tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 19, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
and the president has indicated a willingness as recently as six weeks ago to make that kind of investment. test onr: what is the laces that? mr. earnest: we will get you an update on that. stroker: lastly, a broad having been through this process, what are a couple things that someone might look at before making a determination in the caseresident of a vice president who has run before. , if are the things that say this happens, you go for it, if that happens, you probably go for it. what are the things you think he might consider? mr. earnest: i'm confident that the vice president has asked that kind of question to lots of people. sure there are a variety of
opinions about that. i think the thing that i would observe is that there is one fundamental question that has the answer before you can consider a whole range of other technical questions, and the irst is about her own desire and commitment to running the kind of campaign that we all know take a significant personal toll. life on the campaign trail is arduous, and it is a difficult -- ienge that is true of have fun at the existence of some republican candidates occasionally -- but this is true thatose candidates, too, they spent a long time away from their families, spend a lot of thaton the road, in cities -- in which their day and is rather late and start rather early. that is difficult.
it is why it is important for a bunch of personal questions to be answered before you start considering a range of other things. another thing i would say that i think is also important -- and i think this is something that the vice president has considered as well -- which is that those kinds of questions are far more important than questions about anybody else's campaign, that if you're making your decision about whether or not to get into a race, based on your perception about somebody else is standing in the race, that that is not likely to be a useful strategy, that the reason you are running is because you perceive that not doing ase is well as they should, is not a particularly effective rationale for voters, that each candidate -- that voters will expect that
each candidate perform their own rationale demonstrate their commitment to taking on the challenge of running for president, and i am confident that is what the voters will expect of all the candidates, both democratic and republican. ok? reporter: then would you say among senior staff members who you have discussed this with, who obviously have spoken with key people involved, that there are strong feelings about whether or not joe biden should get into the race? mr. earnest: i do not think there are. those of us interested in politics, the this is, but this is a decision he should make himself -- r reporter: you want him or her to
policiesthe present before. are there no strong feelings about the entry of the vice president would help with that process? mr. earnest: is that everybody has a theory, but ultimately the most important question is not -- if you are a candidate that is considering running for something that applies not just to the candidate for president of the united states, but frankly for any political job, that you are making a commitment to serve your community and the voters, that is a serious payment that requires -- a serious commitment that requires a lot of your time. that is what drives your decision. most effective service are one that acknowledged this is a personal decision, you should not be trying to game the system, but rather this is an important personal commitment you are making. lord knows the vice president
has made a profound commitment to this country and to the democratic party based on his decades of service to both. the personal question that he is facing now is whether or not to reup that commitment. reporter: [indiscernible] is there any sense that there is some legitimate fact-finding that anyone there, and given the seriousness of what happened with the incident and the loss of american lives and how closely with the white house be watching it? some republicans have had an interesting to say about this over the last couple weeks, they are called to question the true motivation of the benghazi committee. but that has done is it has placed significant pressure on republican members of that committee to produce, to
perform. thoseectation is that republican members of the committee will come loaded for bear with secretary clinton comes for them because they are in for a lot of pressure to produce. us far we have not seen them produce much. i think the pressure will be on them to justify their own existence. that existence has been called into question by at least two republican members of congress. we will see if they are able to do that when secretary clinton is the for the committee later this week. e-mail that has come out, does the president have any regrets that he said
these did not pose a national security problem? no.earnest: clear,president has made the president is deeply respectful of independent investigations. there is a responsibility on the part of our law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations that are free from political interference, and his expectation is that people will do that. the fbi has a strong record of doing that. the other thing i think that is important that warrants in theing here is that context of those investigations, we have seen a legitimate and aboutpearheaded debate how and whether to classify certain portions of those
e-mails. even secretary clinton's harshest critics have not suggested that the content of this e-mail somehow dangerous national security. we could have a debate about how or whether to properly classified some portions of those e-mails, but that is a far cry from questions about endangering national security. i don't think secretary clinton's worst and most partisan critics have suggested there's information in his e-mails, based on what we know now, that would endanger national security. ok? angela? are holdingnadians their national elections today, and the liberal party is expected to take control. --te house given the canadian elections, -- and doest affect
it speak things up because now there are no elections to influence the decision, and secondly, is the expectation the liberal party that there will be a denial of the permit, anything that would influence the decision here on -- for updates on the timing of the keystone decision, i refer you to my colleagues at the a to part. know, i have long tried to avoid even the appearance of interfering in ongoing elections in other countries and there is an ongoing elections in canada today. for that reason, the only thing that is happening in canada today that i'm prepared to discuss is the game three of the royals-blue jays series. [laughter] i'm confident this will not affect -- performance at all. reporter: does the fact that the canadian election is happening today affects the timing of the
decision on keystone? mr. earnest:mr. earnest: you would have to ask the state department on it. they are the ones who can update you on that. let me ask you about air force one. as the order been put in, and what is the price tag? mr. earnest: my colleagues at the event are engaged this process to make sure that future presidents have a modern air force one that can carry them around the world to do the important work of the country. the process of completing the project has begun, but for an update i would refer you to the department of defense. they are nothing envisioning completing until seven or eight years from now. reporter: and how is the white house involved in this decision? mr. earnest: there was a decision to move forward with the project, obviously out that
project is moving forward, i would refer you to defense. reporter: the report is 2023 the expected arrival date, which means joe biden or hillary clinton will not be writing on the plane? should the process had been made earlier? mr. earnest: the claim that the president has rhinoceros and -- has servedd the president quite well and handles all the responsible is necessary for chewing that the presidency and travel when the president does. challenge when dealing with something as important as the success of the presidency as air force one, the challenge is to think ahead. this administration
has begun, the process of moving -- the on a project that president does not need a new plane right now, but a years from now, whoever is president of they are likely to need a new plane. using that the president had an interest in the speaker of the hazard is in that -- speaker of the house. is that true, about issues that go directly against the stated position that this administration put out on some really crucial pieces of legislation? peoplenest: some of the you are referring to are not particularly agnostic on the speaker of the house. reporter: you mean there are some other ideas in this? you do not think there are to make the playoffs? mr. earnest: the reason we do not have an image is this is a responsibility of house
republicans to choose who they want to lead their conference in that congress. the second is that any attempt to try to influence the outcome of that election by the president would have the opposite of the intended effect. that is why the president and everybody at the white house is interested in what is going on, but we're not pose anybody. we're interested to see how republicans reconcile his bit divisions within their party to try to stitch together the kind structure that will allow the basic functions of government to continue. that is not the kind of ambition you would expect to see from a party that has strong majority of the house and then it, but a situation we could deal with right now. is it accurate to describe vice president biden as agonizing over this decision? mr. earnest: he did not look
like he is in haiti today. who is he is somebody thoughtfully considering his options, and vice president somebody who has run for president price before. he cannot do that because he was not sure he would be a good president. years, asast seven vice president he has been cleared everybody he's somebody who would be not just capable, effective if he were to serve in the oval office. that is why the president chosen to be vice president in the first place. ultimately, he will have to decide on his own, and i think he is doing this thoughtfully. reporter: are we likely to get a decision first from biden on keystone? it sounds like a
bingo game that is taking icepack in the workspace back there. maybe you can give me a card. last one. today the senate judiciary committee is holding a hearing on the sentencing reform bill. trade, the legacy items have had a lot of bipartisan support. is this going to be something that you think stands out, if the bill goes through, in particular, as a legacy? mr. earnest: the president has long considered criminal justice reform a priority. we are pleased to see that there are some republicans on capitol hill also consider this to be a priority, that there are ways to make our criminal justice system more cost-effective, more fair,
and have it result in communities with lower crime rate. there are a lot of opportunities in this area for democrats and republicans to work together in a way that is good for the country and good for communities all across our country. encouraged by the way ins process has started out bipartisan fashion, and we hope it will continue that way. reporter: the flipside, republicans and other critics have pointed out that since you have had the mandatory minimums, crime rates have gone down, also when current prisoners are released, there is a 40% recidivism rate. is there a risk about releasing more -- mr. earnest: one of the goals of
reforms to see what kind of steps we can take to reduce that recidivism rate. it is not good for public safety and not good for individuals who have gone through our criminal justice system. i think it is a statistic like what you have just excited that motivates democrats and republicans to put aside differences and focus on what could he a fruitful area of bipartisan cooperation. one of the reasons it is so conspicuous is there are not possible areas of fruitful cooperation, but we intend to make the most of this one. reporter: totally unrelated. there has been reported that -- will require registration of privately owned drains. does the white house have any comment on that? mr. earnest: i refer you to the
department of transportation. i believe what they are putting together is a working group to consider that and a regional policies initiatives that could ensure that the use of drones does not interfere with commercial aviation, but also to put in place the kind of regulatory structure that will allow the private sector to maximize the economic and if it's associated -- economic benefits associated with this technology, while making sure we protect the skies of cities all across the country. thanks a lot, everybody. we will see you tomorrow. tonight, by 1830, the mississippi river around new orleans had become a breeding ground for color and yellow fever, partly due to slaughterhouses. to address this problem, louisiana allowed only one government-run slaughterhouse,
crescent city, to operate in the city district, and the other houses to and to court. we're joined by the former authoror general and an to help tell the story of this time in the south, personal stories of the butchers, as well as the attorneys and supreme court justices involved in this close decision. join the conversation as we take your calls, tweets, and facebook rkcases.using #landma for background, order your copy of companion book. available for eight dollars 95 -- $8.95 at www.c-span.org. announcer: c-span has your "road to thehe
white house 2016." this year we're taking her coverage into classrooms across the country with our studentcam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what they wanted her most from that candidates. tv,ow our coverage on radio, and online at www.c-span.org. announcer: tomorrow morning lanny davis offers a preview of hillary clinton's testimony of the house committee on benghazi. and jon huntsman on the 2016 presidential campaign and his group which wants to end gridlock in washington.
"washington journal" is like every day on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. host: a former agriculture secretary is joining us. as the representative from kansas from 1997 to -- 2004. we are here to talk about the transpacific partnership, the trade deal recently agreed to and how it might impact agriculture, the food safety, and other issues. what does the partnership and compass? agriculture along with other sectors of the economy are extremely involved and subject to the wind of national trade. we sell more overseas that we purchase here in the united states. trade is life or death for corn, who produce wheat,
and other things as well. this agreement is not heaven on earth. i tried to tell people trade agreements are not necessarily an economic miracle. but the trade is important for u.s. agriculture as well as other parts of the u.s. economy including industries that rely on economic property rights to keep america in the game and keep us engaged in the rest of the world. the agreementdone or congress does not improve the agreement, it will allow america to disengage, which is not good for the economy. host: what is the process on congress approving it? how much time to they have? guest: i am not exactly sure. it will not the approved until butbeginning of next year the agreement is set up and my expectation is that it will be approved. , formern glickman
agriculture executive. growth in american agriculture p what segments of aquaculture do you think will benefit the most from the passage of the ttp by congress? guest: all segments. some are more vulnerable to trade like dairy because of spring competition in world markets. the basic farm commodities sold largely to feed animals around the world, those will benefit. certainly, livestock will benefit. disagreement, the problem is america faces restrictions and the rest of the world with the entry of our product. parts of theother world in southeast asia particularly, it is important we break down barriers and gain access to the markets. other things like restrictions on our product for sanitary
matters, those become of much greater conformably -- conformity or more prediction will access in the markets. it is not a miracle in an of thing, but without this it will certainly setback american agriculture. take us back to the passage of the north atlantic free trade agreement. ?hat was your role member ofas a congress from kansas and quite honestly, it was one of the most controversial things i voted on arell because trade issues by and large the not -- not the most popular things he vote on in the world. nafta became a symbol for everything wrong with the economy. a loss of jobs, a loss of image and the rest of the world.
i think it was good for america but was not the perfect situation like a lot of people claimed. while trade is important, other factors have a lot to do with the economy. i argue america needs to rebuild its infrastructure, roads, bridges, ports, airports, seaports, electric grids, water systems, you name it. i think the middle-class would be benefited by both a trade agreement by -- as well as by a significant investment rebuilding our national economy putting people back to work kind of in the same way we build the interstate highway system. the trade agreement, we cannot put all of our eggs in to appear the second thing we need to be doing is a significant
rebuilding of american infrastructure. have modern bridges, modern highway systems, electric grid that is very competitive. is another part of the plan to rebuild the economy. we also cannot with an isolation of trade either. host: our guest is dan glickman talking about trade and agriculture. , useu are a republican this line -- democrats -- independence -- you can also send us a tweet. so did a piece a week ago or about the implementation of the trade agreement. ofwas on the anniversary nafta. they wrote about a farmer, a
by nafta.mer they write in their that mexico has had a dampening effect. in the piece, they said according to the department of fresh tomato production in florida has fallen 41%. meanwhile, tomato production in mexico has gone the other way. florida tomato growers argue they cannot compete with a lower wages and less environment oversight in mexico. guest: there are always winners and losers in agriculture when you have trade agreement. clearly, some of the fresh .roduce can be grown overseas dode agreements have got to a better job. they allow us unpredictable
competition in the u.s. market. pork,vestock industry, poultry, and cattle. talk to mexican producers, they will tell you the exact opposite. they will tell you america has got too great an advantage as a result. that is the problem. there are some people who benefit more and some people benefit less. by large, nafta was on the positive side for america but there were some losers as well. from being secretary of agriculture, what is your background with agriculture before you came to washington? my father wast: not in the agriculture business. president clinton appointed me
secretary of agriculture and i was there for six years. after that, i went into the motion picture industry and i am now at the bipartisan policy center where i'm doing my best to try to promote bipartisanship in government, which is not easy. host: you must of been affected by issues of things like hiring -- pirating. majority of revenues for the production of american movies comes from out side the united states. trade is a big issue and intellectual property protection and paris he is also a big issue. that is out with in this trade agreement, protections against internet -- intellectual property protection. we have a lot of calls waiting and this is carol. , how the trade agreement
will affect labeling on foods because there are some countries where there is no way i would want to eat chicken, processed were slaughtered in china. can you give me more information on that? guest: the trade agreement itself will not specifically answer that. by and large, most of those within theaintained own regulatory system. it will not directly deal with the problem you are talking a list of is host: the benefits were put out. new say it will provide activities for exporters, in 11 countries across the asia-pacific region, and expanding demand for u.s. food and agriculture among the 500 million consumers outside the u.s.
the ttp strengthens trade rules and provides access japan, and these would be countries you would not be in before? the market system would be working as well. you look at southeast asia, these are huge markets for american agricultural products, particularly in livestock. x and the grants. want to eat better and have a diet that is more in the middle-class diet. they need large quantities of the agricultural product. the agreement makes it easier for the u.s. producers to sell the market. host: let's hear from tom in daytona beach. caller: good morning. my comment is, i went online. you talk about nafta. i have heard people say it is
.ore of a bipartisan thing to vote on it, 61 republicans in the senate budget reform and 38 democrats voted for it in the senate. 234 of thee, republicans voted for nafta, and 200 on the final vote of the democrats. the republicans push this nafta deal through. i am from a small town in north carolina that was the furniture manufacturer of the world. all the furniture manufacturers were there. all those businesses were gone. you have to take into consideration that when an industry like that goes downhill, the cause of a free trade agreement that is not a
fair trade agreement, it affects a lot of people. , all types ofiers and the problems we are having with paying into social security and things like that, those were all important to the american people working. i think he raises a point that was good in this context. some american businesses were impacted negative three -- negatively by america. by and large, the evidence is pretty we're that overall, we gained more than we lost. that isody who lost, not much of a consolation. i understand that. of the naftap some problems when it comes to worker andts and worker safety related issues when it comes to standards. is ather thing i would say
lot of jobs were lost over the last 20 years not because of net -- not because of nafta but because of technological revolution, high-tech industries requiring less workers to do things. it is why we need to find a way to produce jobs in the country with united states citizens. building our country's infrastructure is a way to produce a couple million middle-class, good paying jobs and help the economy flow much more naturally within infrastructure that really works. the airports are better, they are more modern, more roads and highways and bridges that maintain much better than ours the countryarts of not doing a good job. it is more problematic in terms of the future of the american economy that even the trade agreement is.
we have to do both of those things. we cannot only do trade. you have got to heal the country itself through its infrastructure repair. op-ed, thew your baltimore sun and a number of other papers, a big plan for infrastructure. you write that the term sounds wonky. you drive on roads and not infrastructure area you cross a river on a bridge and not on infrastructure. infrastructure means private sector jobs for americans, modernizing airports and fairways, power grids to accommodate new forms of generation, it is economics 101, but it is also politics 101. i will pull this off, the headline from the weekend. a $320 million transportation bill. is congress going to get to any of the structure plan when it is difficult for them to get the basics like a highway bill done. a big problem.
that is one of the things we have been able to do fairly easily one president eisenhower was president, he was a of to pass the act which created the highways in the country. the problem we have is most people want to improve infrastructure but they do not want to pay for it. the only way to pay for it is raising the federal gas tax, not raised in 20 years, when we had very low energy crisis in the country, or finding a way to repatriate money to build the new infrastructure. the political problem on infrastructure, whether on highways or anything else, is that you cannot do it without finding the money for it. hasy, our political system been afraid to tackle that problem. if we do not tackle the infrastructure problem, the american economy will weaken.
caller: i think we should make a deal. trade deals pass the if they are willing to properly tax present day financial arbitration. thank you. ok.t: i do a variation on that. to beot think they ought tied together. i think a trade deal ought to be separate from taxing financial institutions. but i would have liked to have seen some tied between the trade deal and a bill that would rebuild american roads, bridges, and highways as we talked about before. that is a huge job reduce or, two or $3 million jobs. all over the country, we could have revitalized this. tandem would be
something i would oppose. host: rochester, new york. caller: yes, hello. thatou name me one deal the united states has made, one trade deal since the 1950's that has benefited the average american and not benefited the 1% of all the money? industriese are many which does not have a lot of 1% people in the production of food and fiber in the country. they move more product overseas, whether it is the corn producers or the wheat growers. there are certain people in other industries, particularly the high-tech industries around the world, that have benefited by this. i will not tell you the trade deal has benefited everybody in
america. it is just not true. on balance, they have been -- importantr the for the country. we can deal with the chinese more effectively on economic issues and those kinds of things. aain, i am repeating myself lot we cannot put all of our eggs into the trade basket along. we can do both as a society. mentioned through safety laws a little bit ago, a question for you on twitter, if the people in asia do not trust their own formula, how can we know it is safe for our children . assuming she is talking about imported baby formula. strengthened the food safety agenda in recent years to our regulators internally will not and should not allow any product to the country that are unsafe. that is the number one job of the usda and the safety of
people in other agencies as well. notwithstanding that, we need to have international standards on what is and what is not safe and what we found in the past is a lot of our products get stopped sometimes because of the allegations when in fact the allegations are not made on the basis of good science. the newer rules make good science more applicable. dwight in is tennessee, independent line. mine is about the trade deficit. the year before nafta was signed, we had a surplus between ofico and the united states $28 billion. can you tell me how much surplus we have today? know thedo not answers. i know the surplus has been down for some time, but in real terms, it has gone back up again and i think it is pretty close. is sold between the
countries. some products that we increased andexports into mexico others in some parts of agriculture and in some parts of manufacturing that we did not. large, we are one north american continent and it is beneficial to the united states that the nafta agreement basically provided positive results for most in the industry. host: we are in an election year and further, locating the passage or the future of the trade promotion authority in congress, some of the comments of hillary clinton, long awaiting her position on the transpacific partnership. she announced this last week. ms. clinton: i have been learning as much as i can about the agreement but i'm worried about currency manipulation not being part of the agreement here we have lost american jobs for countries particularly in asia
to have engaged in p or worried the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits and patients and fewer consumers. are still a lot of unanswered questions, it really comes down to the three points i fact that we learned a lot about trade agreements in the past years. sometimes they look great on paper. i know one president obama came into office, he inherited a trade agreement with south korea. i along with other members of the cabinet pushed hard to get a better agreement and we think we made improvements. -- looking back on it, it doesn't have results we thought it would have in terms of more exports. >> are you saying this is not something you could support? ms. clinton: what i know about it as a today, i am not in favor of what i learned about it. hillary clinton did say,
that what she knows about it, she is against it. i do not know everything about it either. i think by and large, the trade agreement is positive for america. cure-allit is not a for our nation's economic problems. we have got to go beyond the agreement to deal with the other issues i talked about as well and politicians have to be courageous enough to support raising taxes or doing the kinds of things to rebuild highways and bridges and those kinds of things. other thing i would say about the trade agreement is you do not want american withdrawal. i must say i think it opens the to exertthe chinese themselves significantly on the geopolitics of east and south asia. i do not think that is good for america. i think it really threatens the economic dominance and
superiority in so many respects around the world. we do not want a unilateral disarmament in the trade deal either. i cannot speak for the secretary and she may have her own reasons for doing the things she does, but i think it is the best thing both for the country economically and geopolitically as well. talking about trade, the transpacific partnership, agriculture, food safety, and infrastructure in the u.s. the numbers are on the screen. send us a tweet. here is canton, georgia, herald, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple of points, one, the consistent mentioning of infrastructure spending.
if i'm not mistaken, the stimulus program breakthrough by obama was a most $1 trillion. only 7% of that money went to infrastructure spending. and by his own admission, those projects were not as shovel ready as they should have been. that is number one. number two, tax receipts are the highest they have been in years. if we are not able to do it now, how is raising more taxes and taking more money out of the pockets of regular americans going to benefit americans through infrastructure? and number three, nafta. jobsep hearing these are americans don't want to do. tell that to the electronics industry, in particular the electronics manufacturing industry. these were high-paying jobs and --are told we cannot get in get enough engineers into this country to do these jobs and these jobs all went to southeast asia. all great questions.
first of all, the president stimulus bill had a lot of infrastructure in there, but other major things as well. i would pass a major program to do all the things i been talking bridges,e roads, sewers. our water systems are feeling all over this country. i'm talking about rebuilding the basics of this country. i would have a war room in the white house and put somebody in charge of this who really was experienced and running these kinds of big projects and i would put the money into that and keep our hands off to do other things unrelated to infrastructure. i think your point was made that the stimulus package of a few years back was not really geared to dealing with this particular issue. the tax collections are going up, but the deficit is still very high. by and large from the gas tax, the user fee that has largely been there to deal with roads and sewers and systems, both federal and eight, quite
frankly, -- federal, and state, quite frankly, has not been there to be used for years. ifought to recognize that the taxes were raised, or maybe other ways to raise revenues, congress really need to deal with this issue. then we can have confidence that the money will be spent on the projects that it is rates for. some industries lost and most didn't. i think this tpp corrects some of the problems in nafta. that, we needn to to recognize that the trade agreements alone will not rebuild the american economy, but without the we will be hurt very dramatically. host: on the entry -- the issue of infrastructure, want to get your take on this piece in the "national review." -- write that
guest: we have huge amounts of deferred maintenance in this country and most of it is run through the state and they will tell you they just do not have enough resources to cover what i call the general manufacturing and highway need. you find now that at least half the bridges in america need to be in the rebuilt or significantly repaired. and it is not just roads and bridges, but the electric grid, the port, the airports and seaports. most of our sanitation and water systems were built 50 to 100 years ago. the needs are just selling the moneys were raised correctly and managed welcome it could put 2 million to 3 million americans back to work. that is important for us as well. in -- dons go to john
in illinois on the independent line. yes, my problem is that manufacturing basically has moved out of our country. particularlywar ii because we out manufactured the germans and the japanese. and i just read in the newspapers this week that the is now goingmpany to build another plant, a $2.5 billion plant in mexico. words, there is more were going out of the country. we don't have american manufacturers anymore. their headquarters might be in the united states, but they are international companies and i see no reason to protect any of them when they move offshore.
well, i'm an angry old man and i've seen what has happened to american labor and it's a disgrace. host: we appreciate your to pick -- your opinion, don. guest: i don't know if he is so angry. i think a lot of people feel that way and that is why it is so hard to pass trade agreements because they see the jobs lost and not necessarily the jobs game -- gained. true that both have happened. i think our country needs a more sensible national manufacturing policy that will deal with both tax policy as well as employment policy. i will say who this, 95% of the people in the world live outside of the u.s. the only way this country is going to grow and produce jobs in the future is to sell worldwide. there are just not enough people -- to u.s. to support and support a manufacturing economy anymore.
you have to deal with europe, china, africa, asia, and everywhere else will stop america -- and everywhere else. america has to have competitive strength. what you cannot do it by closing your borders. the gentleman's point is a good point, that somehow you have to have more productive and sensible manufacturing policy, but with the recognition that if we do not sell to the rest of the world and if their borders are not open to us, americans standard of living will go down. a couple more calls. christine in maryland, democrats line will stop caller: hi, -- democrats line. hi, i want to make a couple of points. i have crohn's disease. , going about globally globally, but local farms, clean food, taking of produce and shipping it takes forever. by the time you get it to the
grocery stores is not fresh. summertime in maryland on the eastern shore, our farms, our food, the taste is totally different. you see the labels, they are even getting it from, like, mexico or canada. i don't understand going globally. see -- i don't know the name of the company, but the people who own the weed killers, they own our food companies. i don't understand it. with supere trying weeds and things like that. and we have high cancer rates, -- i can't even think. and alzheimer's. host: that's ok. you've put a lot out there. we will get a reaction from dan. want freshicans
vegetables 12 months a year and the truth is, our climate does havellow that unless we indoor agriculture. you just cannot grow enough tangerines and grapes and oranges and stuff. that is why we import a lot of food. notwithstanding that, she makes a very good point. our domestic farm policy over the years has not encouraged the growing an insurance of, shall i say, agriculture like vegetables and fruits. it has encouraged commodity crops like wheat, cotton, and soybeans. those are the ones that can get insurance and risk management protection. the last farm bill began to change that and now, more and more you are finding small -- freshf fresh food
fruits and vegetables get protection for the crops. that will provide locally and provide financial protection to be able to grow more of those crops inside the u.s. that is a positive thing that has happened in the past few years. host: along with christine concerns about food safety, roger tweets this -- think itdon't specifically dealt with irradiated food, but it does give the ability for the u.s. to properly protect its citizens on food safety front. that is something we did not take away. host: how would you grade our food safety? guest: we passed the food safety modernization act and that has taken a long time with the fda and others. food safety is something that there is more bipartisan consensus on than many other
areas because everybody is impacted by whether you are republican or democrat. host: mike in massachusetts, republican line. good morning. dan glickman was saying that you are raising taxes on gas be.fits, of course it would but how about raising taxes on the solar farms and wind farms? and thing was that could generate full -- and seeing what that could generate. guest: right now, i don't think that will generate much money. if these became mature industries producing a lot of energy, maybe. but right now, you are going to try to repair roads and bridges that are impacted by people driving on them. and historically in its country we have said that should be done by a user fee,and that is basically a gas tax and it has not been raised in 20 years. but what people want to know is if it is rate whether it will be ,pent -- if is is raised
whether it will be spent on improving into structure -- improving infrastructure. host: john on the independent line. you are on the air. caller: my question to mr. glickman is this also -- is this. we don't tax capital going out of the country to make investments and these members of the trade agreement, and i am against any other further trade code until the tax reflects investments made by these countries. -- the companies. we are running about $50 billion a month in trade deficit. we have been running consecutive trade deficits everson's these deals -- ever since these deals.
deficit israll trade $600 billion in capital that is not being invested in this country that if we did not have these trade deals might have an opportunity to be better invested in this country and to be taxed. to build the instructor, to build the country, to employ our people. i'm not against free trade, but -- per se, but free-trade should be balanced trade. losing ourent -- economic opportunity and capital and this makes no sense to me. guest: first of all, we definitely need a tax policy investment. capital i hope congress can get together in the next couple of years, even as bitterly divided as it andto look at the tax code make it more investment focused. that is an important point. but our trade deficit is largely due to a couple of factors. we have an extremely strong dollar in the past decade
or two. why? because our economy so much better overall than anyone else's in the world. the chinese have not, in fact, devalued their currency. they have kept it very strong to protect themselves internally, which has hurt us. that is one of the issues secretary clinton may have met. and we are the largest consumer country in the world. we buy more than anybody else. our general economy still stronger than any place else in the world. anda thoughtfully executed structured trade agreement with julie couple of things. we do need to rebuild the class in this country -- would do a couple of things. we need to rebuild the middle class in this country. host: next up. theer: all republicans in house and some democrats, many democrats, voted to open up the
next -- the exportation of our oil to foreign countries. beenrecently we've benefiting because we have a glut of oil, and all of us from we go to the pump have been saving about a buck a gallon of a gas pumps. -- at the gas pumps. these people who want to export it are claiming that the price price of gas, will actually dropped. which i think is completely antithetical to any kind of economic theory. if you reduce the supply way down, guess what, the price will go up. we will all be screwed. here's the thing about it, we have to keep our oil supply that we have and we could benefit greatly from this. but to sell it to foreign the oils just because
men in texas want to do it, we cannot do it. it will hurt everybody. and anybody with me should call their congressman and say stop this sale. it has never worked that way. the economics of it never worked the way they say it's going to work. host: ken brings up a topic we have not addressed yet. topic.it is an important it will markets are not just the u.s. market anymore. they will markets are global now and they flow across borders like never before and it's one of the reasons it is so cheap right now. it is because of the interconnected nature of our country and the middle east and china. i'm not an expert on this issue, but there is no way you can have just a contained domestic supply of oil that is not part of the world supply. i would say that this is one of the reasons it is so important the u.s. has the largest reserve of natural gas almost in the entire world, but we have enough
to be the opec of that part of the world. including theces sun, including biofuels, and including fossil fuels as well. i am kind of for all of these above if they can be devoted and environmentally sensible way. i'm not as concerned about the export of oil as i am concerned about the developing of all the natural resources in this country that could make us much more efficient. and that will be left on the oil side, more on natural gas side as well as renewables. glickman, at the bipartisan policy center, a senior fellow there. and he's on twitter. announcer: former utah governor
jon huntsman on the 2016 presidential campaign, and his group that wants to and gridlock in washington. washington journal is light every day on c-span. cop a discussion on the syrian refugee crisis. at 9:00, over original series "landmark cases." later, we hear more about the cases featured in our series in a conversation with patrick leahy of vermont. say nearlyestimates 4 million people are displaced
from syria. this took place of the bipartisan policy center in washington dc. welcome to the bipartisan policy center. thank you for joining us this morning. we are very pleased to welcome you to today's event on the refugee crisis in syria, europe, and the u.s. response. just a call out a couple of news stories over the weekend that will frame our discussion. with russian backing, the syrian government renewed an offensive in aleppo over the weekend that is estimated to have caused another 70,000 syrians to leave aleppo and perhaps causing new wave of refugees entering neighboring countries that are already hosting many refugees. including lebanon, jordan,
kurdistan, and turkey. the prime minister in response to this said, we cannot accept an understanding like give us the money and they stay in turkey. turkey is not a concentration camp. for those of you who noticed the chill in the air this morning, the new york times reports about the challenges facing refugees traveling to europe with winter coming. with large flows of refugees and migrants trying to enter europe, and with the u.s. grappling the response, it feels like the conversation is often boiled down to two extremes between the imperative of giving humanitarian aids and the security challenges of letting people we don't know into our country. we are the bipartisan policy center and we like to explode binary choices.
we want to bring together a conversation to day to explore the tensions between those two needs. to host that discussion, we have christian roberts, national editor of politico. before joining politico, she was managing editor of national journal and served as deputy bureau chief for the washington bureau of reuters. kristin holtz masters degrees from georgetown university and columbia -- kristin holds masters degrees from georgetown university and columbia. [applause]
>> this is a really important conversation. i want to thank everybody for joining us here. we have got an incredible panel. syria is not the only country in the world generating refugees. there are 15 million refugees in the world. the united states takes the largest proportion of those. the case for the 4 million syrian refugees is different. we are going to talk about how to balance the security and humanitarian dimensions of this crisis. we have an excellent panel. let's start with larry. kelly is deputy director of refugee admissions. britney's director of advocacy for the lutheran immigration and refugee service. lorenzo vidino's director of the
program of extremism at george washington university. and anand is senior fellow at the german marshall fund. larry, can you help us understand the men to do for we are dealing with -- the magnitude of what we are dealing with? >> this is a time for us where overall displacement is at an all-time high since world war ii. 16 million people are displaced. of which a quarter are from the syrian conflict alone. in many ways, we are seeing the international community really dealing with the biggest crisis with refugees in decades. depending on how you look at it. they could be since world war ii. such a really enormous
catastrophe of humanitarian issues. it comes at a time when we are seeing some very large refugee emergencies. whether that is in the central african republic, yemen, central america, sudan. it is already coming at a time when the system has been extremely taxed already. and then there is dimensions with the syrian crisis -- there is 7.6 million in terminally -- internally displaced. it is a situation where half of a country's population is either displaced or refugees. and in even larger number made some kind of international assistance. if you talk about the numbers, they become almost unimaginably
big. you lose people in the numbers. they just seem so enormous. at the same time, there has been an unprecedented and good international response whether it is through funding or resettlement or humanitarian movements. it is still an emergency. i've been in refugee work a while. going back to the vietnamese era. usually emergencies have a curve. they sort of "slack off at some point. we are now in the third year and there is no slacking. in fact, what we see is a metamorphosis, a changing into different players. more refugees from different locations and different causes spilling into neighboring
countries like iraq. so i think it's a huge emergency. and coupled with what we have seen in the last two months, the pictures of people migrating into europe. again, for europe, it is another unprecedented since world war ii kind of emergency. i don't know if i have said the word big and large enough. i think that all of us whether it is it international organizations or countries or refugees are in the midst of something that is really beyond what most of us have ever experienced. >> can you talk about how this compares to the other crises your organization has responded to? >> every refugee flow is unique. what's interesting to note about the syrians is that since the beginning of the conflict, the u.s. has only welcomed about 1900 syrians.
so given the huge numbers that were mentioned, 4.1 million syrians worldwide, we really have not opened the doors in the u.s. yet to syrians arriving here. and some of the other refugee crises that we have responded to have -- such as kosovo. the response of bringing individuals to the u.s. was more immediate. when we resettled people, they had fresh trauma, violence that they had just experienced. many of the syrians now are being told that the weight they face in the region in the camps in turkey or lebanon could be three or four years. so what we are seeing is a highly traumatized population, almost all syrian families have experienced a death -- a husband, brother, child. but they are not able to find that immediate protection that they need.
that's one big difference. a comparison would be to central america. where we have heard interviews of young men leaving syria who have said, my choice was stay here or die or get on a boat and face the possibility of death there. with central american children being interviewed, we also hear the same story. i can either stay here, faced at that the hands of a game, -- gang, or i can try to find safety may be in costa rica or mexico or the u.s. but the choices the same. death in my home country or possible death on the journey to safety. although there are some differences in scale, we see similarities in levels of trauma as well as a desperation to find safety among all refugee populations. >> is impossible to talk about the demographics of the population you are seeing in the refugee community coming out of syria?
>> at large, the demographics as far as gender, it is about a 50-50 split. as far as age, i was looking that up. it is again about a 50-50 split. 50% would be 18 and under and 50% over. there is a relatively small number of elderly. that would be people my age and older. so only about 3% are making it out as refugees. that's a little bit of a difference than some other populations. in the sense that we see a lot of women and children, it is common to many refugee situations. some of the migration happening
to europe is a little more mail and a little younger -- more male and a little younger. in part because it is risky. some of the motivation to move is running out of resources. and the host countries who have done this unprecedented job of receiving these -- in lebanon, one out of three people is a refugee. >> that's astounding. >> that would be the u.s. hosting 100 million from different countries and having the children be in schools and using resources -- public resources etc. they have maintained generally open borders although at the moment we see borders closing. as borders and options close, people go on the move.
you saw people who were relatively well-off, a lot of people who were middle class and had resources when they left. they have burned through those resources. i think the situation is changing and the level of desperation is changing as time goes on. the international community -- we are only at about 40% for the syrian appeal. that means food ration cuts by the world food program. it means other kinds of educational supplements. there is also that curve. i think we are seeing changes in the way the population looks. certain people heading out the custom are running out of options. >> what about your view in terms of the demographic divide? can we talk about the countries in europe who are taking many of
the refugees? what those numbers are and what burden that is bringing to those nations? any of you? >> we have had a resettlement program. there's about 30 countries involved from as big as the united states to my favorite, liechtenstein. but also other countries outside of the region made opportunities available. so that's on one side of the settlement. and of course there is a much larger number of people directly leaving europe at this point. we are seeing arrivals of 6000 people per day. over 500,000 asylum applications filed in europe since the start. and the countries bearing the biggest brent at this point --
brunt at this point would be countries like germany, sweden, norway. recent announcements by the u.k. for multi-your commitment -- multi-year commitments. there are ones we hope will do more. there will also be a european relocation plan. that has been put forward by the european union. which will also involve local members. we have also seen certain countries putting up fences. some of my colleagues have described a new iron curtain coming down in certain parts of europe to block the immigrants. >> germany promised to take hundreds of thousands of refugees.
but they have been criticized for that being a threat to german culture. hungarian officials are talking about the threat of terrorism. is this a fair concern? >> no. it's not a fair concern. it is a fair concern the sense that security is important. in the sense that integration is important. but to view the refugee flow through a lens purely of security, that there are terrorists embedded or extremist embedded in these refugee flows i think is a mistake. it is a major issue of integration and inclusion and and whether or not the europe of the future, particularly the new europe, the countries that you mentioned, are they going to be open?
are they going to integrate populations that frankly don't look like them or may not have the same religion? in addition to the humanitarian questions that have been raised and the security challenges that are certainly present, i think one of the silver linings in this -- one of the positive outcomes could be that europe is not grappling with -- is now grappling with and will decide whether it is open to immigration or whether it is closed. we have seen leadership from germany and france and other countries. we have also seen a rise in far right movements and political parties grabbing more and more seats. switzerland for example. and we have also seen violence against -- you mentioned germany. the mayor elect of munich was stabbed because of his --
presumably because of her open views on immigration. so i think you are seeing a lot of reactions. lots of negative reactions. but we are happy that europe is grappling with these issues and could emerge unified, in a position to actually speak with one voice. and that is what we are seeing today. we have seen croatia, who initially sort of wavered. there are actually talking about resolving it as opposed to some of the other countries like hungary who are just putting up barbed fences and so forth. so it is a positive outcome in the sense that it is framing the issue. >> lorenzo, your thoughts. >> i would echoed his comments. the debate gets very heated and politicized. we have seen statements from hungarian officials and throughout europe trying to exploit the conservative fears about the terrorist threat in
europe. which is real, but is not necessarily linked to the refugee crisis. i'm not saying it doesn't exist completely. because anecdotally we can find examples of course when we have such large numbers. it's statistically impossible that everybody will not be linked -- that you cannot find at least one or two people linked to terrorism. but if you look at the events of the last few years, we do not see that link. let's start with the u.s. we talked a lot about europe. we just concluded a study of the individuals who have been arrested for isis links in the u.s.. not one of them is a refugee. these are people arrested in the last year and a half. 40% of them are actually converts born in the u.s. the vast majority are people who are born and bred in the u.s.. you can argue that there are a few of them of somali dissent to have a refugee background.
-- somali descent who have a refugee background. if you look at the attacks that have been perpetrated in europe with a syrian linked over the last two years, all of them have been perpetrated by people who are european citizens or have long lived in europe or have no links to syria. so far we have seen homegrown terrorism and not so much an imported terrorism threat coming from refugees. obviously we have seen a few cases here and there. i think most of them have to be decided by court. we had a case in italy. we had a couple of cases in bulgaria and the czech republic.
all of them need to be adjudicated in the courts. but we are talking about anecdotal. if you look at the big numbers, the 5000 individuals who have gone from europe to fight, they are european citizens. second and third european citizens -- second and third generation european citizens. so the link is disproven by facts. >> there are many officials attempting to cite things as fact. one such fact goes to the democratic -- demographic question. that a large number of people coming from syria are primarily men of for lack of a better description "fighting age." do you attribute that to the difficulty of the journey? >> that seems likely. obviously we do see the majority are men. half of them are women.
it tends to be younger people for a variety of reasons. it is a difficult journey. even more if you take the southern route from libya to tunisia. obviously i think that's why younger people attempt it and older people do not. i think that's the history of migration in general. younger people attempt it. the fact that they are military age obviously goes with that. i understand the concern. obviously i am not saying that because in the past we have not seen a terrorist threat coming from people who come as refugees, the issue should be completely disregarded. i am and everybody else is concerned by the fact that it is very difficult to triage the thousands of people that are coming every day. and it's pretty clear that some of these people have been fighting and been involved in the conflict. the stories can range from people who were involved in
terrorist groups coming to europe as infiltrators to carry out something. in many cases you have people who were fighting and for one reason or another got disillusioned with the conflict and left. so we have seen people pictured with machine guns in syria and then coming as refugees and the european media has been full of pictures like that. each story needs to be vetted. why were they fighting? who are they fighting with? why did they leave? it doesn't make them a terrorist. it would be naive not to check for what is possible the background of these individuals. that is the challenge. >> you have something to add. >> one thing to add. this is a humanitarian challenge and a security challenge. the results also a propaganda war going on.
-- there is also a propaganda war going on. -- points to isis out there on social media in these refugee flows. if we except what basis is saying, let's take a closer look. let's really think about this and not just fall into -- fall prey to what i view as isis propaganda. of course it is in their interest to make us not want to take these refugees. it fuels the narrative of the west doesn't want you, stay away, join the jihad, etc. we sort of except these conventional thoughts as a given but it really does require when you are making major policy decisions allocating resources which large parts of europe don't have, you really have to
dig and understand what is happening on the ground. >> i think another thing that is often lost -- i certainly think all the agencies are dealing with, any military activity is something we are interested in. and there is mandatory conscription in syria into the syrian army itself. so there is a lot of talk about terrorist organizations without realizing that we are on guard as well because people may have been in the syrian military as well or they weren't, they avoided it because there are lots of ways to not be in the syrian military. so perhaps the people dealing with the issue are naive. people are not looking for issues. in interviewing cases, particularly when you get to resettlement which is highly individualized, or asylum when you spend a lot of time with the individual, this is going to be
a big part of every interview. particularly if you are a male. and there is country of origin information, there are resources you go to. there are experts who follow these issues. and when things are unclear, i would say the process stops until they are clear. we also cover the caribbean and other regions. we have some syrians that have been in the caribbean. i see all the submissions coming to the u.s. and a great deal of time is spent exploring peoples -- what did you do, what was your military history, what was your situation. what intersections did you have
with the conflict? so one of the things i would love to dispel is the idea that -- that there is a big split between those who are concerned about security and of those who are concerned about humanitarian agency. everyone in the humanitarian field knows that if you don't have security, you will lose confidence in the system. and the general public will use confidence -- will lose confidence. and i think that is something we can't afford. that is why governments are on the lookout and looking at these issues. there is extensive paperwork on individuals that we have ways of looking into cases. the other thing i would say is like most systems of security, it depends on multiple layers. there is never a single layer. there's not a single layer when you get on the airplane. there's not a single layer when you cross the border. any kind of security approach is a multilayer approach.
and there has to be a dovetailing of humanitarian issues that we are looking at as well as the security. and i think everybody that i have worked with is committed to making those things work together. >> can you make that a bit of a fuller picture for us? when you are doing a security check on a particular refugee. >> we are often the first stop or many refugees dealing with host countries, particularly in turkey's where the host government takes on a bigger role. in syria, we have contact with other governments ongoing, so if there are security issues. there's issues of sources and information flows.
we work with experts in the field and we have quite a lengthy paper. triggers that might come up in cases that move cases over to those who would do more extensive interviewing and do more extensive hold. the u.s. is not alone on this. everybody does tend to be multilayered. i would say they divide between biometrics, so taking things like fingerprints -- anything unique in the situation is this is one emergency where we have such a high level of metrics. we have iris scans -- virtually all of the registered population
in lebanon, jordan, egypt and iraq. in turkey, the government is in charge of that in taking fingerprints. we have never had that kind of level of biometrics, along with digital graphs. that's a new element. knowing the consistency of identity is one key element, being able to go back for five years and say that's the same person. i have been asked by a number of journalists why we haven't always done that? why didn't i have a memory stick that could hold that many gigabytes? it's a point of the technology being able to operate in a field location in a reliable fashion. our turnaround time with an iris scan is three seconds. it's not the full answer, but it
is a layer and to get across that there are layers people have to get through. >> can you talk about the security process? >> refugees in the united states are subject to the highest level -- no category of traveler receives a higher category. it includes the participation of a number of u.s. government agencies. the federal bureau of investigation and a number of other agencies. as larry was saying, it is true that people who work on humanitarian programs are not completely separated from the people who work on the security side because we are very aware if a refugee came through the program and committed an act of terrorism, it could threaten the entire resettlement program. because the people have been so welcoming to refugees over the years, we over to them to make
sure these refugee program is as free as possible from people who have unknown intent or reason to do harm in the united states. >> it looked like you wanted to say something about being aware of the security problems? >> i would just back go what has been said here. kelly said what i was eager to say, which is that refugees receive more scrutiny than anyone else coming to the u.s. that's not something that is widely known. i think it is assumed that because the u.s. leads the world in resettling refugees, that it is an act of compassion, an act of humanitarian goodwill, and separate from concerns about national security.
it is really an interwoven process that does involve multiple security checks. it is important to point out that the process of vetting someone takes 18 months. we are not talking about a quick run iris scan and you are on a plane in a week. 18 months to go through the background check and vetting process. that is something to think about. if we are undertaking resettlement as a humanitarian act, we want to make sure the system has integrity, but it does need to be balanced as well with not allowing a family to languish in a camp or allowing a family with a family with medical concerns to wait for 18 months. we need to strike that balance between keeping our homeland safe and keeping the humanitarian purpose of refugee settlements.
>> let's talk about the u.s. response in particular. the u.s. promised to settle 10,000 refugees. is that enough? >> my organization thinks it is woefully inadequate. four point one million syrian refugees worldwide and in the united states to accept 10,000 syrians in the coming fiscal year. if lebanon is currently hosting the equivalent of 100 million, it would be 100 million refugees from syria. you can see the difference of what countries in the region are taking on and what the united states is pledging. a reasonable exercise of arden sharing would suggest 10,000 syrians is just not enough.
one reason i say that so confidently is the united states is very proud of the leadership we play in humanitarian relief. for years, the u.s. has welcomed more refugees than any other nation worldwide. it is something our government takes very seriously. that is not the case when it comes to syrians. we are lagging behind. we are seeing the region strain to keep up with the demand they are placing and we would need to resettle many, many more syrians. agencies like mine are calling on the united states to resettle 100,000 syrians this year. we think that's a much more responsible number when it comes to foreign-policy concerns and she monetary and assistance.
let's keep the process secure, but let's also step up and do our part to welcome this highly traumatized population into our community. >> what do you think the disconnect is due to -- the disconnect between the history of welcoming refugees and the unwillingness to welcome these refugees? >> at the great question and the agencies that resettle refugees work together under an umbrella known as refugee council usa. one of the biggest actors seems to be political will. we know where there's a will, there's a way. they settled 111,000 refugees and doubled that number two 100,000. we can do this as a country.
and now, americans are proud of the role we played with the vietnamese boat people. it is something often pointed to as a bright spot in u.s. history. we're not seeing the same level of political will when it comes to refugees. if we were responding to how we responded to the vietnamese situation. >> obviously, i disagree with that. the united states is proud of our refugees program. we are the largest refugee settlement in the world. last year, we brought in nearly 70,000 refugees from several different processing locations from all different corners of the world. our program is very different from the other 29 or 30
companies that do resettlement. even countries like australia and canada may do it in 10 or 12 locations and bring in a relatively small number of refugees. it takes 18 months to vet a refugee to come to the united states. we are not spending 18 months doing security checks. we will accept a referral of any nationality in any location at any time. at any given time, we've got something like a quarter million people turning to the system. that said, we are not the fastest program in the world. it's a large ship that takes a long time to turn. we have admitted more than 126,000 refugees.
if you look back to 2007, we brought in 12,000. after that, we were bringing in close to 20,000 for many years in a row. the program is just now gearing up. we have received almost 20,000 referrals, but we are in the process of vetting nose and getting them ready for dhs interviews. we will have a huge number of interviews and i think we will get to 10,000, but the notion we can get to 100,000 refugees when we don't have nearly the capacity to send referrals for 100,000 refugees is just not possible. >> to your question, it can be a number of things. it can be a political cycle. we have both parties running around, no one wants to take a risk on higher numbers.
what this has exposed is whether or not countries are open to receiving refugees. obviously, we are. we made that decision generations ago. the debate at the national level in this country are not about do we or do we not, it's how many, how do we do it, the implementation, the resources and so forth. what we are senior up is a conversation that is several steps behind. you have heads of state saying things like we will take the christian refugees but we won't take the muslim refugees. this is 2015 and you have people talking like this at the national level, so this has exposed a deep conversation that eastern europe has not resolved.
there are certainly problems there as we talked about earlier, but that's an important piece. our orientation is open and there are countries in europe whose orientation is not open. >> we are looking at this point for 400,000 probably in the next four or five years. my answer would the we would like the u.s. to do more because we would like all the countries to do more. i would say of the 20,000 we have made, it is true and it does put it at an earlier stage in the u.s. process. the other general ask is we are looking at ways to streamline processes, are there ways to do things better? are there other avenues by which
people can move? there may be detection opportunities that could be provided through other means rather than purely resettlement. if you look at the u.s., the narrative is a bit strange. there are is a greater danger and there have been 30,000 u.s. visas issued to syria. they were all expatriates. it's not like syrians are not here. there is a syrian community, there is migration. migration happens to the u.s. whether it's non-immigration coming through school, visitors were people migrating, i think the syrian crisis really put something out.
we have to build up the capacity to be able to make the kind of referrals that would yield 400,000 people. we have done these things in the past, but it does take time. my hope is we can maintain a positive trajectory which would be five times more syrians being admitted next year. that's certainly the goal we want to work with and see where we take it. we did see the same thing that seemed like it would stop the program in its tracks, but there has to be the political will. not just in the u.s., but has to be everyone's will to move forward and get past this narrative that there's something fundamentally worse about syrian
refugees than everyone else. these problems can be worked through. they are not insurmountable issues. they are doable and it's a matter of getting the whole in place and resources in place to do them. every country, we are running into this. i've looked at the referral versus departure numbers. other than sweden and a couple of other countries, the gap is unacceptable from the time we get cases to arrive. the swedes are known for their speed. the numbers are not ever going to be comparable to the u.s. or canada or australia. the swedes are also receiving a lot of spontaneous arrivals. so they probably don't have to make their way to the border of
sweden. that's one of the main reasons to do resettlement. even at 10%, it is the give and the outlet for the most vulnerable to show there some tangible support that countries in the region are hosting these fantastically large numbers. it's one thing to put money into a program and it's another to take people. both of those have to part of the international response. i don't say paying your way out is a problem, but has to be more than just putting money out there. that's why people are migrating irregularly because they don't have other legal options to move. >> larry talked about resources and political will. there has to be a lyrical will not just on the part of the
administration but on the part of congress to fund a resettlement program. the u.s. refugee resettlement program is an extremely expensive endeavor. my bureau at the state department spent about $400 million last year at adding 70,000 refugees. we are going to need more to bring and 85,000. the department of health and human services office of refugee resettlement also spent hundreds of millions of dollars on our program. in the state department, we have a limited amount of money to fund resettlement and humanitarian assistance. the more refugees we resettle, the less money we have for humanitarian assistance. it is one thing for refugees to be calling for 100,000 syrians, which we are not going to make
the entire program syrians, but you have to have a program of 200,000 to accommodate that. we need significantly more money than we are getting now. i'm not sure many of us have confidence we're going to get that money from congress. >> i completely agree that congress has a role to play here. it would not be responsible to accept refugees without the resources that they need to adjust to life in the u.s., to become acclimated, to learn a new language. there has to be a commensurate level of financial support to go along with the political will. i don't want to leave the audience with the perception that refugees are just sucking up resources. that is not the case. most of the refugees we help resettle become self-sufficient very, very quickly. that is one of the department of state's goals -- that individuals who are resettle to
the u.s. become both financially self-sufficient and able to live independently. we know communities are made richer who resettle refugees. they gain in resources from refugees who open businesses, who contribute to the economy of their community, and the amount of time refugees are eligible for public assistance is very limited. there is an eight month window where a refugees receives cash assistance. after that, they are expected to become completely self-sufficient. there is an outlay of resources at the beginning of the process but the country benefits from assisting refugees. >> i'm anxious to get to the audience q&a, but there's one thing i want to focus on. there are two words that did not come out of any of your mouths -- one is prejudice and one is fear. how are fear and prejudice in
congress among congress or politicians in general affecting the u.s. approach here? >> i mentioned the isis propaganda. people he this stuff and we are already self-conscious about not being able to measure up to isis, the so-called amazing isis social media presence, which i don't think is all that amazing. we sort of recycled conversations when it comes to fear mongering and particularly when it comes to the middle east. it is driven by prejudice, racism and jihad and so forth. it also raises the issue when related to the sweden question of leadership. it may be a political election
cycle, but we will still allocate resources for this in our miss humanitarian crisis. i'm disappointed that i'm not seeing this at the level i think we should, but more important we, we're not seeing it in europe. what you are seeing in europe, last week -- and this was mentioned in the opening -- let's shift a check over to turkey and say keep your refugees or build bigger walls is basically what the eu council ended up with. let's hope in december when they meet again, they can come up with something more creative and says we will set aside resources and tackle this issue head on as opposed to hiding behind fear and prejudice and misinformation.
>> about isis messaging and our own week counter messaging, trying to see the bright side, this could be something that could undermine the isis narrative. people are voting with their feet and moving out of isis-controlled territory. isis has issued a lot of communiques and videos denouncing people who leave the so-called islamic state, accusing them of blasphemy because they leave the entity they think they have established. and it's not something we are exploiting from a counter narrative perspective. people who live there want to leave. you have a few individuals in the west who want to go and live there, but aside from that, the
majority of people do not want to live under isis-controlled territory. some of the messages, particularly in europe, the most xenophobia parts of europe are -- there is a big difference between between the european experience with muslim immigration the american experience. two very different them a graphics. they get exploited by certain forces but it is undeniable. but in the u.s., i don't really see the tensions. it's more about cultural cleavages that do exist. it is a bit puzzling in a way, the position in the u.s.
i think it is more puzzling to see the american one. >> we do have tensions in this country, but we also have mechanisms, community mechanisms and resilient mechanisms to try to work out those issues and tensions. we have controls over violence and far right extremist parties and groups. in europe, we are not seeing that. we have a runaway train at the highest levels. not all of europe, but in certain parts of europe, you are seeing it as part of the national discourse and you see national leaders get in on the
side of issues that i think is appalling. >> we have heard in the u.s. from members of congress, from state and local officials welcoming the syrian refugee population and those expressions don't mention fear or prejudice. it's usually security and terrorism that are the talking points that are driving some of the conversation in the u.s. my conversation has been overwhelmed with a positive response from the american people. our phones rang every day with how can i help? i would like to welcome a syrian family into my home. there's an outpouring of sympathy and desire to help.
much of that was awakened after the photograph of the young child whose body washed ashore in greece. it has not abated. we continue to be impressed with the outpouring of generosity and welcomes that many americans are demonstrating in response to this. there is a debate to be had about the security of the refugee resettlement program, -- we will get an idea of what to expect on the hearing during the next washington journal. talk about the 2016 presidential race, joined by former utah governor jon huntsman who
currently co-chairs the bipartisan group no labels. you can weigh in on the conversation by phone, facebook, and twitter. washington journal is life every day at 7:00 eastern on c-span. announcer: a signature feature of the tv is our coverage of book fairs and festivals him across the country with top authors. here is our schedule this weekend. we are live in the heartland for those -- the wisconsin book festival in madison. at the end of the month, we will be in nashville. at the start of november, we are back on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month is the louisiana book festival. at the end of november, we are live for the 18th year in the row in florida for the miami book fair international. and the national book awards from new york city. just some of the fairs and festivals this fall.
c-span has your coverage of row to the white house 2016. year, we are taking our coverage into classrooms across the country with our student giving students the opportunity to discuss what issues they wanted to hear the most. and our-span's contest coverage on tv, radio, and online at c-span.org. >> in just a moment, our original series continues with a look at the supreme court's 1873 decision on the slaughterhouse cases. that is followed by a senate memberry committee
senator patrick leahy on some of the other cases featured in our series and their significance of history. the iran nuclear agreement coming into effect today, the discussions on the next stages of that deal. >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme is asked to u.s. give their attention. >> landmark cases. c-span's special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human story and constitutional dramas behind 12 the stork supreme court decisions. -- historic supreme court decisions.