Skip to main content

tv   Washington This Week  CSPAN  September 21, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT

2:00 am
selected for the series with a brief introduction into the background, highlights and impact of these kay's, written by veteran supreme court journalist tony morrow, published by c-span in cooperation with international quarterly press. yet your copy at relations between the united states and taiwan. and then attorney general loretta lynch on community policing and changes to the criminal justice system. ther that, fbi officials on challenges of cyber security and data encryption. on monday, the senate for strategic and international studies held a discussion on taiwan's politics and upcoming elections. panelists discuss u.s. relations with taiwan as well as china. this is about an hour and 15 minutes.
2:01 am
>> ok. get it down to a dull roar. let us get it started. thank you. we are going to dive right in to the final panel of today which is on u.s.-taiwan policy. we are very honored to have three distinguished guests on the panel giving us their insights today. i will keep the introductions to a minimum because these people are familiar to most of you in the audience. dr. mika greene, my colleague here. asiar vice president for and our japan chair here. obviously, a professor at georgetown and a former staffer at the nsc during the george w. bush administration. he is acting as senior director for east asia.
2:02 am
another foreign service officer, extremely experienced. and one of the most renowned experts on u.s.-policy -- u.s.-taiwan policy. in the triangular relationship among u.s., taiwan, and china. another state department officer who is also currently a resident at georgetown university. we are honored to have him here as a senior fellow helping us think through a lot of these interesting issues that are happening in east asia right now. without further a do, we will turn it over. >> the first thing that i did
2:03 am
's book. alan romberg everyone told me to read his account. let me make a few comments on andi think we, the u.s., taipei should approach a dialogue and our relationship and cooperation as we enter tool political cycles at the same time. i look forward to seeing how i am misquoted tomorrow. [laughter] and your questions. it is always useful i think to start with interests, objectives , and for the u.s., in particular, i think it is worth thinking about the importance of
2:04 am
u.s. foreign-policy strategy and u.s. national security interests. obviously, taiwan is a variable that is -- it is often the variable in the u.s.-china and the largest foreign-policy challenge the united states faces in the decade ahead. in that context, everyone will immediately recognize the importance of getting taiwan policy right. is the argue that that wrong starting place as critical as that dimension is. focus on thent to importance of taiwan on its own merit in u.s. foreign-policy interests in asia. i would mention three things and in all three categories, arguably, this next president in washington and taipei will find the relationship more important.
2:05 am
hasfirst interest the u.s. and i use theture core interest term with some intention. the first core interest is in taiwan's success as a democracy, including the ability of the uphill -- the people of taiwan. that is a very important u.s. interests. china power -- as chinese power rises, there will be a contest between beijing's material power and the normative core values that have underpinned the pacific. taiwan will be at the forefront of that question. , i would also argue a
2:06 am
core interest is one that is coming back. that is the fact that taiwan sits right in the middle of the first island chain. one of the most problematic manifestations of beijing's new power but more importantly its assertiveness is what is happening in the maritime domain. beijingdegree to which has demonstrated willingness to use informational tools to toimidate claimants territories and waters in the first and second island changed -- island chain. over the last decade, and may be i was too dumb to think of this,
2:07 am
but i think it -- the nature of the problem has changed. now, we have to think of the security of the whole island chain that stretches from japan through the taiwan straits to the philippines. and the second island chain that goes straight down to guam. andhe years before the next almost all 1969, documents start to the reference of the security of the first island chain. this is not new in our history but it is coming back. taiwan was in the middle. that means we do not want taiwan to be a vulnerable flank were a vacuum in terms of maintaining stability in the first chain. taiwan's defense capability matters to us. is the third interest economic integrity and growth of
2:08 am
taiwan. there is a tough balancing act acause growth depends on robust cross strait relationship which is in u.s. interest but also the integration of taiwan's economy into the expanding trans pacific economic framework. tpp of course but there will have to be stepping stones to that. in that context, we should be thinking hard about this election and what it means to the u.s. not in terms of the outcome but in terms of what the next presidency should focus on and on what we hope they will focus on to help us support a future for taiwan that is in our interest. i should say, it goes without saying, that i do not think the 1-2 president, there are name,ates that i cannot
2:09 am
-- i do not think it has changed very much. i don't think it will change that much. in terms of process then, how should we here in washington, and taipei talk to each other over the coming year and a half or two years as we have our presidential cycles. taipei, based on my experience in the nsc, i would say that for taipei there are three notes. other people have theirs, no surprises. that means dialogue. it does not mean calling at -- it means constant dialogue. no surprises from taipei. it should go without saying that there should be no unilateral changes to the status quo. what is the status quo?
2:10 am
jim kelly was asked this once. like the supreme court decision on pornography, if it >> like a duck, it is a duck. this flows from a constant and honest dialogue with political leaders in taipei. that have memany that robust in the last years. and third, and this is about the future of the next government in writing.o free worth the candidates thinking about the defense budget which has never come close enough to the 3% promised by the dpp. the market and the nontariff barriers, they are a shackle around taiwan's ankles as we should be thinking
2:11 am
towards themoving robust integration of taiwan into a pet. in to apec. administration -- no taking sides in the election. no appearing to take sides in the election. do not say anything to the financial times that looks like you're seeking sites in the election. second, no pressuring candidates to take a position that are not realistic. -- i do notlar think the u.s. government should be pressuring the leader to accept a consensus.
2:12 am
if one of my core interest matter that taiwan as a democracy should set its future, we should not be dictating that. we should be setting up clear parameters of what would harm our interest but we should not be saying what outcomes should be. we can do what people call intellectual facilitation. my eight-year-old does that now. that kind of intellectual facilitation. violation of is no the six of assurances. -- six assurances. if you need to know what those are, alan can give you them, chapter and verse. finally, i think that both sides
2:13 am
-- is a broad point, we should expand dialogue. there are some examples on how not to do this. when i was in the white house, before i took over, we had two parallel and inconsistent dialogues between taipei and washington and this is no big secret to those in this room. , with one dialogue certain officials in the bush administration that the deep -- and another dialogue that the blue camp really liked. had tothe thing that we do in 2004 was consolidate our in the whiteiwan house and discipline everyone. it is important for the u.s. side to consider this and not have a message to be too personalized. there has to be an administrative understanding of -- it would be a big
2:14 am
mistake if either candidate or party cherry picked what they were hearing in washington if they are serious about governing. that will backfire. there needs to be a consideration of the administration's view. some care about not saying that candidate a or b and our elections will be radically different for type -- for taiwan. i do not have a fix for that. describing all of the disciplines that taiwan should have in its elections. [laughter] we are going to have problems. there is a robust and surprisingly unpredictable political debate in both parties, especially the republican party. i do think it is highly likely that whatever you here at of this campaign, u.s. policy will not change that much when the
2:15 am
dust settles. i hope the administration takes a page from ronald reagan when talking about these kinds of issues. i interviewed george schultz recently for a book and he told me the story of the first high-level visit ronald reagan had in the white house after the third communique. this senior chinese official came in and said we do not like this and it needs to change. ronald reagan said you are right, we need to toughen it up. which is a classic george schultz model -- moment. there is a lot to be said for that. in this dynamic electoral process in taipei make it appear that in our best in that our interest in their success has diminished.
2:16 am
[laughter] >> you can do an interpretive dance. >> i am going to speak from some notes because that is the only way that i can discipline myself to speak within the time limit i have. i am going to approach this issue a little bit differently from mike but i think we consistently with what mike has said. room andle in this when i look around that is an understatement, are familiar with the basics of the u.s. policy towards taiwan. as viewed from taipei, the key document of course is the taiwan relations act. as we know, especially those of us that it had the privilege of sharing the wisdom of richard bush, while the tra is an important statement of policy, it is less -- precise as the statement of commitment. i think it would take something
2:17 am
of a revolution in american's year for the u.s. to abandon the very strong sense of responsibility that we have for political oriwan's security foundation. i for one do not see that revolution coming. hand,s. on the other policy towards taiwan is not only based on the tra which it is, but also importantly shaped by the three u.s. prc joint communiques. at their core, is the fact that while the u.s. does not accept the prc's view of the cross strait relations, it also has chosen a pursuit of a policy that is at odds. , weummit -- to some extent can see this in the form of parallel statements. this is not only seen in the individual points of each side's words but it is also seen in the carefully negotiated linkages between the positions of one side and the other. can people see irresolvable
2:18 am
-- inconsistencies in this crucial documents and those do exist. but i tend to focus on their important bridge differences and sometimes perhaps creating what i would call constructive ambiguities but at the same time leaving the initiative from our perspective in our own hands. is a disadvantage not being at a lectern. other policy statements have been made over time to explain or stand on the language of those documents. sometimes, colleagues from the prc want to cite statements made by american presidents, is actually in private, but have gone beyond the communiques that might seem to lean in beijing's direction. i would argue the reason why this communiques remain what some have called the holy scriptures of the relationship, is that every president has reaffirmed them.
2:19 am
while they are generally not legally seen as treaty commitments, they are formal negotiated statements that are carefully crafted and affirmed by every private -- i every president since they have been issued. it is in my view that it is critically important that people not forget that and in many respects they do create commitments. example, when for secretary of state christopher in the clinton administration and later officials in the george w. bush administration insisted that neither side should unilaterally seek to change the status quo, that was an important elaboration but it was based on the fundamentals of u.s. policy already contain in all four of those documents. coming at times sometimes when there were stresses in cross strait relations or when doubts have been raised about u.s. collaboration was
2:20 am
meant to underscore that the united states would not simply stand by its efforts were made to push things in a direction inconsistent with the u.s. one china policy. that neither would it simply stand by if efforts were made to use coercion to change the status quo. mike just went through some of that a little bit with regard to that period. is not that the u.s. seeks to push the situation towards reunification or to block such movement. the point is that u.s. national interests demands that all concerned seriously take the american commitments with regard to peaceful, noncoercive, and non-provocative management of cross strait relations whatever direction that two side ultimately decide to take them in. including americans some american officials may
2:21 am
favor movement in one direction or another. we have seen the public debate with some people wanting to shape the situation so that some sort of reason of fixation is virtually inevitable while others believe it would be very harmful to u.s. interests were that to happen. bring taiwan even more closely involved in the u.s. national security orbit. let's underscore a point that i have made over the years. u.s. policy is not and should not be designed to tell people on either side of the straight what their ultimate relationship should be. , what it should do however is to provide -- to promote the profound u.s. national interests of the relationship be conducted without provocation and without coercion. look at the upcoming presidential election in taiwan for example, all of these considerations are very much in play in the united states.
2:22 am
pointedand, as mike has out, strong support for democracy in taiwan. on the other, emphasis on smooth relations across the straight avoiding provocation or coercion. may see even that level of involvement as undue interference. it is simply a reality. all the u.s. has no desire or intention to become involved in either the election itself or in cross strait relations, as i is that, it does have idle interests at stake and in my view there is no doubt that the u.s. is prepared to act on those interests. in light of that reality, it would be reckless and irresponsible to leave any doubt about this in the minds of those on either side of the straight who are involved in the political or policy process. similarly, americans need to be aware of the seriousness and depth of commitment, feelings and concern among people on both
2:23 am
sides of the straight about their own interests and their own principles. -- if this process plays out, it would be both arrogant and reckless for the united ace to ignore those realities. some people in taiwan may believe that because the u.s. supports taiwan's democracy and security, that means the u.s. will back them as long as they take positions that rhetorically echo u.s. positions. some of the mainland may believe that because the u.s. has committed not to promote separate status were taiwan, but has a great it steak and constructive and productive u.s.-prc relations, that this means washington will pressure people in taiwan to accept the areas prc demands. any such expectations on either side would in my view be madly badly misplaced. the consequences of failure to understand that could be quite serious. any such avoid misperceptions, we have seen the u.s. government in recent months
2:24 am
layout a variety of point that will serve as benchmarks against which future actions will be judged. to thece has been made importance of maintaining a firm basis for maintaining peace and stability going forward. high quality the of unofficial relations with taiwan in recent years has been importantly -- is also clear that the prc use of portion, seriously affects american attitudes and generates the response. mike pointed this out in regard to recent reactions in east asia and it is no less true with as it iso taiwan elsewhere. once the election is over, applying the kind of lessons that we can take from this administration, i am confident that the u.s. will remain attentive to any indications on either side of the straight that peace and stability will be
2:25 am
endangered. the issue is not simply embracing the goals. it is a matter of policies and actions. -- that supported. let us not kid ourselves. if a new administration takes office in taipei that does not embrace one china, it is virtually certain that there will be consequences in terms of cross strait relations. termst trying to argue in of beijing's principles, many have strongly urged the mainland not to react to strongly or as the u.s. administration has put it, to approach taiwan with flexibility and restraint. otherwise, there could be serious and unforeseen consequences. if that -- that is not a judgment we can make. similarly, there may be pressures on the winners in taiwan. wins, but especially if the dpp emerges victorious, to make a sharp break from the past than the rhetoric so far has
2:26 am
suggested. that too could have unforeseen negative consequences. here again, it is not a decision that we can make for them. americans, especially i would argue those in the government can do, is to make clear that these matters are not just sensitive and important in beijing and in taipei but also for washington. to takethe u.s. needs account of the likely reaction on one side of the straight or the other, anything that washington might do in this mainland or in the -- they need to take account not only of the likely reaction on the other side of the straight but also in the united states. just as people on both sides of the straight will decline -- to coin a phrase -- will be listening to the actions of
2:27 am
those on the other side during the campaign, between the election and the inauguration, during the ascension of the new administration and may and once that new administration is in office, the u.s. will also be doing that. itsit will determine actions and its reactions in accordance with the basic tenets of the u.s. policy towards taiwan that have been in effect for 35 years. thank you very much. [applause] instructions are to speak about economic relationship between the united states and taiwan. as people mentioned, i'm with the state department and i want to make sure that everyone knows that i am not taking on behalf of the state department or in an official role with the state department. i'm glad to say that the economic relations between taiwan and the united states is fairly noncontroversial. that is a safer topic for me. i will make my comments
2:28 am
relatively short to reduce the risk. [laughter] frankly speaking, i think the relationship is actually quite good in terms of the economic side of it. know, for the our economicears, policy, the u.s. economic policy has been generally to try to help sustain the vibrant, strong economic trade and investment relationship between taiwan and the united states. and to a large extent, it has been quite successful. showve statistics that can that we can talk about, for example, today, taiwan-you as it is ourtionship -- 10th largest trading partner in the world and it is even ahead of india which has one billion taiwan's 23s million. and also, if you look at
2:29 am
indirect trade as well, not just direct. someone this morning talked about global value change -- the tray that goes through mainland china and other places. if you put that into the consideration, it makes the number significantly larger -- $100 billion more in terms of trade and indirect trade. bilateral relationship, economically speaking between taiwan and the united states is very strong. one less thing is the investment relationships. $67 billionabout investments. and the u.s. investment in taiwan is substantial. $16 billion-$70 billion. there is a substantial amount of trade and investment relationships between the two.
2:30 am
looking at those figures, they are strong but beyond the trade and investment i know, for example we work closely with taiwan for trade issues, and other types of issues in the multilateral trading system. in apex for two years. relationship.lose taiwan, i know, has signed the information technology agreement. this is very important because for us, it is a high priority. it reduces tariffs for the ip products, which the united states companies are very much involved in. at the same time, i know we work very closely with taiwan today promoting what we call an open internet system. essentially, we can open internet across borders.
2:31 am
view, itpoint of facilitates trade and investment. but even more importantly in some ways, it facilitates the concept of open doors, and open society -- a democratic open society. having a policy with taiwan supports our broader policy. that is what allen and mike have talked about. that is the substance of what we're doing. diplomatic the security of the relationship we are testing today. it is a extremely important relationship year. obviously, we do have problems. i was into one -- i was in taiwan from 2006-2009. we did not have the framework agreement for all of those years . we do have some issues, but for the most part, i would say we are able to handle it.
2:32 am
he led a delegation and he went along to taiwan in august. to get ready for the council talks coming up this fall. it resumed in 2003 and 2004. now.ntinue the process i understand from reports that the talks were quite successful. you're making progress on some of the key issues. quite a number of them. we have medical devices, pharmaceuticals, technical barriers and trade issues. view, these are obviously, important, but given the fact that we have had issues for such a long time, the fact created a symbolic
2:33 am
irritant in our relationship, especially with congress. i think it is important for the sides to come to an agreement. four taiwan, in particular, to take action to help us both resulted issue because, not because of the monetary factors. forget the day. arrived009 or 2010, we at an agreement that apparently we feel has not been implemented. view,k, from our point of it is important, as soon as possible, to resolve this issue. i think, it reflects in particular on taiwan's willingness and ability to accurately make this commitment states, in united this particular case, a very strong partner. i think it is extremely
2:34 am
important from that perspective. the, i think it underscores question of whether taiwan will be willing and able to actually base its policies, trade policies, on sound science. as a responsible member of the world economy, i think it is important to at least try to resolve this issue as soon as we can. and finally, i think most of you know that taiwan is very interested and has made clear that they are very interested in joining once we complete the agreement. weekly support the interest of taiwan. once we complete this agreement.
2:35 am
the competitiveness, and so on. these are key issues. so far, i think our relationship has quite good and drunk and taiwan has been prospering with a strong economy. into the future, the challenge will be how taiwan does not get marginalized. later on the tpp, taiwan cannot afford to simply have singapore and musings and -- singapore and new zealand. it started to make the push. when way to do this, even before totbb has concluded, is meet the requirements of tbb. and whatever agreements it seeks to join. down the line, i think taiwan
2:36 am
can do many things. administrations. we must make this a key priority because it is essential to taiwan to sustain economic growth. to theirmportant political stability and growth. >> before i turn it over to the audience, i am struck by some degree, from what we heard from all of the presentations, is the subject of change. we have some very interesting demographic and pulling discussions. presentation,
2:37 am
shelley made a compelling observation during her keynote with regard to thoughts about beautification and independence. mike, you raise the issue of thinking more about taiwan, in the broader sort of theme of china's emerging military strategy, and the maritime strategy. and i did respond to that. i would ask each of you, and your respective areas, how much we pay attention to this change? u.s.ow much does it effect policy? mike, as you think about u.s. defense landing with affect with respect to taiwan, what implications does that have? allen, you spoke about the economical status of the various agreements and how important that is. i would ask you, to what degree do you think they serve us with regard to these changes.
2:38 am
should u.s. policy think more creatively about how to adapt those documents in light of the changes we are seeing? bob, use, thunder, but a lot of people do comment on how the best way taiwan can maintain its independent position. they should do the difficult things internally to participate other agreements to make counter moves, if you will, to some of the mainland economy. i would like you to comment on that and then i will turn it over to the audience. defenseregards to diplomacy and economics, the first point i would make is from of the u.s. policy perspective. you cannot just do one of these lanes. in terms of the defense and maritime the trend in
2:39 am
asia, over the last few years, has been for japan and australia, the philippines and japan, to cooperate more on intelligence sharing. probably a bridge too in manytaiwan right now respects. i do not think a collective security, certainly not a collective security organization like nato is possible. of sharedimensions security are not going to be accepted because everything has a robust trading wishes. to to contain china but secure what we care about. that said, i'm looking into specific areas. with the growing importance in taiwan and cross trade stability
2:40 am
in this larger challenge. taiwan's is i think own defense planning and defense capabilities has to take this into account. prices, is a fight or we will be stressed all up and down the island chain. with these new airfields going up in south china, as you can read about on the asian maritime transit agency issued tomorrow, have an mucho more complicated environment in a peacetime, versus a crisis. it is not a vacuum for the rest of us. that with the audience, but it means more capabilities. i think it means 3% of gdp. the second area is strategic assessment of the china problem.
2:41 am
this is not collective security or defense. i think other countries in the island chain, with taipei, have to deepen their sharing of assessments regarding the capabilities and strategies that we see. some call this counter coercion. chaine in this island need to have a common picture of what is happening at about what it means and compare notes. immediately, there is a lot of room for dialogue. >> thank you. just on mike's first point, this is a long-standing problem. then recall back in administration when i used to make the point that we cannot be that the united states cares more about taiwan defense then taiwan cares about its own defense. my sense is that both parties at
2:42 am
this point, are committed to this. whether that translates into action, we will have to see. i guess i am in the position of saying in terms of the documents, they still serve us very well. the situation is obviously evolving significantly within taiwan. that is the biggest change on that side. p.r.c. has gained enormously in strength and prestige. when he did take that into account as we move ahead. i think the basics of u.s. policy are well laid out in those documents. i would not play around with them full of that is one reason why the no communique. it is impossible to have a communique that does not infringe on taiwan. i don't see how you benefit from doing that. >> from my own perspective, i that, 2006-2009 -- the
2:43 am
point we try to make to them at yourtime was the fact that economic developments, your sustainability, your growth and so on, should not be a political issue. deep pd issue. we do know both sides quite well. obviously, i am going to sound a little bit naive. when you go from the kmt to the dpp, or not, i'm not sure what the election results will be. everybody seems to know already. , it is so important that we maintain a policy, economic policy, regardless of the party in office. thelarly, regardless of office in taiwan, it is important for them to work together to make sure the doesition going forward
2:44 am
keep taiwan from being marginalized. if i want becomes arch and allies, it begins to slow down its growth and become less competitive. it will be bad for both parties, and taiwan. it is extremely important that -- and i do think that, knowing some of them, that they do see that. i note taiwan policy, and an american policy, less so. i do think this is something we do need to underscore, on both sides. both in the u.s. and in taiwan. we need to make this transition work or taiwan itself as well. >> we will go ahead and open it up to the audience. please identify yourself and confine yourself to a question. chris ? >> thank you so much, chris. a discussion. we have a summit coming up between obama and president shade, assuming the fiber stuff
2:45 am
is not canceled. his taiwan one of the things that you talk about? i think all of you guys have been involved in u.s.-china summits. you sat in the room and heard how the leaders talk to each other. does obama say something like, oh, we have an election coming up in january? say, i was talking and she said she was a little worried that time is running out? do they talk about that? things we are about today, how should the president of the united states approach these issues? is this coming summit an opportunity for that? if so, how should it be discussed? >> well, it will be a summit topic. in the five years i was in the
2:46 am
nfc, taiwan was a topic in every single summit, every single meeting. the amount of time it took went down from about 40%-50% to about 5% by the time i left. i think this year it will go up again. i would tell the president, you have to ask you see the general election. will bebe certain it raised. he literally what he thinks. we can all imagine what he thinks. and then, at that point, the president should make two things very clear. our position. he can put alan on the phone. he has not changed, and will not change, and to the text. to theluding opposition little changes. -- i would advise the president to make a second point which is, we the american
2:47 am
people think it is a wonderful thing that this presidential election is happening. it is very important for our interests and values. make sure that point is at least as clear. up.t will come ofther he does what a number chinese representatives have done and say, americans need to take this seriously because the risk to u.s. piercy relations are pretty significant if things go off track. i don't know if he will do that or not do that. think he will want the president to understand if it his view. whether he believed on the president, as others have leaned on other americans to try to shift to thedpp to
2:48 am
-- i'm china position defies them not to do that because it does not get a positive reception. the point that mike makes is right. position ist's going to be to support democracy in taiwan. it is also going to be to support consistency in the american position. the one china policy, if you really want to understand it, squares, it is 10 years old. you can read my book. it is a serious issue. think that chinese leadership can understand it. i think it does understand it and i think it is genuinely concerned for all the reasons we talked about earlier today. they face a challenge. exactly how they see the u.s. role really playing out, i do not know. can recall butu
2:49 am
u.s. not in collaborations with the prc, but because of our own interests, was very unhappy with some provocations we saw coming out of taipei. wey may want to think that can do this again. as i said, and others have said, we're not going to tell anyone in taiwan what to do, but we will look out for our own interests over time. we will see what that means. >> next. richard? >> mike, i would like to follow-up up on your presentation. i take everything you say about interest objectives dusan don't. i would like to push you to be more operational. that is, even though we will
2:50 am
have an election in 2016, it takes place well after the transition in taiwan. actually eight months between their inauguration and hours. if there is a negative spiral, it may well be underway. we don't exactly get our personnel act together wrigley. -- together quickly. president,e a hopefully a secretary of state, and the nsc. how does one operate in that context to protect u.s. interests and objectives? >> you are absolutely right about that. the vulnerable space between their inauguration and hours. if things spiral out of control within the american presidential election cycle, it will be in est.beijing's inter i don't see a presidential candidate here saying, if i'm elected, i will get ratings
2:51 am
understanding on this. they will eat of china. that is important thing for our friends in beijing to remember. , and thee response diplomatic war, which is considered an early kind of blow. people now are imagining all sorts of other larger steps should the dpp come back to power. that will make an imprint on the new administration here. it will be china's coercion. it will play badly for china. imagineddates who ever donald trump and bernie already and advisors and policies experienced people thinking through some of the things for them.
2:52 am
some of the most effective diplomacy. transitions. the reagan administration with korea. it is very, very sensitive. there will be people who are known to be close to the elect, -- they will be added up anyways. i am not too worried about that part, but a little more problematic is what candidates say. we don't have to wait until july 2000 17 to have a policy on this in the u.s.. no matter who wins. >> i wonder if i could add a little bit to shelley's half0 -full glass. the trends she identified in her
2:53 am
speech are trends that are considerable concerns to beijing. be very surprised if anything happens after the taiwan election that sort of pushes the situation toward a real security crisis. that is how, despite the fact that there may be internal concerns in beijing, interim maneuverings in beijing lead jingping to do something. i don't think so, to be honest with you. both relationships are both so sensitive, but also so special. not like foreign policy from beijing's perspective. any to get control of that and watch out more because it could really trigger a kind of crisis that would be unmanageable at
2:54 am
the end of the day. and certainly, if there were a course of response, i think mike's points of right on target. that we will see, as i said in my remarks, we will see some consequences. i don't think that those consequences are, unless we get into a very negative, vicious cycle here, which is a risk, i don't think they will be so consequential that we're going to end up with that kind of risk for security taiwan. >> overtime. >> will have to see what happens. people into what are not anxious. they do not want a crisis. why is the status quo so strongly supported even within
2:55 am
its great nations, because of that. beijing -- itns may have reasons to act, but not to have a crisis. percent-80%-90% agree with that. it is how aging interprets what taipei does. what worries me is, the last time china used to this kind of coersion, it was a decade or more ago. it depends on whether or not you count the secession. last time, the capability of the poa to put a major demonstration either with missiles, service combatants, or forces is seven times larger than the last time beijing put on a large demonstration of
2:56 am
force to intimidate taiwan. i think some developments would expectations of china's concerns about blowback from this kind of demonstration or action. that oure thinking response is not as high as they expected stop i think there is a possibility -- i can imagine a scenario where they think we will judgeship what we have been doing to the center. we have been doing it anyway. we will demonstrate the enormous capability we have. it'll be much bigger than the last time taiwan cause do this both up americans have not reacted as strong as he thought to these other cases full i am not predicting this. it, what china has done in the south china sea
2:57 am
has not, up to this point pushed an american button in terms of direct military response. even though we have no formal defense commitment to taiwan. were anthat if there effort to use military coercion against taiwan, that would be a rather different situations the top i don't think beijing is at all interested in testing the proposition. >> so it comes down to how you define coercion. i can imagine things that would have at major impact on the american view on this problem. >> you are talking about the poa. >> i am talking about the poa. i am not talking about a physical force. which i could imagine. i'm not predicting it.
2:58 am
not to prompt u.s. attack, but in a way that would cause the debate in this town different directions. >> please, wait for the microphone. >> i wanted to push the gentleman a little bit further. necessarilyk he refer to coercive measures. a range of difficult for the president-elect to react in an effective way. that is a more realistic scenario.
2:59 am
>>. first, i wanted to agree with you. first, i think the chinese have thata huge toolbox includes not issuing taiwan the invitation to go to the world health assembly and taking away their diplomatic allies. they have economic interdependence. it is so great. use of them use this against the philippines in japan. believe therehey is less of a likelihood that they would resort to military force because they have all of these other tools they can use against taiwan full dot i would agree with you. ny question to you i particular, mike, you are talking this morning about how the u.s. should play a particularly active role. that would probably begin after eriodlections in the p
3:00 am
before the inauguration, but even afterward. i was talking with a scholar from the mainland earlier this week about the role the u.s. played and the actions that the chinese took a taiwan took. i started to draw him out on lessons that the mainland through. what are the lessons that you draw from that. -- from that period. made in u.s. policy that were right, that were wrong, how much you critique how china reacted. are there lessons that we can draw from that period that you would then apply to have the u.s. in the mainland should manage this transition in taiwan? on the last point, i
3:01 am
think it would be a mistake for to demonstraters military force -- that is highly unlikely, if beijing feel that has to react. i wouldn't count on beijing's reaction being limited to -- point well taken, but i wouldn't count on their reaction being to stopping tourists. those don't grab the public imagination or leadership's attention the way of physical demonstration of forced us. again, as i said, i am not predicting this, i just don't think we can rule it out. i think it would be a mistake. because if weat want to make sure it doesn't happen have to show how we demonstrate our commitment. i need a couch to lie down on if i'm going to talk about my experiences in the bush of
3:02 am
ministration. [laughter] not think,i do as some scholars have argued, that the problem was that president bush in april, 2001 said in an interview, what would you do if taiwan was under attack? adon't think that was problem, frankly, and neither did he. he knew what he was saying. the problem is more process. we had two dialogues running with taipei out of washington. others and ier and andto knit those together make sure we had one line of communication that was authoritative on both sides. i thought we were pretty effective, actually. another thing we did was we didn't just focus on do's and do not's.
3:03 am
we spent most of the time talking about the affirmative -- what do we need to do. at that time the assembly was a big issue. dialoguef that coordinated so effectively with japan and our european and australian friends on these issues with taiwan, all of that paid off for taipei but also helped us and the message to beijing was important. we look at friends and allies who have an impact. japan is a big one, but that is not enough. eu, southeast asia. you have to know that -- you have to start with the u.s.-taipei dialogue, that has some agenda for moving forward, some understanding of where the rails are, where we will get uncomfortable.
3:04 am
recognizething is to that the president of the united states will develop a relationship with other leaders in sensitive areas, because you can talk to him on the phone, you can meet him in person. you cannot overstate what an effect that has with taiwan. director, i had to go and tell the president, based on reporting from taipei, based here,able others who were we had to explain to the president where we saw things going and where we thought it was. so --in contradiction, the incoming administration should recognize that you can say stephanie campaign, you can have bureaucratic mismatches, you can have problems, and often you have a summit in you start to fix those issues. you can do that with taiwan in the same way. as you know that you will start
3:05 am
feferring authoritative -- i the president cares, which all advisors should care for. hopefully they will have inclusive views and taiwan will know that. >> the man sitting next to you is a key part of the answer. gentlemen in the white shirt. hi, eric gomez from the cato institute. i was wondering what the panel thinks is the primary obstacle to taiwan spending 3% on gdp. i know a myriad of things could be a play, what do you think is the one factor during the most heavy lifting? mr. green: um, look -- our nato
3:06 am
allies, with the exception of norway, are hardly shining examples of defense spending. allies,ajor treaty australia, japan, korea are moving in the right direction, but they are also -- japan is 104th in the world in spending on defense. we can appreciate that it is hard in taiwan, that the modern democratic welfare state -- budget deficits, how hard it is to convince the public to spend on defense. the problem isof that the defense secretary goes to japan and nato, says we have to spend more. there is probably something in our defense dialogue that could be reconceptualized. ofm not a big advocate
3:07 am
symbolic, to star generals going --taipei to surely can, to show we can, but we have to think about whether there is a better way to allow the secretary of defense or the national security advisers -- if you need to be captured by an e is probably some creative way to get that political dialogue. taiwan hears it at different levels and at different ways then our treaty allies. >> ok. mike. director of the mission here -- on the point of defense spending, dpp has a whole range of defense papers. if you want to get access to those, look at our website. it will show you the commitment
3:08 am
to put deterrence that are serious and that doesn't depend upon free writing. we will try to get to that 3% level. i just want to put that on the agenda. >> it is a good paper. the authors were in government in 2005 when they put out a national security strategy. the politics are still hung. the gentleman in the glasses. question -- i'm brian, i'm in the asian studies program at georgetown. part of my question was just answered. it seems that that with the demonstration against the military training, the exercises in taipei, it seems like there is a shift in the demographic, especially among the youth, against military. but also i am curious how that relates to the general strategic
3:09 am
position in the general relationship between u.s. and taiwan. mr. romberg: the only thing i would say in response to that is on the issue of a volunteer force versus the conscription force. volunteer forces tend to be pretty expensive. the ministry of national defense and taipei has been working on that transition. it is clear it will take longer and it will be 100%, but to go back to mike's point, when they were running into problems two years ago, it was the budget. the legislature. all the good intentions are necessary, but they are not enough on the part of the policymakers. you have to work the politics of it to make it happen.
3:10 am
if we are going to hold mike fonte responsible if the tpp [laughter]in -- one the gentleman in the back. >> hi. thank you for the wonderful discussion. i'm from the school of international affairs. thank you for talking about the one-sided teaching thing -- a feof he-xing ping. we seem to have forgotten that this is a man who has taken bold actions, made bold decisions. he means what he says and he says he is going to do what he is going to do. --ently he said he is going
3:11 am
the issue of taiwan cannot be dragged on for generations. so that statement worries me. does it worry you as well? mr. romberg: i wrote about that statement, and was then rather chastised by a senior peer for over interpreting it. he blamed it first on the taiwan press, then said some people looking at me across the table. i think it is fair criticism, in a way. ping -- ihat te-xing think he is realistic about the problems for reunification within any near-term or even midterm timeframe. he understands that that is not going to happen. very think what he is interested in getting is this political dialogue, getting some agreement on some basic principles about china. what he said was that the
3:12 am
political differences across the trade cannot be allowed to go on for generations. that didn't mean that unification would be resolved within a generation. he says what he means and he means what he says, but he sometimes says it in ways which lady of two over interpret it. , or read heard him about him repeating that phrase. it was repeated by one senior official once, but the basic thrust of what you hear out of the responsible people in beijing if that is the political dialogue and the concern that without it, things will go in the wrong direction. get to what one observer
3:13 am
is well known for talking about in the past -- peaceful separation. i think that is the focus of this, not to push for reunification in any near-term timeframe. -- alan's say reflection on his education session with the chinese official is very useful. we shouldn't overreact to anyone statement. i would be interested in chris's view, but i don't think that is a departure, necessarily, in policy. on the other hand, if you look tohow he has responded changes in the state's quote, changes in the trajectory of an issue as he defined it, he has usually resorted to coalition, whether it is hong kong or or theg it domestically
3:14 am
other areas in the south china sea. when given a choice between appealing to the better angels and incentivizing those who may showing power, he has always chosen power. .hat makes me a little nervous it is a pretty good deal for beijing and it has been pretty thoughtful, for the most part. to start picking that apart would be risky, which is why i don't think there will be a crisis, to be clear. >> thanks. i will throw in a few comments to close. i think on this particular
3:15 am
issue, i agree largely with what said, that it is clear it is confined to political dialogue and context. that said, i think that the more the chinese tell us how certain statements shouldn't be over interpreted -- xi jinping has demonstrated a pattern of making such remarks which are always -- you took it out of context. in this case, my only sense is that it represents his true sentiment on the subject he has. he has a penchant and a track record of throwing his talking points away and just saying what he believes to be on his month. i think we should take that seriously. on the military modernization fund, we have for the first time returned to policy in recent times, seeing more and more amphibious oriented exercises that have a very clear taiwan
3:16 am
reference point. we should not underestimate that issue, especially with the many ways in which prc military modernization is greatly, locating u.s. defense plants. -- plans. on that cheery note, let me thank the panel, and close by thanking everyone for such an excellent day. thank you to the audience for your robust questions. [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> next, loretta lynch on community policing and changes to the criminal justice system. after that, fbi and justice department officials on cyber security and data encryption.
3:17 am
then q&a with robert costa. democratic presidential candidate senator bernie sanders was in new hampshire this weekend. one of the stops was at a town hall meeting at a middle school. we will hear that tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the pope's visit to the u.s.. c-span has live coverage from washington, d.c. -- the first stop on his tour, thursday afternoon, beginning at 3:45. we are life of the president and mrs. obama to grace the pontiff. wednesday morning on c-span, c-span radio, and the welcoming ceremony for the pope as they officially welcomed the white house. live coverage begins at it: 45 eastern. canonizationss and at the basilica of the national
3:18 am
shrine of the immaculate conception, thursday morning at 8:30. live coverage begins at capitol hill as pope francis makes history, becoming the first pontiff to address a joint meeting of congress. coveragerning, live from new york as the pope speaks to the united nations general assembly. later, at 11:30, the pontiff will hold a multi religious service at the 9/11 memorial and museum. follow c-span's coverage of the pope's trip to the u.s., live on tv or online at on friday, attorney general loretta lynch spoke about policing and criminal justice reform during the 34th annual legislative conference held by the congressional black caucus foundation in washington. she said that the need for police departments to more closely reflect the communities they serve and the need for increased spending on reentry programs for prisoners in the united states. this is about 40 minutes.
3:19 am
the daughter of a north carolina attorney librarian. general loretta lynch. gen. lynch: thank you. [applause] gen. lynch: thank you all so much. thank you so much for that warm welcome. thank you for your patience. i'm not usually running this late. but i understand you have had excellent presentations before me. [applause] i see a number of old friends and hopefully new friends on this panel. great voices, all, in our common struggle. i think you have had excellent presentations. i am sorry i had to miss so many of them. i am looking forward to hearing
3:20 am
a recap. so many important issues here. doctor, such a pleasure to meet you. your leadership at ucla for policing is not only vital in terms of what we need today, it really is the key to a lot of issues that we face when i'm looking at the agenda for the entire foundation event. i see so many different panels on so many different issues, but they all come together in regards to the central issue of our community's relationship with law enforcement and our government writ large. so many of the issues you are tackling all this week comes back to that essential issue. i thank you so much for giving me a few minutes to talk to you this afternoon about what the department of justice is doing in this important area. i view it as one of my main priorities as attorney general of the u.s. i know that congressman conyers had to go and vote. he is also pulled in many
3:21 am
directions. i want to thank him and his staff for their invitation to this event as well as for setting up this particular panel, and of course the congressman lifetime of service to these issues. he has been in his fight for a long time. a long time. [applause] have many of you. not just here on the panel, on the podium, but out here in the audience. i see a lot of fighters. i see a lot of people who have walked a lot of lines and walked the lot-- i thank you for that as well. [applause] whether you have been in the struggle for years, or whether you are new to it and part of the new and exciting and dynamic young voices that we need to tell us the truth -- i commend you, and i am so so glad to hear from you.
3:22 am
your commitment is important. your ideas are important. your energy and passion. now is the time to come together around these important issues. while we have made extraordinary progress since the cbc was founded over 40 years ago, it is clear that we have so much more work to do. in the recent weeks and months, we have seen these reminders. it's not just the overall philosophy -- we always say this, more work to do. we have seen it played out in very stark and very painful reality. captured for the world to see. we have experienced tragedies that make it clear that despite for our common welfare goes on. i will tell you that what hurts me so much in my current role is that we have seen the mistrust between our law enforcement officers and our community also deepen. at a time when, not that this
3:23 am
hasn't always been the case, but at a time when our communities need the protection and the resources that law enforcement is committed and sworn to bring to bear. it has always been my view that the essential role, not just the government, but a law enforcement in particular, is the protection of people who don't have anyone else to call on. you know those times in the middle of the night, when people are cold and afraid, and they know that someone is out there that means harm, we need someone on hook to call. we have to be able to trust and rely upon those individuals to come when we call and to also look out for us when they do arrive. this is an issue i know you're talking about today, not just on this panel, but so many others. but you have the voices to do it. you have the experience and you have the people who provide you the perspective of what it feels
3:24 am
like to be left out of that dynamic of protection, to be left out of the umbrella and that circle of partisanship that every american is entitled to. -- circle of guardianship. althougha new issue, it's an issue that is very deep and personal for me. some of you may know, i am fortunate enough to have my father here with me this week. [applause] this issue is generations old. when i was a young girl, one thing i remember my father telling me about -- you all talk about your grandparents and aunts and family lore. that is what makes you who you are. that is how you know what the lynches are like, and what the harrises are like. they are both stubborn, just so you know. [laughter] i recover my father telling me about his father.
3:25 am
a minister, third-grade education, eight children, dirt poor, living in rural north carolina in the 1930's. even with all of those things stacked against him, he built his own church beside his house. he called it lynch's chapel. one of the things that my father remembers is that there were times when he was a young boy in the 30's -- in the 1930's when those black people in the community were in trouble. as my grandfather used to say, "caught up in the clutches of the law." they would come to my grandfather and he would help hide them until they could leave the community. sometimes a sheriff would come by the house and asked my grandfather, "gus, have you seen so and so?" my grandfather would say, "well not lately." [laughter] so-and-so is hiding under the four boards. in those days, in 1930's north
3:26 am
carolina, there was no justice in the dark of night on a rule road. new miranda warnings, no procedural protections -- no miranda warnings, none of the things we take granted for today. sometimes in order to preserve the fight for justice into the future, you have to take action in the moment. [applause] of course, these are much better now, and we all get reminded of that. when you talk about these issues, whether they are of race in general, or police issues in particular, when you talk about the current pain that the minority community is feeling -- and we are feeling deeply -- people say "things are much better now." and they are.
3:27 am
in addition to giving my apologies for being late today, i can tell you i was late because i had a meeting with the president that ran over. i would never have been able to say that even five years ago. and the fact that my grandfather, who fought so hard for justice in his own way, whenever have conceived that his granddaughter, the little girl he used to take out in the fields and show what tobacco looked like, would actually be sitting in a meeting with the president of the united states. we have come so far, but we still have so far to go. these issues of fundamental fairness and the relationship that the minority community has with government writ large and those of us in law enforcement in particular are stil with us. they are still important today. we all understand on a personal level, the frustration that comes up when we are treated unfairly because of race. this is really about more than just that. this is really about being
3:28 am
treated unfairly because of race, by those who are sworn to protect you. by those who wear the uniform of protection. this is really a deeper issue than just the individual determination many of us have seen. we are talking about the pain that comes up when a deeply rooted in justice gets shrugged off and ignored. we are in a different time, and things are much better, even if they may not seem that way. even if it seems like this is a very painful time, because we are seeing these issues so much more clearly. i can tell you that this takes me back to the early days of the civil rights movement. you were member those days, when people were marching and protesting and talking about conditions. you couldn't vote, couldn't get a job, couldn't sit in a store and just take a break and have a
3:29 am
couple coffee. no one wanted to believe that that was the case until the advent of television. remember the televised marches and the protests. when the world saw what was happening, that police dogs were put on little children, that fire hoses were used against young men and women, that to galvanized the conscience of the world and gave the movement a momentum to make changes. to give us a civil rights act. to give us a voting rights act. to give us desegregation. to help us crack those strategies that lawyers used before the supreme court. now we are in a similar moment. when so many of the images that we see are so painful. but they are being used to show the world what people in the minority community have known for years. about the different levels of interaction and different levels of both respect and participation in the system that
3:30 am
african-americans have and feel. as painful as it is to watch someone suffering or possibly eveni dying, the result has been an opening of the discussion in ways that we have not had years. th e onus is on us to seize this moment. the onus is on us to continue this discussion, to continue this debate. now the world knows what we always knew. that people in ferguson were being taxed for walking down the street and being the wrong color. the world knows what we always knew, that young men of color's interactions with the police are fundamentally different than other children. and that as parents and siblings and as family members, that we have a responsibility to point this out and to talk about it as well as educate our children. but we also have to acknowledge
3:31 am
more than just the action, but that there is something that goes on as well. something that is deeper when we have these situations. we have to knowledge anger and despair, the feeling is that develop. 0-- feelings that develop. people talk about wanting us to handle things in a certain way. this country was built on peaceful protest. it is a fundamental right of ours and has achieved a great deal of change. we also have to knowledge the anger and despair that develop when these concerns that we now see on tape are still pushed aside by so many people as if they don't exist. you have to knowledge the kind of pain that develops. you have to knowledge that feeling. people say, "i don't think it was that bad." i don't think they meant it that way. happen."that didn't
3:32 am
it didn't even happen. when that happens to people, to a people, to our people, time and time again, you have within our communities a sense of disconnection and despair that is as dangerous as any bullet or club. it absolutely is. [applause] but of course, i'm not the first to note that. i would refer you back to that work of art by ralph ellison, "invisible man." you will see all of that there. you will see the consequences of it as well. the reason why we have to face this and deal with these issues, because as always, with the issues now it's our children will bear the brunt of these issues. it's our children who are growing up without that sense of connection, without the sense of
3:33 am
protection and security that they are entitled to have. and we want them to have it. one of the things i'm doing is a six city community policing tour. i'm going to different jurisdictions that have had troubled and challenging relationship between the police and community, between 5-10 years ago. either a lawsuit, shooting incident. the department of justice has had to come in and use persuasion or litigation in order to manage unconstitutional policing practices. there are jurisdictions that have turned the corner. talking about how and why that is case. things are still not perfect. there are people that feel on the fringes of all we are trying to achieve for them. those are the voices that i want to hear the most. those of the voices that i have to address. in pittsburgh i was talking to young people, high school
3:34 am
students. they will tell you what's happening in their daily lives. they will tell you what they see. more importantly, how it makes them feel. i was talking to a young man who told me he was afraid to walk in his particular pittsburgh neighborhood. he described it as a fairly rough neighborhood. he felt threatened by forces around him who had other agendas, who were trying to draw him into gang life or violence, or possibly put him in the way of being accidentally caught in crossfire. what he told me the most painful thing was that it wasn't just the other residents frightened him, who were not on the path he was on. was excelling in school and moving ahead with a bright future. he was also afraid to call the police. he did know if they could tell the difference between them --
3:35 am
between him and those who want to do him harm. no one should feel that way. not in america. not today. not our children. spentr those of us who careers in law enforcement, those in this panel and this room, who hears that should say "i do not want that feeling in a child of mine." they are all our children, they have to be. this is the starting point for our work. do our children feel safe? and if they do not, what are we doing to change that dynamic for them? what are we doing not only to make them safe, but to make them feel that there are people and forces that look out for them? not only does the doj recognize this issue, we are determined to do our part to prevent the unequal application of the law
3:36 am
and to end violence and conflict and to heal these divisions in our neighborhood that have resulted in stolen lives and broken communities. i very much view our role as working to invite the voices that are here in this room. -- working to amplify the voices that are here in this room. we are working to cultivate the opportunity to let people come together. to do the real work, the hard work that results in safer communities anymore just society. -communities- and a more just society. we have to do more. one thing that i mentioned we are working on -- one of my top priorities as attorney general is dealing with the breakdown in trust between law enforcement and the communities we are sworn to serve. i spend a lot of time talking to both sides. i spent time talking to people
3:37 am
who have had these experiences with law enforcement, who share them with me. it's a gift when some one shares their pain with you. you have to understand that it is a gift they are giving you, the ability to understand what has happened to them. i've also talked to a lot of force with officers who say to me, what i want to do is protect people. i became a cop because someone helped me. or i saw people in my community going the wrong way, and i want to prevent that. increasingly, i became a cop because i see the way things are going and i want to make it better. bringing those voices together, letting them find a place in which to talk and to interact is a key part of what the doj is looking to do. at the end of the day, we are all part of tehe community. our responsibility to it grows, and should blossom. there are things we are doing by
3:38 am
way of initiative. just last year, we launched the national initiative for building community trust and justice. this is a country has of approach to training and policy and research, intended to advance procedural justice and to promote racial conciliation and eliminate complicit biases. our civil rights division continues to work with police departments across the country to ensure constitutional policing in their jurisdictions. i have been so heartened by the fact that none of the police department's have told us they are making the ferguson report required reading for the retirement -- that they are making it required reading for the entire department. because they know that in order to prevent the problems of ferguson, you have to not only acknowledge them, but look at
3:39 am
the root causes of them. office of justice programs is partnering with law-enforcement a brief -- at the state and local level. through them and training and technical assistance, through our office of media oriented policing services, ron davis, the outstanding director of that office is here. we are hoping to hire and train officers to promote officer safety and wellness and to support state and local and tribal law enforcement agencies as they implement recommendations of the president obama's task force on 20th-century policing. they carried the maxims of community policing that we have seen been effective over the years. those of us who are from new york know about noble organizations, the president is here as well. but also the impact of a country of devoted -- of a cadre of
3:40 am
dedicated officers. providing real service and real protection. through this task force, we are seeking to extend these principles across the country. we have been hearing from extraordinary individuals and exceptional organizations like the ones presented on this panel. leeson ithe biggest have seen in my impunity -- in my own community policing tour, is that the real solutions come from the places that are seeing the problem. it's not a problem that will be solved by washington imposing some policy from on high. it will be solved by us
3:41 am
empowering people living in these areas to work through these issues. by us providing resources and assistance for people to come to the solution that leads to better days. i was talking with my father this morning, i was us again how the conference was going, how the panels were going. and what was the best part. and what he said to me did not surprise me. he said, the best part is that on every panel he had seen -- and i'm sure it was true of eople are talking about their real lives and the real issues. not just a study being brought to bear. the real problems and finding real solutions for them. that's why our community policing roundtables are so important. i've been to a number of cities already. i'm looking forward to going out to the west coast next week, and also extending this tour to look wayse best practices, the people have found a way out of these challenging situations.
3:42 am
not to a perfect solution, but to a working solution. we look forward to being able to share with all communities. we do more than that the justice department. we also have to bolster trust in the institutions that make up our criminal justice system. we are doing that in part under the "smart on crime" initiative. it was launched to a years ago -- two years ago by attorney general eric holder. [applause] he took a visionary approach across the kernel justice system and looked at ways -- the criminal justice system and look at ways in which we had a well-meaning program 20 years ago, but looked at the consequences on our communities then and now. i talk about over incarceration of mostly minority young men of
3:43 am
color for nonviolent drug offenses. that has so decimated our communities. not just the problems of the drugs themselves, but the removal of these young men communities and from families. iss has been a hole that created. the issue for the the departed of justice under eric holder, under myself, how can we go about feeling that hole? frankly, we feel that we do that in a way that protects public safety, but also takes into account these important issues. initiativeon crime" has been one of those rare points of bipartisan accord. as you talk about over incarceration rates, whether from my financial perspective or a human capital and cost perspective. federal prosecutors are using
3:44 am
resources to bring the most serious wrongdoers to justice, but using their discretion to find more effective ways -- drug courts, focusing on incarceration. for those for whom other methods will provide personal accountability without the devastating consequences we have seen in the past. been,rse the benefit has as the overall crime rate has declined for the first time in four decades, this policy continues forward and will continue. we are focusing on reentry. as we work out ways-- [applause] out waysh: as we work for the zone people to return home -- for these young people to return home, and some may not be so young when they get out -- we also have to work out ways for them to rebuild a home. we have to work out ways for them to return to not just their families and communities, but to
3:45 am
society. whether that is to education programs in prison. just a month ago i stood with secretary of education arne duncan as he announced the pilot program to allow colleges to use programs for those currently incarcerated. -- to use pell grants for those currently incarcerated. a have to provide them with education while incarcerated and opportunities once they are released. [applause] course, it's not just purchase a beating in your family -- not just participating in your family, community, or society, the ultimate participation in the american spirit called democracy is the right to vote. that is why the department of justice continues-- [applause]
3:46 am
--continues to call for all states to revisit the issue of felon disenfranchisement. let them vote. let them vote. [applause] we are talking about our country's most sacred right. the protection of the voting rights calls for most sacred engagement. in voting cases in particular, the justice department has participated in more than 100 voting cases over the course of the obama administration. we are all aware of the supreme court's 20 cute teen decision in shelby county that took away -- key decision in shelby county away a key part that organizations to determine their impact on minority's voting rights, whether it is a dilution or demolition therof. we were able to vent of the
3:47 am
rollback of this important right. this court has spoken. oflost part, but only part, the voting rights act. we have kept up the charge. and we have not been idle. just recently, we successfully challenged texas'strict voter id law. [applause] in a separate action, we sued to block two of texas' redistricting plans. and in my home state of north carolina, we are challenging several provisions of a state law that curves early voting and restricts same-day registration. as the president has said, why do we want to restrict the right to vote? the right that makes us free and independent? it gives us the envy of other countries. when they talk about the benefits and the values of a merica, one of the things you
3:48 am
will hear it when you travel outside this country, is franky their awe at the fact that we can have a peaceful transition of power that we have every 4-8 years. that is because we invest in this democracy. why do we want to do anything to curtail anyone's participation in what has been an example to the world, and has to be the beacon that we use to ensure freedom in this country? the message from the department of justice is clear. we will not stop in these efforts. we will not be deterred. we will not rest until we have secured the right to vote for every eligible american. [applause] and of course, that extends beyond the courtroom and the actions that we bring. working with many of the members who are sponsoring this wonderful weekend, and other members of congress as well.
3:49 am
we have promoted legislative proposals to restore the voting rights act to its full and proper and intended purpose. [applause] we have also proposed legislation that would expand access to polling places for those living on indian reservations. and alaska native villages and other tribal lands. we cannot have a situation in this country where the original americans are kept out of the participation in the bounty of this land. [applause] we cannot have that. we do this also through our monitoring program, monitoring federal elections, and have actively enforced the national voter registration act to protect those registering to vote. as well as the rights of our uniformed members of the military and overseas citizens who seek to vote as well. keeping on to what makes them essentially american. we will always protect their
3:50 am
rights as well. of course, the right to vote follows from one of our nation's most fundamental promises, that no one should have to endure this creation or unfair treatment -- injure discrimination based on unfair treatment on what they look like. is justice department practicing on the frontlines against hatred and intolerance and are fighting back by his motivated violence. -- bias motivated violence. signed into law by president obama in 2009. [applause] this law will enhance our ability to hold accountable those who victimized their fellow americans because of who they are. we have worked with our state and local partners to make sure that hate crimes are identified and investigated. and we have continued to bring,
3:51 am
and will continue to bring, federal hate crime charges. including our current prosecution of dylann roof for the murders of 9 people of fa ith. 9 people who died at mother emanuel church in south carolina just a few months ago. for many of us, as we sat and watched that event, that took us back to a time that we thought was over. this is a new day. look who is in the white house. look who is in the to permit of justice. -- indie department -- in the department of justice. we thought we passed those stark reminders that we live in a world of hate. we thought we moved past this history of bigotry and brutality. we thought we had left behind the pure intimidation and cruelty of the night writers. those who come in the night and try and keep you. we thought we had moved away from that. for many of us, it took us back
3:52 am
to another time when we thought we had erased it away forever. a time, when just 52 years ago this week, four little girls went to church one morning. they went to sunday school one weekend. and they were there attending a sermon called "the love that forgives." they didn't come home that day. four families live on with the loss of their children who suffered the bomb in the baptist church in birmingham. in the days after the bombing, 52 years ago -- i was four years old -- and my father, michael parents, looked at me and my two -- my father looked at me and my two brothers, how can i keep my children safe from the world that wants to tell them that they are different and less than, that they don't matter?
3:53 am
and that they are simply canada fodder? fodder?on he decided he had to keep working, keep marching, keep pushing, keep advancing. there are no guarantees, 52 years ago, when four little bodies do not come home. we did not know that we would get a voting rights act. did not know we would get the civil rights act. nothing was guaranteed. but with a deep faith and commitment, people pushed forward. we are at that same again. in the days just after that bombing, more than 8000 people, people of all colors and creeds and backgrounds, races and religions, attended a memorial service for those young victims. one of those individuals who gave many stirring eulogies was the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. of course, he was familiar not just with the town, but with the
3:54 am
church, not just with the church, but with the families, not just the families, but the four little girls themselves. in his address, at a time of great tragedy and great challenge, he urged his fellow citizens to channel their grief, to harness their energy. he said "we have to work passionately and on relentlessly for the realization of the american dream." the people sitting in the pews of that dark day 52 years ago, as my father looked at his children and wondered how he would keep us safe, could hardly have imagined the progress we have made thanks to their efforts. they could hardly have imagined this group, the congressional like caucus it self -- black causucus itself gaining strengt. they could not have imagined the philosophy and teaching. they could not have seen who
3:55 am
would be sitting in the white house today, sitting in a meeting with then attorney general, who was that little girl whose father said i have to protect. they knew there were better days coming. they knew that if they pushed forward, they could move past the pain of a bomb that were a part of church. they knew that their work was over, just as ours is not also. we have more work to do. we are here today to get started. many people here working or going to continue. those people who are younger, new to the cause, will join in. we will keep pushing ahead. every american has the right to grow up in a community and world that offers not just responsibility to uphold, but also opportunities to succeed. because every american has the right to live in a country that will support them and that will protect them, no matter where they live, what they look like,
3:56 am
or who they are. every american, every american has the right to a justice system that gives them a fair opportunity to grow, to learn, to improve. [applause] and to contribute. and every american has the right to make his or her voice heard. this is just what i believe, or what you believe, it is what this country believes. it is what this country needs. it is what this society believes. it is what america has always promised to every man, woman, and child in every community across this nation. i'm here to pledge to you today that neither i nor the department that i am so proud to lead will ever abandon our work to make that promise real. but we need your help and your partnership. just as we have in decades past to bring our country closer to its highest ideals. and we do look out and we see
3:57 am
dark days of the times. as people did 52 years ago. but just as they did then, they looked around and saw strength. basal support, they saw fellowship, commitment. they saw what i see when i look out over this extraordinary gathering today. and they saw what i see, which is a people that will not be stopped. a people that will not be silenced. [applause] people that will not be held back. and a people that will always, always reach back and lend a hand and pull someone alone with them. that is what we do. that is how we have made america great today. that is how we make america look to these promises to all of us. and that is how we will go forward in all the challenges that we have to face. thank you for your
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on