the u.s. we looked at the 85 individuals who had been arrested in the states for isis activities. the one common thing they have is absolutely nothing in common with one another. age goes from 14 to 55. all kind of ethnic backgrounds. 40% of them are converts and the converts are from all kind of profile, latino, caucasian, african-american, jewish. >> different races, different religions as well. >> absolutely. you had shi'as who became sunnis and then radicalized. socioeconomic background, you have high school dropouts, petty criminals, you have people with ph.d.s, and the same goes for europe, the same goes everywhere. we're talking about bangladesh. again, the people who carried out some of the most brutal attacks are people who were going to some of the best universities in bangladesh.
absolutely no common profile. the women is one of the new aspects. there was a study done in a european country that looked at the profile of women who tried to join isis. very different from the men. a lot of the men were sort of street thugs, knuckle heads, not -- >> low-level crime. >> low-level crime. most of the women have graduate degrees. most of them in education or in health. the assumption is a lot of these women have a strong sense of empathy, they wanted to help and obviously that sense of empathy is exploited by isis recruiters, come to syria and help here. the problem is there's no common profile from a law enforcement point of view and from a prevention point of view. that makes it extremely difficult to come up. >> i was going to ask how on earth do you counter a threat that has no profile, that seems to extend across different races, religion, gender, everything. >> this is an important point and we're sitting here in washington where everybody is policy oriented. you have to imagine the
unimaginable, right? and we didn't. we limited our ability to think through this right after 9/11 to think, you know, got to be poor, got to be male, got to be uneducated, surely that's why they're doing these terrible things. and we didn't expand. i wasn't at all surprised by the way -- i mean, look at jihad jane, when that happened years ago everybody thought it's a one off, that won't happen, never going to happen. if you begin to think about the role of women in a family, it is the most terrifying thing to think about women getting radicalized. we should have been there. we should have been thinking about that ahead of time. and we should be understanding the impact of children. if isis is teaching a child to behead using dolls, we have a huge lift when these kids get older and have now been saturated with the idea that -- desensitized i should say and understand this. so as policymakers we need to be thinking about not what's happening just now but what does it mean for the general administration? that's why i'm talking about the numbers. i also want to say one other
thing about women. at the same time that they're getting radicalized they're actually the people that we should be looking at to be the stability forces in houses because the mothers are the ones that see changes for their children before anybody else does and we ought to be sending a lot of time helping them navigate to understand what the signs are for radicalization and provide for them opportunities in the mental health space so that they have a place to go with their children who are getting sympathetic towards this ideology. >> what has worked to counter the movement? >> this is the difficulty. we have a pretty successful formula for driving isil and groups like it from territory they hold and it worked in the late 2000s, it's effective now. it's just basically leveraging local troops, people on the ground that are our allies with the talents that we can bring to the battlefield. but this more difficult challenge of how to address the hearts and minds problem is
probably the biggest struggle of our time in terms of going at this battle because we haven't been very successful. we keep talking about the muslim countries should do more and every now we'll see -- just two weeks ago the king of morocco put out an interesting statement questioning this whole crazy notion of virgins in the afterlife and all these things that we see that is part of isil's propaganda. but these people don't have credibility with jihadists. modern clerics don't have credibility with jihadists. so they can talk all day long about how this is not true islam, they're not believed. we do see opinion polls showing gradual declines in support for isil among ordinary arab youth, for example, down between 0% and 14% depending on who you poll but that's still a fairly significant portion of these communities and it's not something we have an easy answer for. and as my colleagues were saying, there's no way to spot who is going to be radicalized and who's going to be immune to the messages. >> i want to open it up and let you all ask your questions.
i think -- do we have microphones out here? we have microphones out here. throw your hand up and we'll -- we will come to you and while the microphones make their way, i'm going to throw one quick rapid fire, just quick answer. this is not a thing to answer quickly but, when we all gather here 15 years from now on the 30th anniversary of 9/11, are we going to be talking about isis? are we going to be talking about al qaeda? some other group we've never heard of? >> i think we will. i think we'll be talking about both. because i think a lot of people will -- in the intelligence community did not think al qaeda would survive 15 years after 9/11. it not only survived but it metastasized, al qaeda has been reduced to a cheerleading service urging others to do bad things around the world but these very powerful dangerous branchs in syria and yemen and elsewhere and isil is following the same model. you can eliminate the caliphate, you can't eliminate the ideology. it's eight years long and maybe a generational struggle, i
think. >> once again i have to agree with joby. i'm not sure if we'll be talking about exactly al qaeda and isis but they are different incarnations of the same ideology. j joby's book makes the case. this is an ideology that has been with us at least from the mid-'70s in the arab world. we in the west have noticed it with a few exceptions on 9/11, although there were clear signs in the '90s also for the west. isis might disappear, will probably lose its territory, will become a surgesy, whatever will happen to it. the ideology will still be there. for the next 10, 15 years. >> so i take a different view. it is going to depend on who the next american president is. >> ooh. do we have another hour to continue this conversation? >> i served as a plolitical in both bush and obama administrations. i'm not making a statement about that. what i mean is if the next president puts in the kind of energy, money, and resources to lead the way on soft power and
does a proportional effort, other countries will follow and we will be able to get ahead of this because we will have ceded a wholistic response. if that next president doesn't do this, yes, we will be -- the ideology is not going to go away. it's how we are dealing with it. >> okay, we've got a question right here. yes, sir, if you can tell us who you are and a quick question. >> my name is wesley jackson, i go to howard law school, thanks for having this panel, it's pretty awesome. first thing i want to inquire into. it's a constitutional question. i'm looking at this on the one hand you have a concrete threat and then on the other hand you have an amorphous threat that's just an ideology. does it almost seem like you're antagonizing an entire group of -- resurgents of a crusade, if you will. we have a country where we're so diverse, isn't it almost like counterintuitive to -- like doesn't it serve the interest of the people who proselytize to
have xenophobia intrinsally in the west to push people, make them feel like others out of our country? personally i'm christian but we're all abrahamic faiths if you look at so abraham in that context gave birth to both of them so whatever god he prayed to would have been the same god in theory. but all i'm saying is to look at one whole class of religion and make laws on their face that's just looking at religion doesn't that kind of erode our values? >> so we're not making laws based on religion. we are not doing that. but i will say something larger to your point about who we are as americans. if we think that the rhetoric on any side for any group is helping the situation, it's not. and i'm not talking about just muslims. i'm talking about the far right in europe, crazy stuff. i'm talking about the rhetoric of the other, the us and them narrative. it actually influences around
the world and i will tell you that no matter where in the world i went young kids were listening with great interest in terms of what politicians and others were saying in europe and in the united states so that ecosystem in which we live makes a difference to help groups like isis to stoke their ideology. >> did you feel they were open to listening to you coming in from the state department? we hear so much about anti-americanism sand to be hon test state department's efforts have been a very mixed bag to put it generously in terms of -- >> there's a different between talking to somebody and throng what they have to say, my approach was to listen and i had the vast majority of my conversations were -- they were hard, it wasn't all butterflies and rainbows but i think it's very important that we had the opportunity to bring a bunch of different types of young people to the table to talk. >> okay. we're going to end it there, thank you all very much.
farah pandith, lorenzo vidino and joby warrick. thank you. [ applause ] >> please welcome to the stage the co-founder and ceo of a center for new american security and here again mary louise kelly. [ applause ] >> hello again, it's like i was just up here. welcome to michelle. you are advising the clinton campaign. >> informally. >> tell us what your role has been because i want to leap in with a couple questions about what she would do in terms of terrorism and national security. >> so i am an informal advisor on policy and that kind of thing but not being a surrogate and so forth. >> without wading too deeply into the swamp of presidential politics, if you had to point to
one aspect of national security, counterterrorism policy that would be different under president clinton than what we've seen these last eight years under president obama what would you point to? >> i think that when you listen to secretary clinton over the years one of the consistent themes that she's talked about is the unique leadership role that the united states has to play and so i think her instinct is to take a more forward-leaning posture towards engagement. not necessarily military intervention, which she's talked about as a last resort but using the instruments of national power so that potentially diversive instruments like sanctions or the threat of force make your diplomacy more effective. so i think she's -- wants to see the u.s. lean into its leadership role, build coalitions to take on common challenges and that would include in the counterterrorism
arena among others. >> and what does that look like in the counterterrorism arena when you talk about more forward-leaning. what does that actually mean? >> i think first of all trying to get the coalition that's been built more on the same page, we have a lot of great partner this is this fight but they have a lot of objectives that may be somewhat different than our own so we don't always get the coherence we need to be effective on the ground in places like iraq and syria i also think there's room for -- the pressure that our military support to many of these groups on the ground, opposition groups on the ground is putting on isis is very, very important and that has to be a part of the campaign but i think one of the questions that interests me is how do we actually get ahead of the threat? so in places where isis is thinking about trying to establish a foothold, how do we get ahead of that with cooperation, with intelligence and law enforcement, with
partners to try to make the environment very inhos pit to believe isis. and i'll give you one example. southeast asia. i had one of the southeast asian defense ministers, an old friend, in my office the other day besides himself that he's seeing the numbers of potential isis self-proclaimed followers rise in his region and yet we're not -- we don't have a sort of proactive focused effort the way we did when we saw a violent extremist threat in the philippines for example? >> how is he seeing that? through social media? >> he's seeing it through social media, he's seeing it through tracking the networks that they track in the region. and his point is if we wait for them to seed themselves here
it's going to be a bhumuch bigg problem than if we confront them now. >> president obama said isis will never be defeat until the war in syria has come to an end. do you agree? >> i think there's a tloot can be done and is being done to shrink the caliphate and if they lose enough territory they will revert to becoming a clandestine or covert terrorist organization in the shadows but the syrian civil war as we've seen it elsewhere, it's the oakes general for groups like this to thrive in the absence of governance. in the absence of any real state structure and so i do think as long as you have the syrian civil war festering in the middle east you're going to have a significant terrorism problem, you're going to have a significant migration and
refugee problem, you're going to have significant spillover to the neighboring states that could potentially destabilize them and so -- >> that sounds like a yes, we have to fix syria before you can solve isis. >> and what fixing syria is is a tough question. by my own view is that none of the sides will win this on the battlefield. there is no military victory that's decisive for anybody that's in the realm of possibility so you have to look at how do we set the conditions for nigss to be taken more seriously to negotiate a devolution or federation, luce federation of syria. >> last night in new york hillary clinton said we will never -- the u.s. will never send ground troops to iraq again. no ground troops in syria. do you agree and how should we think about that given the fact that there are 5,000 u.s. troops in iraq. >> there are special operations
forces and others who are in the train, advise, assist sort of supporting others mission i think what i would say is you know a major u.s.-led large ground intervention in syria and iraq will not solve the problem because the problem has not -- i mean if you were to rank the parts of this on easy to hard the relatively easy part although potentially costly is clearing territory but then what? the key in these places is you have to figure out who is the hold force? what is the force that is going to govern that space, hold it, be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the population? it's why you can't have iraqi shi'a militias clearing mosul. because they're not seen as legitimate by the population of mosul. you have to have a force that's going to be seen as legitimate by the population or you'll have
the whole thing revert back to where it was before so a large u.s. invasion is not going to solve the fundamental problem. it may make us feel like we're doing something and we may have a momentary tactical gain but it's not going to result in a sustainable solution on the ground do that's why we here in this slower more frustrating but i think correct approach of finding groups on the ground that have local legitimacy that are willing to work with us and set the conditions for negotiations. >> it sounds like you believe the strategy of the u.s. has been using is the right one? maybe more resources, it's going to take time. >> i think a lot of the elements are correct. i think -- but we've taken a very reluctant incremental approach whereas i think if we -- we would have more impact if we sort of took -- sort of
took the strategy and fully resourced it up front and leaned into it. i think with the same resources you might have a better impact. same or slightly larger resources. >> fully resourced meaning what? more money? more troops? >> i think it's first of all more fully resourced politically. i think really working this coalition and trying to resolve some of the differences with our partners and doing some -- negotiating with them to get us on the same page secondly i think it's more fully resourcing as certain aspects of the military campaign without putting large conventional ground formations on the ground then all these other mentions you were just talking about counter cve, the more proactive approach with intelligence and law enforcement cooperation with isis isn't fully manifest yet. >> donald trump says he has a plan for isis, how to beat isis
but he's not going to tell us what it is. >> >> the secret plan. >> because he doesn't want to broadcast it to the enemy. serious question, does he have a point? i think there was a general in history who said it wasn't a good idea to telegraph their plan. >> there are certain parts of our military plans that shouldn't be broadcast ahead of time to an adversary. but that's not an execute not to outline in general term what is the plan is, there's no evidence that he has a plan to accomplish what he says his objective is which is not only to defeat isis but to beat isis decisively and quickly which i think is an open question as whether that's possible no matter how many u.s. resources you throw. >> so you're looking at actual details and fleshing out? >> i'm looking for some description that gives us a sense of what he's talking about without telegraphing problematic details to the adversary. >> let me shift gears and ask
you big picture, sitting here 15 years after 9/11 you've been in washington a long time. you joined the pentagon in the first clinton administration. >> '93. >> were you here on 9/11? >> i was. >> were you at the pentagon? >> i was across the street from the white house. >> as you look at what has been done to try to prevent fig like that from happening again, if you had to point to one thing that has been done really well, that we got right, thank god we fixed it and here we are in a better place today, what would you point to? >> i would say two things go together. one is sustained leadership focus that forces intelligence fusion. >> what does that mean? >> when i was undersecretary part of my job was going with undersecretary gates or for him to a regular nsc meeting where the president himself would go through this that would look at every active threat stream.
every possible threat to the united states of america and run it down. i think one of the reasons we have not had a substantial complex attack coming from an outside group coming in is because both bush and obama have kept this relentless presidential focus on forcing the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to continue to share err on the side of what you know on the table, put the puzzle pieces together, raise the gaps and things you're uncertain about when you are so maybe others can offer something that helps clear up the picture but i think that has been sustained across two administrations and is a big part of the reason why we have not had a major 9/11 type of attack. >> i want to follow but let me give you a heads up. we're about to take questions if
you have one raise your hand. we have mikes coming around. when you say the leadership attention on this problem, what does that look like? are you talking about, say, the creation of the nctc or the creation of the dni that's forcing on a daily basis agencies to share information? >> certainly there have been organizational changes that support that sharing. there's been somewhat of a -- a actually there has been a shift in culture change from need to know and hoarding information is my power to i better share this and if i don't at the end of the day that's part of the problem. >> it's just so counterintuitive in the intelligence business. >> so there's a desire to put it on the table then it's down to literally going through specific threat streams. what we know, what we don't know, where are the intelligence gaps, how can we move assets to
better cover, are there allies that we can call for their information? really getting into the details of what's necessary to disrupt and prevent plotting. and i would say the sustained pressure that's put on these groups by our special operations forces and those of our allies. >> as we know intelligence sharing and figuring out how these institutions should work remains a work if progress. >> but not perfect and i don't mean to imply that but it's better now than it was before 9/11. >> gentleman right here. >> so it sounds like you're talking -- >> would you mind identifying yourself? >> sorry, i'm david danburg, i'm just here as an "atlantic" subscriber. it sounds like you're talking about working with regional powers, forming coalitions, i guess my question is is this possible with the available regional partners? do new partners need to be brought in the mix and how
achievable is that given the different rivalries between some of those regional partners in the region? >> i think in the middle east case we have the right parter ins in the coalition. it's like 60 something countries the problem is really for everybody but the united states, isis is on the priority list but for no one is it number one. so they're all working other agendas at the same time they're helping counter isis. i think there are some agreements to be reached with individual allies and cluster of allies, for example, the gulf states, about how we see the region more broadly, one of the challenges is i don't think the united states has articulated a vision for where we try to go in this region not that we have the pen and can single-handedly write the history of the middle east but to extent we have leverage to pull and we can try to shape where it's going with our allies and partners.
where are we trying to see this go? i think those are the questions that animate them most and if we had a more satisfying answer we might be able to get greater bye in from them on some of the tactical aspects of the in obje counter-aspects of the campaign. >> one who are right there. >> "the washington post." i think everyone recognizes the point of operations against isis the countries in question, syria, for example, afghanistan, iraq, libya, are going to be facing monumental reconstruction challeng challenges. to date our record on that has not been very good. it's been documented by groups, inspector general reconstruction, et cetera. before went out of big, it issued a final report, the head
called for the u.s. office of contingency operations, better get people -- >> toward a question. >> would you endorse that? what changes so we wouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past. >> good question. i think the first thing is what we're doing today, take an accounting of the last 15 years, what worked and why. what hasn't worked and why. i think the question you're asking is a big one and we could spend another 15 minutes on it. i think one of the challenges, it comes as an afterthought, not integrated as upfront planning so we underestimate the enormity of the task. second, we don't resource the
u.s. government or instruments of our power to do this very we well. it was a huge efforts to get 1,000 civilians into afghanistan and we could only do it for a ye year. not that they aren't trying. we've never done that. the third, i think we too often try to create systems familiar to us others should enjoy as opposed to assessing what would be sustainable in this context. what is likely to resonate, sustainable, manageable, doable in the local context rather than aiming for jeffersonian democracy and free market, liberal free market. >> just to wrap you up with specific upcoming test, campaigns to take back mosul and iraq, a in sir -- raqqah.
>> the big, government to end radicalization sunni populations. this will only work ultimately if there's some effort at reinclusion of resources some greater governance capacity to the sunnis so they are feel a part of iraq. if that happens they won't bring isis back in. if it doesn't happen, it will be tremendous cost and fertile for groups like isis to come back in if they don't address this problem. >> thank you so much. >> thank you.
>> next to the stain please welcome susan landau, matthew olsen president of consulting and suzanne spaulding, director of homeland security. here to lead, washington editor-at-large steve clemens. >> hello, everybody. how many watched commander in chief forum. you heard matt olsen, this is the matt olsen hillary clinton referred to. i want to make that clear. we were at dinner and his iphone started buzzing like crazy because he was mentioned without warning. congratulations. i don't know if it's good or not. >> can't be bad. >> your mother -- >> my mom is happy. >> i recently had a conversation
with senior national official, related to syria, china, global problems. at the enof the conversation he said the issue we just are having to get our heads around, an it's so, so serious if you know what i know is cyber. he was talking about things beyond democracy being hacked. i'm interesting in, we're 15 years after 9/11. fifteen years ago we weren't carrying these smart phones, not nearly as densely connected as we are today. when one looks at the high-profile, whether information from health companies or target or various things we've been able to learn about sony and interactions vis-a-vis north korea, it looks like this is a pretty crappy situation. i'm interested given what you do, how do you prioritize this
cyber world? it's become such a catch owl. what are your priorities? >> steve, that's a great question because that's exactly the way you have to approach this. cyber security challenge is so huge that if you don't prioritize your efforts, you're never going to make progress on it. prioritization, the department said this morning one of our top organizational and legislative priorities is to work with congress to be able to stand up the first operational component, cyber protection agency. the operational work i'm going to talk about is a headquarters component i lead called national protection programs directorate, outstanding men and will working every day. they are engaged in activity and it's very important we recognize the importance of
that by standing up this operational component so we're working with congress to make that happen. that operational activity is prioritized in the cyber arena. first, look at getting our federal house in order. so we worked very hard. >> how many years will it take? >> a work in progress forever. we have made progress. we need the efforts to help all the departments and agencies, to improve cyber security. we've deployed a set of tools that help with perimeter and inside your network. we have best practices, binding operational directives that remember adoption like patching and automated information sharing of threat indicators. lots of tools and ways we're working, a lot of work to go. >> not to interrupt but if you were to grade government agencies and their prep, who
would you give an a to and who would you give an f to. >> i get that question all the time. >> really, i thought it was an original question. >> sorry to burst your bubble, steve. i never answer that question because our work with both federal departments and with the private sector is -- it really depends on trust of. we are not going to continue to maintain that trust, state, physician, local if we run in front of the microphones and tell peel about it and throw people under the bus. internally we look at how folks are doing. we have metrics to whether we're improving cyber security in the ways we need to. we have the lead for working with critical infrastructure and operators across the country.
and there we have to prioritize our efforts as well. we do it in the same way that we tell all of our stakeholders to prioritize their efforts. that is looking at a risk management approach. not starting with your i.t. professionals who we're just going to talk to you about i.t. but starting with people who understand your business mpl in government, essential government. in business, what is the business you are about. what are your cyber dependencies. how could cyber fict the things you care about, identify high-cyber assets. 85 to 90% of the malicious activity and with the last 10 or 15% you've got to prioritize your efforts. that means brining your folks who are your physical excerpts, your business experts and your i.t. folks to the table to make those risk prioritized
decisions. >> let me ask all of you, matt, i'm intrigued by your company, iron net security. i'm interested, is that iron net, when we think about public's vulnerability, how to think about what suzanne was talking about in terms of cyber exposure. i remember when al gore would talk a lot about the lockbox, confidence you could have. are you setting your self up for fill you're in the name of your company to have this notion to be so cap able, but we're in a situation of always tilting towards disaster. >> i hope we're not setting our selves up for failure with the nay of the company. there is a sense for sure that the cyber thrt