tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 8, 2015 1:30am-7:01am EST
susan: this is an ap government susan: this is an ap government teacher who wants you to answer this question for his students. is the baker v. carr case a version of initial restraint or activism? ted: people use those terms if they like or don't like it. the point, what does the 14th amendment mean? the supreme court, in various different times have construed the 14th amendment according to what they perceive its principles to be as opposed to its exclusive legislative history which had to do with slavery. the 14th amendment now stands for proposition, including all kinds of different rights. if you go back to what the
framers of the 14th amendment were actually taking about, you can't get to a lot of these decisions. that is not the way the court has determined to construe the 14th amendment. >> thank you for another important episode. i wonder if the timing and the nature of tonight's case and others related to it, if it really isn't kind of representing the cleaning up of the failed post-civil war reconstruction business. i'm wondering how much time was wasted between then and these cases which occurred. douglas: it is a great question. i think certainly we continue to grapple with these issues today. certainly, it is a never-ending process, one we have to continue to keep working at to figure out how to make our democracy real. ted: it is not just our
ted: because it is written into the constitution. when you are talking about the unit system in georgia, in a sense, that is what the electoral college system does. there doesn't have to be a winner take all, but the electoral college is going to stay in the constitution. you would think about what a close election would be like if we had to recount the entire nation as opposed to a single state, which is what the electoral college allows you to get away with. >> i would like to hear some commentary on the practical problem we have run into wherein state legislatures, when redistricting, are slicing and dicing counties.
in terms of political efficacy, virtually everyone knows what state they live in and what counted a living. after that, it all becomes a blur. we are changing the lines every 10 years, elections, and the average person doesn't have any idea what state senate district they are in. douglas: i think you're definitely right into goes back to a comment had made earlier about how you are either stacking voters into one district to get a result of a cracking them into different districts. the court said you can't do that for racial reasons but as of now, you could do that for political reasons. until the court changes its mind, we will continue to battle with that. susan: from twitter -- ted: the arguments at the time, whether or not the guarantee, article four, section four of
the constitution guarantees a republic form of government. the argument then, if that is the provision, that would have to be the basis for the subsequent basis. that carries its own. i think most people then and most people now would agree that if we are going to have this outcome than you sort of have to use the 14th amendment. susan: springfield, new jersey. >> i do agree with the ruling in baker v. carr, but to the earlier speaker question about reynolds v. sims, i wonder how do our guests view the fact that section ii of the 14th amendment is a part of the same amendment as the equal protection clause, and it says that these
congressional delegations shall be produced proportionately to the citizens in that state whose right to vote has been denied or abridged. that does not seem to fully fit together with the concept of the personal right to representation. douglas: when you referred to was, i would say, intended to make sure that the states did in fact in franchise african-americans. jim crow disenfranchised many of those same folks. i think at its root, that clause is still trying to guarantee the rights of all americans to vote. i guess i'm not quite sure i see the real conflict with that and the desire to make sure everyone's vote counts equally.
susan: randy in pennsylvania, our last caller. we lost randy. as we close out, we talk about how this has been an evolution in our country. what context do you want to put this in as we close? what is the important thing to take away? douglas: i think, going back to the question you asked that the opening, why is baker involved in a landmark case, why does earl warren considered to be the most vital of the cases he decided at the time. i think at its heart, what warren is getting at, is that this case is about whether or not we're going to continue to live in a case of minority rule. we think about majority rules, minorities have rights. what developed was essentially a system of minority rule in most states. i think what baker v. carr did
was to correct that. it doesn't mean the system was perfect as a result, but certainly we made enormous strides toward the realization of real democracy. susan: what would you say just as warren's legacy was in this area? ted: it wasn't for chief justice warren, i don't think he would have ever had this outcome. it is interesting that the supreme court consists of eight former federal appeals court judges and the dean of the harvard law school. i don't think, if there were any federal appeals court judges on it, there might have been one. earl warren was a former governor. douglas and the chairman of the securities and exchange commission. there were a lot of politics in the background of the justices in those days. i wonder, if you had the same composition of the court then that you have today, whether the
outcome might have been different. earl warren placed a huge step, and i think part of it was because he was a politician. one of three chief justices that had run for president, by the way. susan: we had just two more cases left in our 12 part series. we have the miranda case, another early warning decision, and a part of the overhaul of the criminal justice system. our final one is is roe v. wade in two weeks. we do have a book available that is a companion guide to the series, just $8.95, available on our website. written by tony mauro, veterans critical reporter. it has summaries of each of the cases, some highlights of the decision, and what the impact or legacy of what each case has been. that is easily available to you as a way to catch up. all of these cases are posted on
>> our series continues next week with the supreme court's 1966 decision in miranda v arizona. the case they rise to the miranda warning, now issued upon arrest. the court ruled 5-4 that suspects met -- must be informed of their rights before their questions. find out more next monday. you can also learn more about c-span's landmark cases series online by going to c-span.org/ landmark cases. and from the website, you can order a landmark cases book
featuring background, highlights, and the legal impact of each case. written by that rent supreme court journalist tony morrow. landmark cases is available for a dollars $.95 plus shipping. -- $8.95.ollars 90 >> coming on c-span, patrick leahy on the impact of supreme court landmark cases. after that, that is followed by a attorney general loretta lynch on the federal investigation into the chicago police department. next, as part of our landmark cases series, an interview with senate judiciary ranking member, patrick leahy. he talks about supreme court decisions and their relevancy today. this is 30 minutes.
>> senator patrick leahy thank you for giving us time to talk about the landmark supreme court cases. how do you talk about the role of the supreme court in society today? >> well, the supreme court, depending how they decide, really touched just about everything. we have three branches of government. obviously the president and the congress but the court. their decisions can impact so much. they decide a presidential election before the ballots were counted, bush v. gore, changed dramatically the way we finance political elections. they had a great deal of effect just recently, they basically
got in the voting rights act. some states took that as a chance to disenfranchise a lot of people. so for better or worse, they can do things that affect the average person. far more than what we might do in individual acts of congress. >> there is a continuing debate and perhaps it's one that gotten out about whether or not the supreme court overreaches. at a level that wasn't intended by the founders. what is your position on that? >> some of the members of the supreme court stick exactly what the founders said. they tend to make that a flexible view depending upon whether it goes with their own views. it can be a very activist court.
they have been. they upheld segregation at one point and then realized what a mistake they made and years later, ruled it illegal. they have done some very positive things. think of a case in virginia. it was only a few decades ago, it was illegal for a man, woman of different races to be married in virginia. actually were arrested for that. it's inconceivable in america to be that anymore. that's because supreme court made it clear you can do that.
one man one woman. because of major change. roe v. wade. we debated abortion. supreme court decided roe v. wade. i remember bush v. gore. they decided an election before all the ballots were counted. i want a supreme court that is not ideologically polarized >> let's stay with that far moment. people who are critical of the actions of the supreme court saying it's anti-democratic. nine judges get to decide
something or overrule something that the representatives branch of government has decided. is it anti-democratic when they review the laws? >> some of the ways it is. take the voting rights act. that was passed decades ago. it was renewed just a few years ago. after hundreds and hundreds of hours of debate and hearings and the almost every member of the house of representative, both parties voted for it. passed virtually unanimously in the united states senate. again republicans and democrats signed into law with great pleasure by a republican president. this after weeks and months of debate, testimonies and
hearings. they had one hearing in the supreme court. one of the justices in a cavaliers way, said they obviously haven't looked it well enough. we heard -- by a 5-4 decision, they overroad it. it went totally against what the american people wanted. but, there's a small sub text the american people wanted. several states can use that to immediately pass laws that made it virtually impossible for some of the people in those states to vote. >> you are right now the ranking democrat. that's the most senior democrat on the senate judiciary committee. you chaired that panel in the past.
would you explain what the role of the senate judiciary committee. >> you have to be careful. what i said during the first televised hearings by the supreme court nomination hearing. that was for sandra day o'connor. i had to explain the most the way american system or government work. it probably be the moment when they choose a justice of the supreme court. it's a moment in the interest of all three branches are government joined. also when the guardianship of a constitution have to be safely conveyed. that we have to stand there and say, is this man or woman going to be a guided by our
constitution. realize in the senate, there's 100 senators, we have to make a decision for 300 million americans. the decision we make on supreme court justices goes beyond the time most of us will serve. they are lifetime appointments in the supreme court. if you make a mistake, you don't get to do a do over. >> what do you look for? >> i look for somebody -- i'm not as concerned about their philosophy whether a republican or democrat. will they treat all the evidence equally?
one person was nominated for the supreme court because i read some of the stuff about the constitution and the cases. then in his testimony under oath, he's taking seem to be entirely different position. i asked him, are you having a confirmation conversion? i voted against not because i agree or disagree some of the things you written or said, but the inconsistency of it, thought to be greatly. >> one of the specific cases we'll be looking at. before you came to the senate, you were a prosecutor. two of the cases have to do with rights that would have affected people who were in the judicial system. one of those is the famous miranda case. the other is the exclusionary law.
will you talk about those in the context of your work as a prosecutor and how they changed the process? >> it was a very interesting vote. just about the time i became a prosecutor. chief law enforcement officer for about a quarter of the state of vermont's population. i was 26 years old. practicing law for 2-3 years. i was asked on a friday if i take over the job on monday because there's been all kinds of problems in the state's attorney's office. he was leaving. i took it over. i did some studies over that. i realized the police have not been doing the miranda or mapp. i bring in police officers and training them. i still have retired police
officers come up and show me the miranda card that have my name on it. i also try to point out to them, thieves help follow the rules of mapp. if you do the wrong thing and it's going to be excluded. following the rules of miranda, if you don't warn people of their rights, you cannot use the confession they make. these rules protect you as well as the person you're arrested. follow it. if you got a good case, you're to have it, no matter what. make sure that people's rights are respected. i also knew from my own work and defending cases, sometimes you get the wrong person. i want to show that you respected the rights.
now, at that time, it was very controversial. what do you mean i have to read this guilty and accused person. we have to tell them their rights. of course you do. think of it this way, what if you were arrested for something and you may think, you got the wrong guy. wouldn't you want to know what your rights are? that's pretty heavily. before cases were thrown out, none of my cases were thrown out. they followed the rules. now it's inconceivable. in my state, do not follow those rules. >> in the case of mapp, the exclusionary rule much more far -- what is the age of
prosecution of people accused of act of terrorism against the united states. what are some of -- >> we are a nation of laws. we're supposed to follow the constitution. if you don't have something like mapp or have exclusionary rule, the temptation is of course we'll follow the rules. not this one time. it is so important. we got to ignore the rules. that's a very easy and treacherous road to go down. who determines what that one time is. i remember some members of the senate when osama bin laden's son-in-law was captured. and going to be prosecuted in new york.
worse than that, they read him his rights. they told him that. my response to that is, we are a nation that believes in laws. don't want we want to show that example to the rest of the world? i said frankly, if you're a prosecutor in new york city and you have osama bin laden's son-in-law being charged, you have all the evidence against to whether they confess or not, you'll do anything. of course he was convicted. we also sent the signal to the rest of the world. that's why i worry about guantanamo.
that is not the image of the united states we want to give. it plays against us. you can always find a case, somewhere, somebody might get away with something. happens so rarely. if you don't follow the rules, that's what you do, then none of us get away it. we all hurt by it. >> another area, some say precedence is important. you're so involved in privacy issues. how those mapp decision affected government's decision >> -- how we were allowed to get.
it's not going out as a prosecutor, you basically get a warrant. you might not have to put the idea -- we have a blanket and a wall. that's going to hurt us longterm. that's not going to make us suffer. the example i use is this, if you have papers in your desk at home, you fully expect police want to your home and look at those papers and they're going to have to get more.
you're holding those same files, shouldn't they have to follow the same rules? it is your privacy that we talking about. we need this to be safer. we had all the information before 9/11 to stop that attack from happening. they didn't take that information they had to and actually connect dots. if you collect anything, learn to do better now. we had very little people look into this material who can speak the languages. it doesn't make us less safe >> you reference the voting rights act. we chose the 1962 case. the chief justice at the time called it the most significant
case during his tenure on the court. do you agree? >> i do. i was in law school at the time. georgetown, i remember i was talking about it. i think we all have a right to vote. i grew up in vermont. you assumed that there. i came down here and they realized it did not always work that way. i also realized that the way you could have things ly.proportionate we are americans. americans should be allowed to vote. >> the impact over it over the course of time has been what? >> i think it was probably changed much in the united
states. one of the impacts is you see people trying to erode it. you have to ask why. >> i mentioned chief justice earl warren. four of the cases we have chosen are from his tenure. when you look back at the warren period on the court, what is his significance? hei think the fact that tried to get the unanimous court -- take brown vs. board of education. a split courto be and they kept it going. years, i think. and then they had it unanimous.
i don't think president eisenhower would have filled the need to enforce it. desegregation if it had not been for the unanimous supreme court. i was a young law student at georgetown in the honors society. we were invited to the supreme court for lunch. and they came. they did not have a head table where they sat. they sat at tables with some of the students. my wife and i got to sit with black. you will in this historic case. he made it very clear to the students that if we are going to in inething significant
this country, it is going to have to be done unanimously. otherwise, people are going to question what the court is doing. you know and i know that that is not always going to happen. court triedwarren very hard to do that. i think one you see some of the cases, you see some of the bitter dissent in some cases. who workjustices harder to make it unanimous. it was very hard for people to agree because it was a split court. these were cases -- i am going
over some of these things. citizens united split the court. justice stevens wrote his dissent. it was his scalding dissent from the bench. was a republican nominee. president ford nominated him. he felt very, very strongly about this. is people reasons why don't trust. as a purely political decision.
i think it has damaged the supreme court. >> we have eight minutes left. one of the other consistencies in the series is four of the cases we have chosen have to deal with the 14th amendment. is that coincidental? or has the court taken on 14th amendment cases more frequently? >> the 14th amendment was passed 150 years ago. since the second founding. >> why do you call it that? amendmentsries of came to affect the united states. the united states became more slavery the fact that was ending that we had to treat all people the same. know it took a long, long time.
and in some places in the country it is still going on. it was a second coming of the united states. , i they picked so many really don't know. but i do know that even among those who claim to be strict goneructionists, they have way off the reservation. corporationsed say are citizens. general eisenhower was elected president. why can't we elect a general electric president? an absurd concept, but the corrosive effect of it made a handful of people with huge think theymoney
could influence what all americans do. >> he once referred to it as a notorious era. it was the lochner case. why did you call that a notorious era? >> we are not going to look at everybody in this country. we are going to look at only wealth, or the well-connected. ner era was 32 years long when >> the supreme court was favoring employers. >> you had the threat from franklin roosevelt. i have to assume that president roosevelt knew it would never happen.
somebody started changing. there was a sense that we all come from this privileged class. we have to take care of ours. i thought the supreme court justice and the u.s. senator was supposed to take care of everybody. and obviously with the lochner era, they were not. that is a distinct improvement, moving away from that. excuse me. but also showed the same members of the supreme court who said, well, we can't do anything. thought, wait, we may actually get replaced. they may expand the court. somebody started to say, oh, those ideas. of protect the employees. of course they are ok. >> we have five minutes left. one of the cases on our list
involved harry truman. he intended to seize the steel mills. there is a big debate in congress now. what do you think about the supreme court's role in this checks and balances system? you can go all the way back to marbury vs. madison. it is well-established. any president has executive power. the easy answer is congress does not like it. so they pass a law. ofere has been criticism fo president obama regarding immigration.
the senate passed the comprehensive immigration bill. the tea party told the house they could not bring it up. it was never brought up. ng for the frustrati president to run this country be able to use executive authority. anytime the president oversteps his authority, the congress can pass a law. congress has talked about this a lot. >> in our final few minutes we ife left, i am wondering,
you look back over the ark of the court you have studied and worked with as your full on capitol hill, what is the greatest period of the court's history? the early days or sometime after that? >> i can think of all different times. have mentioned marbury vs. madison. that was, smugglers thought, what the heck are they doing? it established the supreme court as an equal power. and then you have things like dred scott, which was a terrible decision. it ebbs and flows. there were some bad parts.
guaranteeing individual rights was a very good move. "one person, one vote." that was a very good decision. iwoman's right to choose, think that was a very good decision. others would disagree. now we are going into a very shaded and concerned era where -- right to vote is being case.hall b shelby this country will be badly damaged by it. allowing large amounts of money to control our election. that will hurt us. that will put us back to the age where only the wealthy and only certain individuals have a power in this country, instead of one person, one vote. it will also bring about a
cynicism and disillusionment among voters and this country will suffer. right now the supreme court, along with the congress, is suffering in public approval ratings. >> it is suffering because people see it as not being reflective of what they think. there is a huge amount of frustration. i hear it from voters. they think, how do we stand up to all of this money? how do we stand up to the inaccessibility? had we stand up to the fact that the court makes decisions and totally ignores what congress has passed? how do we actually have a voice? in a complex society -- remember, we are not a homogeneous society. we have all kinds of backgrounds and where we live, what our backgrounds are racially and everything else.
age and education. they are saying it as not being reflected. it is not the country that is this great melting pot. .his is not reflected it is reflecting only a certain privileged few. and unless we get away from that, the actions of the congress, of the supreme court are not going to be respected by the people in this nation. >> on that note, we have to say thank you for your time. there is an optimistic note to end on. , remarks up on c-span by the homeland secretary jeh johnson. that is followed by the retta lynch on the federal investigation into the chicago police department. oner that, miael mccaul the state of homeland security. on the next "washington
on the," jordan fabian gun law president obama proposed. billhen congressman pascrell on the u.s. strategy against isis. later, senator bill cassidy of louisiana. journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> tuesday the house financial hears frommmittee members of the financial stability oversight council. including securities exchange directorte and cordray. that is live at 10:00 a.m.
eastern on c-span3. >> he was such an authentic person. always thought there was more to the story of lady bird. she became, i think, the first modern first lady. she did a big step and a very important big project. she wrote her book as soon as she left the white house. she really invented the modern worst lady. "q&a" we night on discussed the book, "lady bird and lyndon." it gives you an inside look at the marriage and political partnership of lady bird and lyndon b. johnson. >> she is a perfect example for the conclusion i came to. those women saw something in those men. opportunity tohe
really climb and make a mark on the growth. they married them in spite of parental objection. i had to find out more about her. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern "q&a."ific on c-span's johnson talks about homeland security regarding defense one. he talked about cyber security. due to technical difficulties, this 25 minute portion begins in progress. let's talk about the screen process. --screening process. this is a flashpoint about refugees and the muslim community as something to be watched. california, why
should the u.s. have faith in the system you're in charge of if they could not screen this woman or pair or much less the rest of the immigration population? wave--yond that, refugee a refugee wave? why should there be any faith in the system? jeh johnson: one of the two attackers was born in this country. arrived onhis wife, a visa for her fiance. system, as you have heard from lindsey graham last night, has ordered that the department of state and the department of homeland security evaluate that specific process, which we will do. anything that involves the state .epartment and vetting
the refugee screen process is the most multilayered process for admission of anybody into our borders. on average, it takes 18 to 24 months. we have particular advancements when it comes to the screening of iraqi and syrian refugees. it is a thorough, thorough process. have not identified as the visa waiver program, where we have security enhancements, and we are making security enhancements because of this foreign terrorist fighter ph enomenon. that is a good place for our focus on the executive branch, to enhance our security. kevin baron: and dispatch a doesny the fiance visa -- that accompany the fiance visa? jeh johnson: no.
we are evaluating that particular process. kevin baron: and we would like to prevent another person like this woman coming through. therehnson: this assumes were flags that were raised or should have been raised in the process of her admission to the united states. i am not prepared to say that. i'm not prepared to make that declaration. the investigation is still open. this entire wave of is thedoes highlight need for an approach when it comes to terrorist inspired attacks. a terrorist inspired attack is one where you don't have an advance notice. the intelligence committee has developed a good system for detecting overseas plots an
early stage. plot is a harder challenge. it could happen at a moments notice with little or no notice to the law enforcement. enhancing our law enforcement efforts and our ypproach to violent extremit in the homeland is important. me andaron: dr. call others in your community talk about the need to see something, say something. we are asking americans, if you say something -- see something, say something. that people out, in a way-- rat people out, in a wya. -- way. jeh johnson: i disagree with that. kevin baron: that's why i said it that way. , in you hear the country
mean, before the shooting, , it was one of the most divisive moments we've ever seen. it was pro-gun control, anti-gun-control, pro-openness toward muslims, shut the country down. it was incredibly divisive. this hemisphere is calling for americans to speak up. look, if you see something, say something. that means say something about a pattern of behavior, a package in a suspicious place. that does not mean alert law enforcement to a personal profile of someone or a person's religion or skin color or clothing. it means awareness concerning
c suspicious behavior. this is not to vilify american drive them into hiding in this country. now, more than ever, we need to work with the muslim community. this is communities across the country, encouraged to help us help them if they cease some and traveling in the wrong direction. if someone is radicalized and turned to violence, there's somebody else that sees the signs. we need to build bridges, muslimnships, with communities across the country, and not to vilify them.
that would be hugely counterproductive to our efforts, which is why i am doing this event today at 4:00. we need to send a message to the public at large and muslim communities that the answer to our homeland security efforts cannot be to vilify all muslim americans and people because of religion. the muslim religion is the second most populous religion in the world. one in four people in this world are muslim. from multiple continents. there are something like 3 million in this country. the overwhelming majority of muslims, from whatever continent, from whatever nationality, our people of peace -- are people of peace. their community is being targeted by a slum estate.
--by islamic state. we need to help them counter isil. i have been at this since i have been secretary. this is becoming all the more important. kevin baron: the other group we ise talking about conservative extremism, or white extremism. there is a study out from the southern poverty law center. assertion thathe there is actually a bigger extremist threaten the united states? jeh johnson: i would not call a conservative extremism. i think that is very unfair to conservatives. it is sick behavior. domestic terrorism, of whatever stripes, is sick behavior. dhs, a created, in community partnership focused on
countering violent extremism of the domestic nature with a domestic agenda versus an international terrorist agenda as well. given the nature of some of the types of domestic terrorism, like charleston south carolina, back in the more challenging for -- that can be more challenging for dhs. it is the case the domestic extremism, violent extremism of the type in charleston or oklahoma city, we just recently have a 20th anniversary of the bombing in oklahoma city. it is a huge challenge. it is something we have to address, be aware of, brewed out. -- root out. kevin baron: the pundit industry wants you to say that's a bigger threat, or the other one is a bigger threat. does that -- the other one is a bigger threat.
?oes that matter to you jeh johnson: i do not get bogged down by debates about terminology. when you deal with terrorist inspired attacks, you have to work with communities that are being targeted by those who want to inspire people in those communities. you have to build bridges. it is foolish to do otherwise. it is counterproductive to vilify that community and drive them away from us. we have to work with them. that is true in multiple different contexts, whether you're talking about something inspired by al qaeda, islamic state, or some other form of extremism. kevin baron: a final gun-control question, i cyber question, and then the audience. -- a cyber question, and then
the audience. and control is a subject because of the shooting--gun control is a subject of the shooting. we heard from the president several frustrating moments, but no grand presentations or policy changes. ?here does the sit in your mind where does gun-control fit in the terror debate? why should americans hand in their guns, as a lot of advocates want, when half the country feels completely opposite to their core that there is no way he will take a firearm away from them when the government cannot protect us? jeh johnson: two things. as a matter of common sense, as the president said last night, if somebody is on a no-fly list,
why should it be the case that they are not allowed to fly but can buy a gun? that's a matter of common sense. gun-control is not an all or nothing proposition. there are responsible measures that can be taken, and should be taken, that i know the congress and this ministration have talked a lot about. it doesn't mean and doesn't require taking guns away from responsible gun owners. do tois a lot we can better control the prevalence of guns in this society without taking it away from responsible gun owners. we have to continue to make that effort. this is part of the problem. kevin baron: what can we do? jeh johnson: the administration,
we have specific proposals up there, starting with the president proposed last night. you're on a no-fly list, you should not be in to buy an assault rifle. kevin baron: my last question for the q&a. on the cyber dhs. jeh johnson: i have not forgotten about cyber security. kevin baron: i just want to follow-up on the opm hack. a lot of people in this room got a letter saying their information was compromised. jeh johnson: i got mine last week. kevin baron: who did the hack? not--hnson: we have [laughter] jeh johnson:--publicly attributed the attack to anyone. there was a delegation of , anese here last week minister level delegation for a
dialogue with the attorney general. and there was going to be more cooperation? jeh johnson: a number of other them to liveourage up to what they signed onto on paper, the commitment to cyber security norms. they stepped up to this in september. when i said to my counterpart last week and publicly is that actions will speak louder than words. we now have a baseline for what the chinese government says they will agree to. we are pressing them, that actions speak louder than words. i think we made progress. we will have another dialogue this.e and keep at kevin baron: and we're not
saying the chinese did this? [laughter] kevin baron: our first question, we have a microphone. high, my name is doreen. , my name is doreen. --am a pum i am wondering what you're doing about the future of the agency to include more young people to create a cutting-edge and adaptable agency? jeh johnson: thank you for that question. congratulations on coming to work at dhs. there's never been more important time to focus on homeland security as a nation. dhs, i was to surprised to see that after 12
years, we are still stovepipes in our component missions. on a strategic way through unity of effort, , ath has been referred to headquarters, being more strategic about what each component of the mission should 's, and what each component budget should be. need this many helicopters, this many vessels, this much cyber security, we are now giving them guidance, much earlier in the budget cycle, and in the acquisition cycle, about what we think we need across the broader mission. my overall objective when i am secretary is to see the department function better as a
business and a government agency. we have been to stove piped for too long. one of the tangible things i've is to createregard a joint task force dedicated to border security. stunnedot to dhs, i was to learn that when it comes to border security, we have got patrol, we have got immigration, we have citizenship and immigration services, we have got coast guard, all working separately on their missions when it comes to border security. i'm like, wait him in it, let's courtney this effort--coordinate this effort on the southeast and southwest. we stood that up earlier this year. i think it is working well. we have a challenge on the southwest border.
i'm meeting with my joint task force directors regularly to address this. you're talking point has been they are talking pointr has been they are declining. jeh johnson: yes, with the exception of one year since 1972. this year, we have seen a steady increase beginning in july. has gone up more sharply. -- dobaron: you know i you know why? drawohnson: i hesitate to cause and effect. the numbers are rising. rocess of the p addressing it. on the border, the numbers
have reason steadily by 5000 in each group of families and children for a total of 10,000 each month since july. people have obviously been moving around based on internal reports. to curbthe next step this? jeh johnson: internal reports? you would know about them, would you lisa? >> potato, potato. [laughter] >> the numbers are increasing. the numbers they rather flat to the winter. what is the next step? jeh johnson: we are evaluating what to do right now.
we've continued a fairly aggressive public messaging campaign. i believe that more will be necessary. we have, since last year, focused our efforts on criminal smugglers. i believe that will be necessary in the southwest. we will have to work with hhs for the placement of ua sees now that the numbers of ua sees now that thec's numbers are rising. kevin baron: so in right here -- someone right here? >> thank you jeh johnson for your service and what you do to keep the people and great nation safe. i'm a graduate of georgetown university. the threat to the united states, obviously your area of responsibility is the homeland.
friends are coming to the homeland from overseas. there is an external component to this. your writing engaging country such as europe and england. -- you are right engaging countries in europe such as england. threats to thet country are coming from pakistan and saudi arabia. the california commerce suspects -- california suspects and new york suspects have links back there. engaging countries like pakistan to shut down training grounds? by the way, i am muslim, i am from afghanistan, and i love this country more than any place on earth.
jeh johnson: first, engaging countries like afghanistan and the arab world, let us not forget turkey, turkey has a huge border problem. there are syrian refugees in the seven digits. engaging those countries is not new. we have been doing that for some time. one of the things that i omitted from my original remarks, but i want to do, is put more preclearance capability at overseas airports. to screen people before they get on flights. we set up one in other dobby last year. bi last year.
we have clear and set up at 10 additional airports. i think the current threat environment demonstrates the need for additional preclearance. the aim in these countries is not new. kevin baron: so what does productive mean? where else would you like preclearance? jeh johnson: we have advanced screening of people before they get on flights at 15 locations. we have denied boarding to a number of people, including people getting on flights in otheabu dhabi. kevin baron: we are at the end of our time. jeh johnson: it was mentioned the reportuthored that led to the repeal of don't ask don't tell.
every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation with your calls and your comments on facebook and twitter. tuesday smithsonian secretary future ofton on the the institution. see it at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our student documentary contest asked students to tell us what issues they wanted to hear from the presidential and. follow the road to the white house coverage and get all of the details from our contest at c-span.org. >> attorney general loretta lynch announced a justice department investigation into the chicago police department
and issues related to the use of force and handling of allegations of misconduct. this briefing is 30 minutes. lynch: good morning everybody. justice isent of committed to upholding the highest standards of law enforcement throughout the united states. every american expects and deserves the protection of law enforcement that is effective, responsive, respectful and most importantly constitutional. thanks to the tireless dedication of men and women who wear the badge, most americans received just that. but with community members feel they are not receiving that kind there are profound
consequences for the well-being of the community. and for the countless law enforcement officers who strive to fulfill their duties with professionalism and integrity. the department of opened an investigation into whether the chicago police department has engaged in a pattern of violation of the constitution. will examine a number of issues related to the chicago police department use of force, including use of deadly force, racial disparities, and the accountability mechanism. disciplinary actions and the handling of allegations of misconduct. this investigation has been requested by a number of officials. it has been opened only after a preliminary review and careful consideration of how the justice department can best use our
resources to meet chicago's needs. this investigation will be conducted i experienced career attorneys from the civil rights division. the u.s.assistance of attorney for the northern district of illinois. they will review the allegations. they will meet with a broad cross-section of community members and city officials and law enforcement officers to explain our process and to hear from anyone who wishes to share information relevant to this investigation. we will examine policies and practices. we will issue a report of our findings. unconstitutional patterns and practices, the department of justice will announce publicly that we will seek a court enforceable agreement with the police department and work with the city to implement appropriate reforms.
our goal in this investigation is not to focus on individuals but to improve citizens lives. to ensure that officers are being provided with the tools that they need. to partner with civilians and to strengthen public safety. we understand that the same systems that fail community members often fail conscientious officers. losing the trust of these citizens. this makes it more difficult to gain help. to encourage the victims and the witnesses of crime to speak up. to fulfill the most basic responsibilities of officials. and hostility is allowed to fester they can erupt into unrest. this is one of my highest priorities as attorney general.
the justice department intends to do everything we can to create those bonds to safer and fairer communities across the country. we will seek to work with local officials and with residents and law enforcement officers to ensure that the people chicago have the world casts -- class police department they deserve. >> will this include the cook county state's attorney? lynch: our investigation is focused on the use of force and accountability within the police department. . theould you please tell us
status of the investigation and the reaction to those video documents of the shooting? lynch: with respect to the ,nvestigation into the death that investigation is ongoing. it is being conducted by the u.s. attorney's office for the northern district. as with all of our investigations, they are thorough they are independent and they are impartial. we will review the federal statutes.
we are thorough and efficient in investigation. we don't predict the timing of what aboutigation >> the documents they came out about the police accounts and how it's different from the video? all that information will be factored into the investigation. we don't comment while the investigation is ongoing. >> chicago's one of the largest police department in the country. societies effect the ability to find these violations?
is important to note that what we do and investigation, particularly focus on the what we are looking at is how does the chicago police department track and treat those actions? a lot of the review that we do is of the systems of the chicago police department. how they handle specific matters. what we're looking at is to see whether or not the police department as a systemic matter has engaged in constitutional violations of policing. this case will be worked in conjunction with the civil rights division. and the u.s. attorney's office. we are confident we will be able to cover it. the evidence in this investigation found its way to the corporation counsel for the city. will city hall be part of this
review? will you be considering obstruction of justice charges against any police officer who may have been on the same that night? lynch: we will look at the departments method and manner of using force. whether we find racial disparities. it will encompass a number of things. how offices are disciplined and the disciplinary system. the matters the matters that you are talking about seem to relate to a different issue. we will take information from all interested parties. we are particularly interested in hearing from community groups.
hearing from the rank-and-file police department. >> we are not protecting what charges if any will be brought. as a general matter, we you have an open investigation, we do not discuss what specific charges may be brought until the resolution of that investigation. >> i do think it is important to understand that the pattern and .ractice investigation
it is both independent and appropriately aggressive but i'm not going to comment on specifics. >> part of the criticism of this case has been how long it has taken for any measure of justice to be taken as a result of what happened in that incident. video was turned over the federal authorities nine days after it happened. can you confirm that i can you tell us why it's taken this long? to speak tooing when we received the evidence. we have been reviewing all the facts and circumstances. death.mcdonald's
what about the unlawful detention allegations? lynch: we are looking at the use of force. the issues that you raise are very important but they are not part of this investigation. was reserve the right to expand the investigation if new information comes to light. we can require a review of constitutional issues. >> the president talked about urging muslim leaders to step up their efforts to stop radicalization.
is the justice department increasing its effort in this area? lynch: with respect to homegrown the presidentism, was appropriately mentioning that is a problem for all americans in every community and every state in dealing with this. who may be closest to the situation have a responsibility as well to try to explain. we are always reviewing our efforts of counterterrorism. not just that the department of justice but at the department of homeland security. outreach to arab and muslim communities. we are always looking to include how those communities can be empowered to deal with this
issue. one of the things that i was is to ask if they know what their children are doing online. there are number of ways that the muslim american community could be very effective. >> can you tell us the status of the eric garner investigation? lynch: that investigation is still open so i'm not going to comment on the specifics of that. is being conducted by the u.s.
attorney's office for the eastern district of new york. it is independent and it is impartial. it is reviewing all the relevant issues. >> just yesterday, the head of the illinois police department resigned. the accountability mechanisms in the state are part of this review process. the functionabout of the disciplinary system? attorney general lynch: i don't have comment on the personnel actions that may have been taken with regard to any board at this time. what i can say whenever we have an investigation, particularly into use of force and accountability, that the issues of how a police department not only tracks but resolves and disciplines for those uses of force is a key element of that. as one of the many, many things we'll look at reviewing. also i don't want to make it think we are limiting it to chicago's systems.
of course we need to hear from community members, from residents who have experienced situations where they may feel that the use of force was not dealt with appropriately. and so we compare those to how it's handled internally. the investigation covers a host of issues. i don't want to make it seem as if we are looking only at chicago systems. because it's very, very important that we hear also from community members. it's also important that we hear from rank-and-file police officers about their perceptions of their training. their perceptions of how use of force is handled from their perspective as well. >> question it for ms. gupta, based on your experience, you're now long experience with these kinds of investigations, what would you expect the timeline to be? in chicago are we talking months or years? ms. gupta: sure. as you know probably that we are
unable to give any specific timeline. all we are able to say is that the department will be conducting this review in a very thorough manner. and we'll not leave any stone unturned and we look forward to working with everyone who has a stake in the chicago police department. >> madam attorney general, as a follow up to that. with a department as big as eric was saying, how far back is the review? three years? 10 years? how do you determine whether a police department as big as chicago has a pattern of practice -- attorney general lynch: it's hard to say at this point how far back we'll go because we have yet to begin. we look at, for example, civilian complaints. we look at trends in civilian complaints. we look at trends in accountability and trends in discipline. so we may start with one perspective. it could very easily expand into a longer time frame. at this point i'm not going to cabin the time period of the review of the procedures and things that have occurred.
>> follow up on that and another question to pose. i think in the cleveland police investigation it went for 21 months. that would obviously take a ton your of political appointees under this administration. are you confident this chicago pattern and practice review will be completed on your tenure? my main question is about the terrorism investigation. you mentioned in your interview on nbc that you were not sure what ideology motivated this attack. but then we have the president give a big oval office address talk about how we are going to step up our fight against isil and this attack in some detail. how should i reconcile those things. are you confident it has something to do with isil? attorney general lynch: i'm going to go in reverse order to deal with that issue and your question regarding the timeline
of the investigation. at this point we are discussing the san bernardino investigation because we want the public to be aware of how these investigations are conduct. of their complexity. and the fact that they are a marathon and not a sprint. we are trying to keep people informed while also maintaining integrity of investigative techniques and the like. you do have us talking about this investigation more than we can talk about others. for example, as you see from the questions here today. at this point we are not prepared to say that we -- we are not prepared to limit any particular ideology to what may have inspired these individuals. there are a number of groups that are on social media looking to encourage people to commit acts of violence within the homeland. so at this point we simply do not want to rule anything out. the president was talking about, however, the specter of isis which is an evolving threat against american interests here and abroad. and our campaign to defeat isis.
but also other terrorist groups that seek to harm american interests here and abroad. with respect to your question about the timing, again, we can't give you any prediction on this. it is my view that these investigations are significant. they are important. and we feel that they will be carried out because, frankly, it's in the interest of the people of the city of chicago who deserve a world class police department and who deserve constitutional policing. >> i was wondering why the department did not open an investigation into the chicago police department before the ill illinois attorney general called for it given the volume of complaints against the department? and for how long the justice department was aware of the videos of the mcdonald shooting and the others that are due to come up? attorney general lynch: as the u.s. attorney has indicated. we are not comment on the timeline as evidence comes in and our review of that. what can i say is we did receive requests from a number of people and offices to look at the
chicago police department. we considered those requests. we also considered what we saw of the chicago police department also. a combination of factors. a review by the career people in the civil rights division has led us to come to this conclusion that this particular pattern and practice investigation is necessary. >> don't know anyone could have predicted the shear number of cases, shooting relate the and police investigations that you have been asked to undertake not only here, ferguson, south carolina, cleveland, etc., etc. is the department of civil rights division prepared in terms of funding and staffing and statutory authority to deal with these? do you worry that the system is going to become overwhelmed by these investigations? attorney general lynch: i'll will always take additional resources should congress seek to allocate them to me. we are confident with the strong
team we are building with the civil rights division and u.s. attorney's office in illinois will be well staffed. and other cases we work very, very closely with our local u.s. attorney's offices on these matters. often they are the ones who bring them to our attention and work as we see on the underlying criminal cases. >> i have a follow-up to what he said. do you have an idea how many people, then, you are deployed to analyze the amounts of data, do you bring in outside contractors and academics? attorney general lynch: i won't comment on the size of the investigative team because that changes over the time related to issues. we do rely upon police experts and people who are statisticians. but in this instance we are not predicting of those individuals who will be involved. again it may change the more we get into the matter. >> you mentioned sort of briefly a preliminary review that was done. can you sort of elaborate on what specifically you were told to make you think there must be a systemic problem that's worth of justice department looking into.
attorney general lynch: no, nice try. we don't go into that. what i will say is that we did review the requests. we review what we saw the chicago police department and felt that this investigation was appropriate and this was the time to open the investigation. >> talking about the number of investigations that are taking place, they are all reactionary to specific instances, some have led to civil unrest. what can the department do beforehand to try to prevent things like this from happening in the first place? attorney general lynch: all the pattern and practice investigations are not totally reactionary in terms of specific cases. we often have situations where police departments reach out to us and request assistance in terms of training and collaborative reform. for example, in the baltimore
situation that was an ongoing situation and after working with the baltimore police department, we felt a pattern of practice investigation was required in that matter. that was one where it had come about as a result of a different type of process. when we are talking with the police department, we are will looking to see the depth of the issues. whether or not the constitutional issues are implicated. that is the impetus for a pattern of practice investigation. >> this administration is so aggressive by opening civil rights cases. you have a limited number of resources. i think the hope was some police departments would see the cases and take a hint or take care of their problems. the mayor of chicago didn't quite get it. do you think these high profile investigations are sending a message? do you think the police departments across the country get it in terms of excessive use of force? attorney general lynch: in my discussions, they look very
carefully at the department of justice actions. many of them do try and look at our consent decrees and the issues that spurred a pattern of practice investigation that tried to implement changes to get into that situation. that is our hope. that is what we hope for. we hope that the reports, which are all on our website. i know you-all have read them, but we hope these reports do talk about situations in which police departments find themselves possibly having violated the constitution. it is our view that police departments will and should look at those reports and take actions before it arises to the level of either a specific case or an incident involving a civilian and a law enforcement officer or the department having to take action. >> when did your preliminary investigation begin? did it begin before the call by the state attorney general? did it begin before the public release of the video? attorney general lynch: i'm not
going to comment on that. >> as recently as last week, the mayor of chicago didn't want the justice department involved in the city. he since relented. but how confident are you that you're going to get the cooperation of the city that you need? attorney general lynch: we go into these investigations in every city hoping that we will receive the cooperation of the city. and in a situation where we would not we would engage with them and them know what we need and why it's important. we are going into this investigation with the view we'll get the cooperation not only the city but the community. it's very, very important to us to hear from community members about these types of interactions. >> last week at the dinner you commented on d.o.j. vigorously working toward protecting any -- muslim community and any anti-muslim rhetoric that might come out of the attack that just occurred in san bernardino.
can you elaborate on that any types of measures d.o.j. is taking at the moment to look at the -- attorney general lynch: we prosecute deeds not words. we always have a concern when we see rhetoric rising against any particular group in america that might inspire others to violent action and violent action is what we would have to deal with. at this point i think i would refer to how the president dealt with it last night, which is as we consider the ways in which we keep american interests safe here and abroad, not to give into fear and not to let fear make us abandon our values. what we are focused on obviously is protecting all the email people under the am bit of the department of justice. and our concerns are that the understandable fear that is are out there after san bernardino not lead people to either take the law into their own hands or take action that is are not going to be justified.
thank you all. on the next washington journal, on the gun control measure that president obama proposed in the wake of the san bernardino shooting. pascrellgressman bill of new jersey on the u.s. strategy against isis. later, our conversation on isis and preventing terrorist attacks in the u.s. continues with senator bill cassidy of louisiana. live everyjournal is morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. wednesday, fbi director james coney testifies at the senate judiciary committee about .errorism efforts live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3.
also on wednesday, leon rodriguez, director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services testifies at a house judiciary subcommittee. p.m. onlive at 12:30 c-span2. she was such an authentic person. i always thought there was more to lady bird johnson than what s covere she became the first modern first lady. she had a big staff. she had an important project. she wrote a book as an issue left the white house. she really invented the modern first lady. >> sunday night on q&a, historian betty boyd discusses her book, lady bird and linda. lyndon. into the inside look marriage of lady bird johnson
and lyndon johnson. >> she is the perfect example is saw that -- saw something in those men. an opportunity to climb and make a mark in the world. and they married them despite of parental objections. she is a good example of that. that is why i decided i had to find out more about her. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> next, house homeland security committee chair michael mccaul on the state of homeland security. at the national defense university in washington, d.c. on monday. his remarks are one hour.
>> good afternoon and welcome. it's wonderful to be back at the national war college. it's such a prized institution. it's a privilege to join you today no introduce the chairman of the homeland security committee chairman michael mccaul. chairman mccall is currently serving his sixth term. in january, he'll enter his fourth year as chairman of the house homeland security committee. this committee has a -- he also served on the committee of foreign affairs. under the chairman's leadership, the homeland security committee has made quite the run. this year the committee has passed 55 bills, and 7 bills
became law. this is the result of leadership and teamwork of congressman mccaul was the cochair of the congressional high-tech caucus and the cybersecurity caw fuss cuss. the me had led the way between government and industry. he's responsible for creating the hope act, which was signed by the president and became law in october 20. chairman mccaul was well versed in counterterrorism operations. he also led the joint terrorism task fort charged with preventing terrorist activity.
our country. thank you for mentioning my five teenagers at home -- it's to -- we have former attorney general ed meese. thank you sir for your service as he was leaving the justice department, i was coming in as a young prosecutor. i see john from my committee who chaired the task force. and neck who served with distinction in vietnam and services me and my committee. well. there are others.
want to thank the national defense university for hosting us. and the national war college. i cannot think of a better place to give these remarks. they are sobering. i picked this day for several reasons. it's anniversary of pearl harbor. my father was a world war ii veteran serving -- 74 years ago today, japanese forces struck the united states naval base at pearl harbor. that dark day ended up giving
rise to the greatest generation. just last week, terror struck again on american soil, attacking our nation from within and committing their deeds in the name of isis. the new standardbearer of evil. make no mistake, we are a nation at war. 14 years after 9/11, the fight against islamist terror continues on. our own city streets are now the front lines. san bernardino was not an isolated event. terrorists are on the offense, working to deploy to our shores and radicalize our citizens to commit attacks of violence. i was disappointed last night when the president failed to lay out any new steps to fight this threat. instead, he doubled down on a
strategy of hesitancy and half measures. this should not just be a wake-up call. it should be a call to action. for far too long, we have allowed extremists to reclaim their momentum. cells andom terror forming terrorist armies. as result, the state of our homeland is increasingly not secured. i believe 2015 will be seen as a watershed year in this long board. the year when our enemies gained the upper hand and the spread of terror once again woke the west. it sits on hallowed ground, the 9/11 memorial. consecrated by the loss of thousands of innocent americans and the sacrifices of those who worked to save their lives.
askedir honor, we have you to never forget that day. we are beginning to repeat the mistakes of the past. we are not acting early enough to keep the terrorist groups from spreading. there are some in washington who are in denial about the threat that we face. in 2013 president obama announced the global war on terror was effectively over. ironically, just weeks before his speech, the leader of isis announced its fort -- its formation. in january 2014, only days after isis invaded fallujah, the president dismissed the group as a j.v. team of terror. that same month, his own secretary of homeland security, a man who i deeply respect, agreed with me that the jihadist in syria was becoming more threat. year, in the state of union address the president , touted his draw down of
american forces overseas and declared the shadow of crisis has passed. only a month later the director of national intelligence announced that it was the deadliest in the history of global terror. indeed the president's words , came only weeks after the shocking charlie hebdo attacks in paris. when i recently met with french counterterrorism officials i , assure you they did not think the shadow of cries had passed. last month the president claimed that isis was too taint. -- isis was contained. last week the president said america was safe from isis. safe from an isis attack.
the same morning the san bernardino terrace conducted their massacre. i've had enough. we cannot be blind to the threat before us. isis is not contained. it is expanding at a great cost to the free world. in november, the group managed to conduct three major terrorist attacks on three separate continents in just three weeks. this is not a terrorist group on the run. it is a terrorist group on the march. and their ability to conduct operations is growing. isis has been linked more than 60 terror plots against western targets. it has established presence in 19 countries. it has recruited operatives from 130 nations. -- from more than 100 nations. isis is now more dangerous than
al qaeda ever was under osama bin laden. its tentacles have spread into the west including the united states. the president's national security strategy released this year, outlines a doctrine of strategic patience confronting threats. this is wreckless. america cannot adopt a wait and see approach while the world and terrorists plot. we are called upon to lead. it was president reagan who said the weakness invites direction. president kennedy beforehand declared america was paid any price bearing burden to secure our free society. but today our allies, we are up ,- we believe are uncertain reluctant to lead and eager to
place the burden on someone else. this kind of indecision is a decision itself. if the greatest generation had sat on its hands, the world would not be recognizable today. in the same way, if we let islamic terrorists gain further ground, we will be talking about a struggle that last more than just a generation. from the streets of paris to the skies of egypt, we have been reminded of the destructive power of this movement and the insidious ideology that fueled it. we have also been reminded that delay can be deadly. when we see terror in western cities, when isis declares new provinces, when millions of additional refugees flood the shores, it will be further proof that inaction has serious consequences. in fact, i believe this
leadership void has put the united states homeland in the highest threat environment since 9/11. the fbi is investigating nearly 1000 home grown terror cases. most of which isis related across all 50 states. already, federal authority have arrested over 70 isis supporters in our country. that's more than one per week over the last year. if you add san bernardino to the list, there has been 19 here at home. murdernclude plans to tourists on florida beaches. they set up pipe bombs on capitol hill, detonating explosives at new york city landmark and attack in american college campuses. the extremist activity has made 2015 the single most active year of home grown terror.
the first six months of 2015. fact, there were more homegrown terror cases in the first six months of the year since 9/11. our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have stopped attacks. however in a world where terror has gone viral, we are struggling to monitor every threat. as we saw in garland, texas, the first time of a hatch not might be an internet hash tag. tweeted only minutes before an attack. as we saw in san bernardino, it might be a facebook status pledging allegiance to terrorists posted online. , word might be like the chattanooga terrorist rampage where the shooter have no hint of taking the lives of united states service members. this is why we need to focus on stopping acts of terrorism
themselves. the message of groups like isis is either come to syria to join the fight or kill where you are. the administration is not doing enough to keep america from being brainwashed from groups like isis. there is too little outreach to vulnerable communities. there's no effort here at home to combat terror propaganda. there are few credible offramps from the path of terrorist violence. this is unacceptable. americans will be recruited by terrorist groups at the speed of broad band but we are responding at the speed of bureaucracy. our committee unanimously approved bipartisan legislation to accelerate prevention efforts in the homeland.
in the wake of shooting in california, i'm working to get this bill quickly passed. we also need to do everything we can to keep americans away from terrorist safe havens. that is why i launched a bipartisan congressional task force on combating terrorists and foreign fighter travel. in the final report, task force concluded the united states government has largely failed to stop americans from going overseas to join extremist. they identified security weaknesses which allow terrorists to cross borders. more than 30,000 individuals from around the world had become foreign fighters in syria. over 5000 of them have western passports which make it easier to get into the united states.
as we you saw in paris, some are being sent back to conduct the attacks. more than 250 americans also joined the fight. the 50 have already come home. some have been arrested on terrorism charges while others could be ticking time bombs. we must do more urgently to shut down the jihadist super highway. to and from the conflict zone. it is simply too easy to get there. one american said, i just went online and bought a ticket. it was that easy. it was like booking a flight to miami beach. it is also disturbingly easy to get back. the mastermind of the terror --acks wrapped in isis is isis'online magazine.
i led a congressional delegation and saw security loopholes firsthand. we found widespread failures. many countries were not screening travelers against terror watch lists they were not checking passports for fraud and didn't have access to the intelligence they needed. our task force issued over 50 recommendations for fixing these vulnerabilities in america and overseas. today i'm pleased to announce that we are turning these recommendations into law. we are starting this week to tighten the viva waiver program. which allow countries to come to the united states for 90 days without getting a visa. think about that. , the majority of the terrorist attackers had western passports.
they can get into the united states without a visa. this bill has strong bipartisan support and i believe will address the problem identified. this bill also force high risk individual who been to terror hot spot to go through a more rigorous screening process before coming to america. they will share with their allies. it will crack down on passport fraud. this is just the beginning. over the coming weeks, we'll introduce a slate of new bills passed on the findings of the task force to keep terrorists from crossing our borders. this will include enhancing the security of the visa process. developing a national strategy and improving information
sharing here at home. and helping foreign partners address security weaknesses. we will push forward as well legislation to enhance airport security and the streamline department homeland security. into a more focused, counterterrorism organization. our government must also move swiftly to combat the extremist in syria. isis has said in its own words, that it wants to take advantage of the refugee process. they did that in pairs. i can reveal today that the united states government has nfc -- has information to indicate that individuals tied to terror group in syria is attempted to gain access to our country through the u.s. refugee program. accordingly, i drafted legislation to create the most robust national security vetting
process to screen syrian and iraqi refugees. it passed the house with aeto proof major. in light of the threats, i urge the senate to act on our legislation and for the president to sign it. extremists are not only disguising their travel. they are also concealing their communications. no longer terror plots by using caves. today they hide their messages in dark pace. using encrypted applications to their law enforcement intelligence service. this is one of the greatest counterterrorism challenges of the 21st century. it is one of the biggest fears that keeps me up at night. when the administration says
there are no known credible threats it means less today than it once did. we cannot stop what we cannot see. the terrorist uses secure communications and they managed to stay under the radar. we should be careful not to find encryption itself. we couldn't shine a light on these communications even with the warrants. unfortunately, there are no simple answers to this complex problem. this is more than a privacy versus security challenge. it is a security versus security challenge. a legislative knee-jerk reaction could weaken internet protections and privacy for americans, but doing nothing
puts american lives at risk and makes it easier for terrorists to escape justice. it is time for congress to act because the white house has failed to bring all parties together to find solutions. that is why today i am calling for the creation of a national commission on security and technology, challenges in the digital age. i plan to unveil legislation soon that would establish this commission under congressional authorization and would bring together the technology sector, privacy, and civil liberties groups, academics, and the law enforcement community, to find common ground. this will not be like other blue-ribbon panels established and forgotten. the threats are real, so this legislation will require the commission to develop a range of actionable recommendations to protect privacy and public safety.
finally, most importantly, we must recognize that the best homeland defense is a good offense. we will not win the war against islamist terror until we take the fight to the enemy and deprive them of their safe havens. this was the top recommendation of the 9/11 commission, yet we have failed to live up to it. we need to drain this want in -- this swamp in syria and iraq, or the swamp will come to us. unfortunately, the president lacks a cohesive military strategy. he has tied the hands of our generals behind their backs. indeed, right now, he believes in containment. the winning strategy is to defeat and destroy isis, and to provide the resources to do
exactly that. these are the immediate steps we need to take to turn the tide. first, we must remove the limitations that have kept us from hitting isis as hard as we can. this means loosening the rules of engagement from the air, letting our special operations forces get directly involved in the fight, and arming opposition groups more quickly and completely. second, we must carve out the space needed to protect the moderate opposition and to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. i've spoken with the ambassadors from turkey, iraq, jordan, and saudi arabia, and they agree wef syria to provide safe zones where refugees can be relocated and protected. third, the united states must lead a broader global coalition on the ground to destroy isis in syria, and one that includes nato and features deeper involvement from our regional allies.
this includes our sunni arab partners who must help build an indigenous ground force to clean up their own backyard and to protect their own religion from these fanatics. we must also deal with russia. after the downing of the russian airliner, i hope mr. putin chooses to engage more constructively. he has serious homeland security issues of his own, and we have a shared interest in fighting islamist terror. before we think about working more closely with the russians, strict conditions must be met. mr. putin needs to push asad towards the exit door, cease military operations against moderate rebels, and bring an end to russia's provocations against nato allies. only then can moscow become a potential partner in destroying isis. in the end, our military
strategy must be combined with a political strategy. last month, negotiators in vienna brokered an 18-month timeline for free elections in syria. while i am skeptical about whether this plan will succeed, we can't give up. this crisis will end when the syrian people have read taken their country and can provide the level of security needed to --retaken their country and can provide the level of security needed to clear extremists from their territory. sadly, we will still need to go further. since the president failed to develop on on the ground plan to confront isis, we need an around the globe strategy to defeat them. this is no longer just about
syria and iraq. this is about preventing countries like afghanistan from falling back into darkness. yet in all of these places, president obama is more inclined to tell us what he won't do rather than what he will. that is why we need a global strategy to win the war against islamist terror. we need a president prepared to commit the resources and political will to make it a reality. the tactics of terrorists cannot stand. in return for barbaric violence, we must be prepared to deliver justice. it has been said that who we are is who we were. everyone in this room is tied to the greatest generation, an era of americans who showed unflappable courage while staring down evil as it spread across the globe.
we cannot forget their courage is our heritage. it is a distinct element of the american spirit. it's not enough for us to have inherited their valor. as we embark on another long, generational struggle, we must summon their resolve. that means we cannot be satisfied with quick victories and temporary safety in the war against islamist terror. we must be prepared to keep radicals on the run and stop them from ssing the torch to a new generation of terrorists. my father was a bombardier in world war ii and flew missions against the nazis. i had the distinct honor to visit normandy in may with the congressional delegation.
we went to omaha beach where 3000 american soldiers were killed, one of the most empowering, emotional moments of my lifetime, and while i know it was the bravery of men like him that won that war, he told me it was our nation's fortitude that won the peace. last month, the president said he was "not interested in pursuing some notion of american leadership or america winning in this long war." he thinks these are mere slogans. i differ with the commander-in-chief, because what i do know, what i do believe in deeply is that the security of our homeland and the free world depend on our determination to
lead. in this ideological battle, i know we will ultimately prevail. in the final analysis, our ideas prevail. thank you so much for having me here today. [applause] >> at this time, we would like to take some questions from the audience. if you have a question, please stand up for the chairman. >> i wonder if i could ask you to address -- it seems like you are portraying the problem of encryption as a problem of smart people not talking, but most of the smart people involved in making encryption say there is nothing to talk about. weakening will be exploited by hackers.
there is no further debate worth having. chairman mccaul: that's a great question. i've played the role of shuttle diplomacy between federal law enforcement, the intelligence community, and silicon valley. it is a very complex issue. one that initially lawmakers thought there was an easy legislative fix where we amend the statute, until we found out that providing a backdoor on everyone's iphone was not going to be a good strategy. not only would it provide a backdoor for the government, but also for hackers. you've noticed the language of the fbi director and the language of the secretary of homeland security's shifted -- security has shifted to find in a technology solution to this problem. i will not tell you it's an easy
solution, but i have had in-depth discussions, so i believe there are alternatives, some solutions to this problem. i think the inherent problem and the reason why i am advocating the formation of this commission is because of the reluctance of both parties to sit in the same room together. what this legislation provides cover in fact -- provides, in fact, it will mandate all parties sit in the same room together, and in a short period, provide the congress with solutions and legislative recommendations to deal with what i consider one of the most difficult challenges of this
century in dealing with counterterrorism and criminal behavior. if we don't do anything, title iii wiretaps and fisa's will become a thing of the past. when we saw the encrypted apps on the paris attackers' iphones, when eight attackers and numerous co-conspirators of foreign fighters in syria can do something like that, and it's completely under the radar screen, we know why it went undetected. it went undetected because they were communicating in dark space, in a space we can't shine a light on to see these medications, even if we have a court order. we must solve this problem. i agree with you. it's not an easy one to solve. i have set them at top experts like keith alexander, one of the brightest minds on this issue,
but i do believe that the first step is forcing them to get together in the same room to work out these differences and find a solution. i can't say that i have all the solutions to the problem, but i know the experts know how to get there. i think that is what this legislation will provide. >> david smith of "the guidian." you mentioned new efforts about people trying to enter the u.s. in terms of the refugee program. do you have any further details on that? the second question is, would you rule out a major ground force in iraq or syria, or is that a debate worth having? chairman mccaul: these are two different issues. the refugee crisis is as a symptom of a larger problem. the root cause is the civil in syria and the creation of isis and the failure to engage maliki
in any political dialogue, and thereby, disenfranchising the sunni tribes. most chose isis. we saw them drop their weapons in mosul because they didn't want to fight isis. the refugee problem is just a symptom of that. we were briefed earlier this week by the intelligence community. i don't want to get into specifics, to protect my sources, but by the intelligence community, but in fact, isis syrians, isis members in syria have attempted to exploit it to get into the united states. that was courageous for them to come forward with this, to tell me about this personally given the political debate on the hill with the syrian refugee bill, but i think it demonstrates why that bill is so important. now we have direct evidence and intelligence they tried not only to infiltrate europe, which is easier to do, but to infiltrate and get into the united states.
to me, that is very disturbing. we won't resolve the problem of the refugee crisis until we deal with -- when i talk to sunni arab nations and ambassadors, they want to know we have a strategy. they say, mr. chairman, we will put a ground force in, the turks, jordanians -- they will put a ground force in, but they insist we have a strategy. the political situation has to be resolved on the ground to it until we have that strategy, we will continue to have this problem. i've urge the gulf states to take these refugees. these ambassadors agreed that a protected zone if you will in syria was the best way to do with the refugees so they don't leave syria. refugee is somebody who wants to go back to their country.
if they come to europe and the united states, they will never return. i also implored the saudis and gulf states to take these refugees. they have the wherewithal. these are sunni arabs fleeing from assad and isis. they claim they have taken refugees, but it's a bit of political spin. in fact, what they've taken in are really guest workers, not in fact refugees coming out of syria. what has happened? turkey has over 2 million. jordan has over one million. jordan can't absorb this. now europe has half a million unvetted refugees pouring into europe. we know that two of the paris attackers exploited those
refugee routes to get into europe. how many more are out there? you don't know what you don't know. >> thank you for doing this today. i wanted to ask a little bit more. you said you are maybe going to address bigger bills, the refugee bill in the house, the possibility of more vetting with the visa waiver program. [indiscernible] chairman mccaul: basically, i think one of the biggest highlights -- i want to thank the chairman for his work -- there is no national strategy to deal with combating terrorism and foreign fighters. it we don't have a strategy. i think you are going to see a bill in the near future that deals with that issue. combating violent extremism, another bill we passed unanimously out of our committee. it is not a priority or focus within the administration to basically combat violent extremism. what am i talking about?
its radicalization from within. the boston bombers were some radical that they were kicked out of their moscow by his imam, and we didn't know about that. and every one of these cases, when you go back and look, there are early signs and flags and warning signs of radicalization. we need greater community out reach. it may not be the government itself. as a federal prosecutor, i would walk into a mosque with the fbi. it's a chilling effect. we need leaders engaged and working with a public-private partnership to engage these communities to identify early signs of radicalization. there is no priority to do this right now in this country. when we looked at the total manpower within the department of homeland security, we have less than two dozen federal employees even working on the issue. in fairness to jeh johnson, he has started to elevate this program, but i think this bill, whether we pass it on the floor
or put it in the omnibus would be a great step forward. i think the dart space issue is one of the most complex, dangerous issues out there. when i would look at their communications, when they radicalize somebody and get a hook onto them, they say, let's go to another messaging box, and let's go into these dark platforms. at that point, even if we have a fisa or title iii wiretap, which i used to do, we can't see communications at all. all we see is encrypted space. we may know someone in raqqa is talking to someone in paris or belgium or washington, d.c., but we can't say what they are saying. if you can't see what they are saying, you can't stop it. when they say there is no specific and credible threat, that is what we don't know.
what is communicated in the dark space we don't know? as i speak, they could be plotting a paris-style terrorist attack. i have been a critic of this administration for downplaying the threat. i think the campaign narrative has been all along to get out of iraq and afghanistan and shut down guantanamo. when isis reared its ugly head, he couldn't refuse head around that issue, because it wasn't supposed to happen. you can't wish it away, and you can't put your head in the sand. you have to confront evil where it exists. that is where we have failed as a nation to lead. lead as a superpower. lead as a superpower to get a coalition of forces to defeat one of the greatest evils in my lifetime.
>> good afternoon. i'm with the center for complex operations here. you mentioned that foreign fighters coming back, americans coming back to the u.s. are either being arrested -- is there anything being done to look at those individuals differently? chairman mccaul: without getting into too much of what the fbi does investigatively, obviously, in my career, we would follow people. you get to a certain point where you have to take down the individual, but prior to the takedown, there is an intelligence value to monitoring and following them.
with the 50 that have returned, the ones we can charge with due process under the constitution, we do, and for the ones we can't, we monitor them. and monitoring them, we gain great intelligence value, but once they get to a certain point, we have to take them down, which is why you seem over 70 isis-related arrests over the past year. the fbi and homeland have decided to take out the threat before it could -- they could attack americans. it's a delicate balance. a lot of my constituents say, why aren't you rolling them up and throwing them in jail? we have the constitution. you can't just arrest people and throw them in jail without evidence. some of these people, we are not quite sure what they were doing over there. were they working with doctors without borders, or were they
doing something more to farias? -- doing something more necessary is -- nefarious? since we don't have the intelligence on the ground adequate to know, this is the problem. you don't know what you don't know. with syrian refugees, we don't know anything about these people because we have no databases in syria. we are getting better intelligence now in syria. unfortunately, the russians are blowing it up. they don't have rules of engagement. to answer your question, there's a very good intelligence value to monitoring an individual without the proper predicate to arrest, but enough to monitor them with predication to monitor their communications. if they are going onto a dark platform with a nap -- an app, we can't see what they are saying. this is a new phenomenon. we use to look at careers. we were looking at foreign fighters who could do an attack like paris, but what do you do about guys communicating and
radicalizing in the united states over a dark platform where you can't see what they are saying? it's very pervasive. they are in their 20's. they are young, sophisticated. hussein was only 23 years old. hussein was the one who did the attacks, new york, the plots. he was sending out directives to come to syria or kill where you are, kill military. he was taken out by an airstrike, but his wife is still alive, and there are others who have replaced him to form a cyber jihadist army, if you will, out of internet cafés in raqqa. look at over 200,000 isis tweets per day that are going on around
the world. this is not a european and u.s. problem. it's a global phenomenon, and it is spreading at broadband speed. >> we have time for one last question. >> i'll take a few more. >> dealing with the cyber security issue, we talked about the broader cyber challenge. people talk about the next cyber earl harbor. thank you for your leadership on cyber security. would you like to expand a little bit on some of the challenges? chairman mccaul: i focused on islamist terror, but the cyber threat -- paris, san bernardino, some of these can be one or two-man operations. a cyber attack, if done as an attack of cyber warfare, would be devastating, and the
consequences could be far more severe in terms of the capability to bring things down. we have the criminal theft of ip. we have espionage. we know china attacked opm and stole 20 million security clearances, the greatest active espionage by a nationstate against the united states in cyberspace. no response to that other than a couple meetings with them to work things out? it's the power grids. it's the stock exchange, financial sector, energy sector, all tied to the internet. we are tied more to the internet than any other nation, and therefore, we are most vulnerable to a cyber attack because of that. we are in a conference with the senate as we speak to pass on information sharing bill that will allow both the federal
government and private sector to share these codes, with liability protection, and it's a voluntary program. to share these codes in a civilian portal and the department of homeland security. we are hopeful or this may be the biggest, most significant piece of cyber legislation ever passed by the congress. it needs to be done now, because the threat is so severe. if we don't pass it now, we are going to get hit. the sony attack was very destructive. they are on our financial sector all the time, russian criminalized activities targeting home depot. it's finally getting the attention from the american people it deserves. the senate, we are trying to get to a middle ground between the house and senate as we speak, and i'm optimistic we will get there, but it's absolutely critical that we passed it.
the white house -- i've been critical of them in my speech -- on this issue, i must say the white house has been a very good partner in trying to get this ccomplished. >> the other last question? [laughter] >> i was wondering if you could talk about the directive to attack where you are. as we've seen with san bernardino and in the last few years with attacks on u.s. military bases, and paris, what has been done with guns -- the white house, as you know, has proposed using the no-fly list to try to take guns out of the hands of terrorists. is there some version you think ou could use to try to
accomplish that? chairman mccaul: let me say first -- i used to prosecute gun cases, among terrorists too, so i've got some background, but when someone purchases a firearm, that is a background check run on them. the fbi is notified, and the fbi will know if this person is on a watchlist or no-fly list. they factor that in. if for some reason under the current law to prevent the purchase, they do. this is a complicated issue. sometimes, people are put on the watchlist based on suspicion, and you are talking about denying a fundamental constitutional right because of that. if there is insufficient evidence to issue a warrant for an arrest, to me, there's not
enough evidence to deny a second amendment constitutional right. having said that, make no mistake -- if the fbi sees someone on one of these lists, and under the current law, that purchase cannot be denied, they will be obviously monitored to prevent any further potential terrorist attack from occurring. one bill that i am a cosponsor of -- a lot of these cases are either mental illness or isis-related. i know congressman tim murphy as health legislation. martha mcsally has a bill that simply says, if you have been adjudicated mentally defective come under current law, you cannot purchase a firearm. when i was in new york a month ago after one of the shootings -- they have training to deal
with active shooters -- there are so many of these cases that haven't been put into the system. the navy yard shooter had been adjudicated mentally defective under the law and yet was able to purchase a firearm. his information was not put in the system. this bill, and senator cornyn has a companion in the senate, would provide funding to help ramp up the process to make sure that anybody who has been found by a judge -- not just someone who goes to a doctor because they want counseling. at you can see the final line. if you get denied a second amendment right because you went to see counseling for an issue, which there are probably people in this room who have done that, the standard is, an arbiter, a judge who has declared that person to be mentally defective, so the bill would enhance current law by making sure that anybody who has been found by a judge to be mentally defective
be put into the system, and i fully support that. i think i have time for one more, and then i'll close it out. let's take these two at the end. >> thanks, congressman. anti-isis efforts domestically and internationally, how do you see us preventing this from becoming a christian versus uslim crusade? chairman mccaul: i think that's a very good point. you probably have been to the region, as have i. we are the infidel. our presence at many times provokes it. bin laden looked at the infidel on muslim holy ground. i don't think we are going to put hundred thousand u.s. combat troops into the region -- put
100,000 u.s. combat troops into the region. what i'm calling for is special forces embedded with indigenous forces and having a strategy that could work, dealing with assad, and having the people who could guide the targets, not doing the zero collateral damage. 70% of our sorties arrive without firing their rockets. we are dropping leaflets to the drivers of these oil tankers warning them in advance that we are going to strike them. i think if you are driving an oil tanker, you are not really a civilian. you are working for isis. i think changing the rules of engagement would go a long ways. we haven't dealt with the terrorist financing. they are making $1 million a day with the oil in eastern syria, and they are taking it into turkey, and we've done nothing to stop that.
recently, we've started to take out those targets, but the idea we have to send a leaflet arning advance is not, in my judgment -- you are either all in or you are not. the powell doctrine still applies. i think we have to be very careful with the religious rhetoric. that's why i've always said it is incumbent upon the sunni arab nations to stand up. we have carried their water for too long. it's imperative for them to stand up. it's their backyard, and they need to protect their own religion from the perversion that has taken place by isis. they are allowing 50,000 isis to dictate a world ride -- worldwide religion. in's incumbent upon them, i think, to deal with this. they need to have a lot more skin in the game, if you will, than they currently do, because i think they have a lot more at
stake than anybody. i do think you are right. we have to be careful about this hetoric. people in my business are guilty of doing that, and i think that just in flames and provokes it even more -- inflames and provokes it even more. president bush, i think, tried to handle that pretty well. we are not condemning all muslims. it's a perversion of their religion. he was very careful, i think, in his verbiage and how he dealt with that issue, and i would say some politicians out there are irresponsible in that rhetoric, which just inflames it, inflames the conflict, and gets further recruits for the movement of isis. there's a reason why they are pouring in from 100 different nations right now. they want us, they want to have
a combat presence, because they know they are going to get more recruits coming in. in fact, that's their goal. where was that last one? this is really the last one. [laughter] >> to go back to your point about the syrian refugees, you said the intelligence community has told you there have been people coming into the u.s. -- trying to come into the u.s. that are aligned with isis. does that speak to the current etting process then? i know you have had the director of the fbi saying, there's things we don't know. you can't be 100%. what further steps would you dvocate for? chairman mccaul: i introduced this legislation not for my own edification or based upon my own
thinking. i introduced it based upon testimony by the fbi director, and quite frankly, the secretary of homeland security and the dni who all said, we don't have a proper vetting system in place. we don't know who these people are. we don't have systems in place. we don't have proper databases to vet their past. all we are saying is, just with iraqi refugees, put a hold on it for six months so we can get a system right. we are calling for a more robust vetting process and assurances for them -- from them that they can vet them, and most significantly, hold them responsible and accountable by having them sign and certify that they are not a risk to a national -- to national security. the secretaries of homeland security, the f.b.i. director and the director of national
intelligence. it's amazing how some have backed off of what they testified to, but i can pull the transcripts. it's real. i think the american people want and deserve this. i think it's why you saw -- there would've been 100 democrats joining us if misses pelosi hasn't worked so hard against it, but we had almost 50 democrats. part of it was that the presentation to their conference was not persuasive. they asked the secretary, why won't you sign off? the answer was, it's a lot of paperwork and staff, and it's not a workable situation. i think you are dealing with a very unique population. we are not talking about all the refugees. we are talking about a very unique population. isis's headquarters are in raqqa. isis has said they want to infiltrate the west. we have intelligence recently indicating they want to exploit coming to the united states.
in light of all that, it's the responsible thing to do. this legislation could've been a ot more draconian. it was very measured, very well-balanced. i think that's why we got a super majority. the american people want to make sure we properly vet them before we bring them in. obviously, the mothers and children are going to be able to get through our vetting process, but the military aged male has to go through more robust vetting before we bring them into the united states. i don't want that on my head, bringing someone in who conducts terrorist attacks like two of the iraqi refugees did.
we just want to make sure we are doing this in a safe, responsible manner. we are a compassionate nation, humanitarian nation, but we also have a duty to our citizens to protect them and do this in the most responsible way we can. thanks so much for being here. i appreciate it. [applause] >> white house press secretary met with reporters earlier in the day and cristina marcos is joining us on capitol hill. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. what did speaker ryan say? cristina: speaker ryan said this morning congress might not quite reach the government deadline. they need a little extra time before lawmaker consist go home for the holidays. >> a little extra time means what? into the weekend? next week? what are you looking at? >> house majority leader kevin
mccarthy just told reporters in the last half-hour he is seriously considering forcing the house to be here on friday as well as into the weekend. the thinking is they only need a few more days to get everything done, it would make more sense to keep the numbers here into the weekend rather than have them fly back home and come back two days later. one, they could stay here for a few extra days and not come back until january. >> this is a $1.1 trillion spending bill. where does that stand cristina: that is what is causing these talks to slow down. the appropriateuators who are involved in this spending bill are hoping to release the text of the bill today. that is no longer looking like it is possible. they are still hung up over policy writers and that includes halting environmental regulations.
slowing down financial regulations and finance rules as well as refugee programs in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in paris last month. so the there is a whole variety of things that run the gamut of what might be in this bill. >> is there anyone in the republican party talking about the poveblet a shutdown? cristina: no. if they don't pass in bill by friday, they will still pass a spending bill maybe lasting two to three days to a week to buy themselves time. it is not a matter of if there will be a shutdown. no one is expecting that to happen. it is more a matter of canceling vacation plans. >> there is also a debate over these tax breaks and tax externsd. explain what the issue is and what congress needs to do before lawmakers leave for the holidays.
cristina: this has become an annual holiday tradition in recent days. we have tax breaks for things like research and development, tax credits, that sort of thing. they are working on a package to renew those credits and some of the provisions are very popular such it is a research and development credit which businesses champion. they are trying to make some of these permanent. however the trick is always a matter of paying for them. whether it is for a short-term or make them a permanent part of tax code. >> what else does congress need to achieve before the christmas holidays? cristina: the main two things are the spending bill as well as the spenders package. another item that lawmakers are trying to push through in the final days here is the measure to renew 9/11 first responder methods.
the former daily show host jon stewart has been on capitol hill trying to get them to renew these benefits. this authorization expired a couple of months ago. it is not clear whether it will be included in the omnibus spending bill. >> more details available online at thehill.com. cristina marcos, who is in the capital tonight. thanks for being with us. we appreciate it. cristina: thanks for having me. >> on the next "washington . urnal" jordan fabian president obama gun law proposal. the u.s. strategy against isis. later our conversation on isis and preventing terrorist attacks in the u.s. continues with
senator bill cassidy of louisiana. and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. today pakistani ambassador to the u.s. talks about u.s.-pakistan relations and security challenges. see it live at 6: 30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our student cam documentary contest asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's road to the white house coverage and get all the details about our student cam contest at c-span.org.
>> on saturday, secretary of state john kerry spoke at a forum on israeli relations at the brookings institution. he talked about the syrian civil war and refugee crisis. following his remarks, he sat down and answered questions by brookings executive vice president who served as ambassador to israel during clinton administration and was president obama's special envoy for palestinian negotiations. this is an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] secretary kerry: thank you very much. thank you all very, very much. thank you, bruce, for a very generous introduction. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i apologize that we are starting a few moments late. i'm delighted to be here,
distinguished members of congress. steny, anita were here. my former colleague and long time friend. think boogie is here. and oh, my gosh, yes, madam, thank you for leading, wilson, all you have been doing. appreciate it very, very much. thank you. i'm really pleased that i could come here to be with you before i head back to paris where on onday, we sort of get into the period of climate change negotiation. let me just begin by thanking my very good friend martin. as we all know, martin has invested literally decades of his extraordinary career in
exploring ways, turning over every stone to try to help israelis and palestinians to find a path to lasting peace, and i know when you say those words in today's context, a lot of people recoil and say how can you be talking about those words in the middle of all of this. but it is a cause in martin's life and it remains the fundamental quest of all administrations, republican and democrat alike. i'm enormously grateful for the wisdom and ineven soo sight that martin -- insight that martin brought to our efforts, our collective efforts. i also want to pay tribute to someone i wish could be with us. sandy berg er. he was someone who loved every aspect of the give and take of foreign policy and he had a
truly profound understanding of american interests and he worked literally all the time and always wanted our country to do both what was smart and what was wright. -- right. he will be missed. i talked to susan yesterday. they had services. it is clear that the legacy of sandy's service will truly long endure and certainly with all of his friends. and finally let me just thank my himeand sheryl. thank you for your tremendous gifts. it is nice for me to be able to congratulate them in person for the incredible work they do to strengthen the relationship between the united states and israel. this forum reflects their deep commitment and it really has become the premiere venue for the u.s./israeli dialogue.
it is also a great place to generate new ideas about u.s. policy towards the middle east and that's why i came here two years ago. it is why i came here last year and it is why i'm here today. i consider this a very important opportunity to have a critical conversation. now the united states, it is fair to say, has an abundance of programs in the region. everything from rule of law initiatives in jordan to vocational training in lebanon to private party partnerships in the west bank and we believe in the cast for rapid progress. i see our ambassador sitting here. he is diminishing, losing weight by the day, but for all the right reasons. we're very aware and he reminds me constantly that the pace of
the progress we can make really depends to a large extent on improved security. we understand that. and security for the region means security for us. it is a major goal of american foreign policy in the middle east. last month, here in washington, prime minister netanyahu was crystal clear about to stakes. he spoke about the savagery of e terrorist group known as daash. the turmoil that has displaced millions of people across the region and spoke about the commitment and his commitment to the vision of two states, two peoples living side by side in peace and security. but my friends, it is important that that not become the slogan.
not become a throwaway phrase. that it become policy, which is what it is meant to be. in that same spirit, it is america's support for the builders as opposed to the destroyers in the middle east. that informs every single aspect of our policy in the region. this is the glue that holds the components of our strategy together, and yes, there is a strategy. i know the criticisms. we all hear them. we all know how the chatting heads on cable television can command any day the negative, because the negative sells and polarizes and creates a self-selecting audience. but it doesn't mean that that is wisdom. so there is a strategy that we can work on together whether we're mobilizing the coalition against terrorism, which we have undertaken to do or try to halt
a sudden outbreak of violence which i traveled to israel recently to try to do. we're striving to put in place new foundations for prosperity and stability. our goal, our strategy is to help ensure that the builders and the healers throughout the region have the chance they need to accomplish their tasks and i'll tell you this is a struggle to which we are deeply committed for the simple reason that the outcome is vital to our security interests too. that is why we are supporting tunisia's democratic transition, by helping its leaders to reconcile differences and to defend their nation's borders. it is why i was there a few weeks ago from a strategic dialogue. we have worked to support democratic or seizures and strengthen the law. that is why we are engaged in the u.n.-led effort to forge a
genuine government in libya. that is why we are convening, we have called it together other nations to join us with martin kubler to go with urgency to rome in a few days to convene a conference so we can help the people of that embattled nation find a common purpose and the internal stability that they need to literally, altogether a -- literally, cobble together a legitimate government around which we can organize future efforts which are essential to being able to push back against daesh which seeks to fill the vacuum. that is why we encourage all parties in yemen to reject violence. in it is why we are working for a negotiated settlement and with the parties working to agree on a process of political transition in which all can participate in the rights of every faction will be respected. that is why we have led the
effort to mobilize a coalition of more than 65 countries to fight and defeat daesh. to fighe go there was no coalition. moving into baghdad to unleash the air straights to mobilize their forces and removed immediately and the sea to defeat dash cannot be overstated. and make sure killers and kidnappers and these and apostates of medieval thinking with modern weapons
to wage a savage brand of war to conjure up a theory raping on muslim women and girls to be condoned by god as a former of prayer. they butchered teachers him burn books shut schools destroyed secret bases including that -- including the tombs of the profits seizing the director of antiquities made him neil in the public square and cut off his head left his body tied to a poll. 83 years old. yet been in charge of preserving the cultural heritage for more than 50 years. dash executes people not for anything they have done but for who they are. to what they believe fighting against everything
our ancestors fought for one in particular the 20th century with a contempt for decency ruth law, maternity law, maternity, and portrait. so with is to become the over to declare a threat to the interest of the united states and the aggression is fuelled a refugee crisis and now all of europe is a profound impact on europe itself in recent weeks we have seen in paris in egypt in beirut the evidence of their desire to come up to inspire murderous acts whenever they can.
that is why at the very outset remote the moment we saw coming into iraq he declared we must defeat dash reno increasing the pace to do so. to exhilarate to work diplomatically every single country the beginning of the syrian revolution has said there is no military solution that has to be political if you're not looking for it space did you have to stumble upon a. the third leg of the strategy is the instability does not spread further
beyond the borders. with any country negatively impacted. our strategy is to attack the organization and its core we have said from the beginning a multi-year fight that we can already more measure launching air strikes in iraq and syria the number is rising every day for the past half year working with iraqi forces now 100,000 now they return to begin their homes will have liberated some jar and we have supported that to
remove terrorists commanders from the battlefield. hitting oil facilities particularly hard including 400 tanker trucks have then destroyed pushing dash add of the territory once controlled now we're intensifying the pressure of commodity on finances are recruiting and propaganda and to begin to launch strikes of their own germany is stepping up with support an increasing the capacity of the united states special forces. meanders stand the fastest way to you defeat dash is the al flow of refugees to
bring an end to the war does with a second core element is political with a renewed diplomatic initiative to reconvene with the more action oriented effort last month the serious support group who came together in an effort between the government and moderate opposition even just now driving over here talking about what is happening with the saudis to is convening the opposition to have them choose their negotiating team and their platform to be ready to go to the table.
russia and iran at the table for the first time to join with us in this communique that was unanimous in which they agree there has to be a transition. what they will meet later this month to move the process forward. to facilitate a transition that they support a unified syria. with its own leadership in the future to be supervised by the united nations under the highest standards with fair full transparency and accountability for the diaspora to vote for future leadership the purpose of this transition is to have governance within six months
including the drafting of a new constitution the internationally supervised elections within 18 months and i cannot promise everybody will make it happen but the legitimacy of the effort will exhaust diplomacy to call on all of us to make the choices we need to make to end the war. and then to begin the initial process. to take the pressure off of refugees that would further isolate the terrorist to enable the coalition with greater unity and power. of one to declare. we are not naive with this
diplomatic effort is difficult it was easy it would have happened a long time ago. many ways it has been going on for centuries. it does that mean it cannot be changed with the international community regarding syria and we have of this size from the onset to the syrian implemented the real so solidly unprecedented degree on the need to implement a political transition.
turkey egypt and iran at the same table for the same purpose. representatives from government to do not agree on much else but come together to support the process. make no mistake this is the most promising political initiative we have had in years and deserves to be preserved to the fullest also the third pillar to replaced on the neighbors today we have contributed more than 4.5 billion the largest contributor of humanitarian relief causally encouraging other countries to open their own wallets because the help that is needed far outweighs the supply also helping lebanon and jordan through external
threats policy is to support the builders not the destroyers. there are other elements to the strategy. to succeed have to be shielded as much as possible from potential danger. bed as well have the negotiated solution through the program. some of you here i know you have concerns no one is applied to that. misinformation judgment and years of expertise with the
fissile material that it would need for a nuclear weapon in as little as two months. compare that to where we are now. under the joint comprehensive plan of action every single one of the pathways to obama's blocked, uranium pathway, plutonium pathway, covert pathway. due to massive cuts and reductions in enrichment capacity all of which the iranians agreed to -- people forget, we already have two and a half years of compliance under our belt. we had the interim agreement which rolled back there program, and under this the breakout time will now stretched to 12 for at least a decade. and because of the unprecedented monitoring and verification requirements that we negotiated which are
an integral part of the plan we now have 25 years of day-to-day complete visibility on every ounce of uranium that is mine, milled, put into yellowcake centrifuged, gas to centrifuged. day-to-day, 24 hours we have that tracking. we will know if iran tries to break out. i'm not telling you they might not, but i am telling you that we will know. the reason is that we will know, if iran did decide to try to get around its technicians would have to do more than barrier reprocessing facility deep beneath the ground. they would have to come up with a complete and completely secret nuclear supply chain from start to finish.finish. and our experts and the experts of france, germany, britain, and china and russia, four of whom are
nuclear weapons countries agree they would never get away with such a deception, such a complete supply chain. and although some of the specific limitations apply for ten years, some apply for 15, some for 20, some for 25. the for 25. the basic monitoring and verification provisions are in effect for the lifetime of the iranian nuclear program. under the agreement iran will be prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon forever so if it ever steps out of it is in contravention of the agreement and the nonproliferation treaty. so signing a deal and implementing one are obviously two different things. we have given one of our most capable foreign service officers and the messengers the day-to-day 247 job of leading and
interagency effort to ensure iran lives up to every single one of the commitments and continue to consult closely with congress and our allies as the process goes forward. i want to be clear, the agreement was considered on its own terms. it was not part of some opening the door trade shift or some speculation about behavior. it was the right thing to do whether it leads to cooperation are not. any effort to roll back the iranian behavior is a heck of a lot easier if they don't have a nuclear weapon. they are not making any assumptions because we base our policy on observable facts, actions that we can see and verify. the fact is to iran's policies are major reason why we work so closely and supportively with our partners in the region and nowhere is that more evident
than with our friend and ally israel. prime minister netanyahu and israeli defense and intelligence officials we have engaged at an unprecedented level, military intelligence and security cooperation. the defense minister said yesterday that those relations were superb command they are. we are determined to help israel to address new and complex security threats because it is changing. we understand. and we are absolutely determined to guarantee that there is a qualitative military edge. we work with israel every day to enforce sanctions, prevent terrorist organizations such as hamas and hezbollah from obtaining the financing and weapon that they seek whether from iran or any other source. we will stand with israel to stop its adversaries from
once again launching deadly and unprovoked attacks against civilians. since 2009 we have provided $20 billion in foreign military financing call more than half of all the military assistance we have given worldwide. over and above that we have invested some 3 billion in production and deployment of iron dome and other missile-defense programs and saw how and israel's last conflict lives were saved because of that assistance. we have given privileged access to advanced military equipment such as the f3 five joint strike fighter. israel is the only nation in the middle east to which the united states sold this fifth-generation aircraft. earlieraircraft. earlier this year the president authorized a massive arms resupply package featuring air to air missiles and other advanced munitions. diplomatically our support for israel also remains as rocksolid as we continue to
oppose any effort to delegitimize the jewish state or to pass biased resolutions against it and international bodies. i have personally been on the phone lobbying whether it is a human rights commission or counsel for individuals, you name it, we are constantly fighting the battle command i will get to something in that a little bit in my comments. just last month i went to new york and spoke at a moving event commemorating the extraordinary speech 40 years ago denouncing the un general assembly infamous zionism is racism resolution. one of the finest beaches i have ever heard. patrick moynahan called it the day of infamy when the abomination of anti- semitism was given the appearance of international sanctions. and to equate the national
movement of the jewish people for racism, nazism, and the resolution was not only absurd but it was a sad day for the united nations itself. it brought people together to seek nothing less than to grant a global license to hate. and i am delighted that mushy herzog is here. we are your father because he spoke the truth, and so must we. anti-semitism is there today , threat today in europe, the middle east, parts of asia and every part of our body politic. the imperative to identify it no matter what the euphemisms are that are used to mask it comeau rebutted and defeated, it is our responsibility to accept it. it. that, my friends, is a lesson taught to us by history. which we must never ever forget.
but history also teaches us the importance of piece. because piece is ultimately the best guarantor of security. the united states is deeply committed to securing israel's future as a jewish and democratic state, and we are also committed to an independent and viable palestinian state or palestinians can live with freedom and dignity. the only way to achieve that is there a negotiated solution that creates two states, two peoples living side-by-side in peace and security. i know how complicated it is. i have been out they're enough times. i think ii think i understand it. the united states remains deeply committed to having the parties realize the vision that we just articulated, the prime minister and everyone has accepted, vision that we put
out there not for our sick but because it is the best hope for both israelis and palestinians. but ultimately it is up to both sides to take the necessary steps to make this possible. today i want to talk about some of the difficult questions and hard choices that everybody faces. because there are no easy answers here. it will take leadership, courage and both sides must make decisions that could have a profound impact on their future and on the future of the entire region. first, violence must stop. nobody should ever be subjected to attacks as they go about their daily lives, and there is no justification for violence targeted against civilians now or ever, and we condemn
these outrageous attacks in the strongest possible terms. president obama has made clear israel has not only the right but the obligation to defend its citizens. we have worked hard to try to find a way to end the violence, stressed the importance of refraining from inflammatory rhetoric, to refrain from steps that obviously we will have an impact on other people's perceptions. i have called on the leadershipleadership publicly and privately to do everything possible to combat excitement and explicitly condemn terrorist attacks. i have urged israeli leaders to bring those responsible for terrorism against palestinian civilians to justice and upon the recent arrest that was made in that regard, and we worked with leaders to lower the tension
surrounding the temple mount that were fueling the violence. last week because of our concern i again visited jerusalem and the west bank. the terrorist attack had tragically claimed the life of ezra schwartz and 18 -year-old american student from my home state. president obama and i both talked to the parents. that brought homethat brought home to us the tremendous and comprehensible and unfathomable level of grief, loss of a child particularly under those circumstances. it also brought home the urgency of the loss of more innocent lives. i heard prime minister netanyahu described the fears on daily basis and his solemn obligation to provide them with basic security and president abbas spoke more
despairingly that i have ever heard him about the sense of hopelessness and have been traveling since the 1980s. and i have spent hours israelis believe the palestinians will never accept israel's right to live in piece in their teaching hate and that a piece agreement would turn the west bank into another gaza. the palestinians believe the government will never give them a state and that their land is being systematically taken away by the daily indignation's of occupation without end and that there is impunity. that is what they believe.
the israeli -- the current path is not leading to a more peaceful future. unless significant efforts are made to change the dynamic it will only bring more violence, heartbreak, and despair. that is a fear, not a threat. and changing course will require real courage, leadership, and difficult choices. the palestinians must decide what kind of future they want for their people. this form focuses on us israel relations, but i, but i want to highlight some of the key questions facing the palestinians. how was ceasing security coordination and cooperation and dissolving the palestinian authority, how would that bring them closer
to piece? isn't it the palestinian people who would then suffer most? boycotts and efforts to delegitimize israel or pass by us resolution i going to help them achieve a palestinian state? president abbas has long been committed to nonviolence. but our palestinian officials, impossible to prevent all forms of incitement. don't these terrorist attacks against innocent civilians deserve public condemnation? and how can israelis be assured that the palestinians are truly prepared to end the conflict and allow them to live in peace as part of a two state solution? how do they address israel's concerns about not creating another situation like gaza and the west bank?
israel also faces important questions and difficult choices, and there are answers for the issues of gaza and the west bank. all kinds of security and other kinds of steps that can be taken and buffers and guarantees and oversight in cooperation, countless answers if you want to find them. israelis are appropriately debating some of these issues, some officials have argued that it is not in israel's interest to have a palestinian authority. prime minister netanyahu makes clear he does not wish for the collapse because despite serious differences he recognizes that the alternative would be worse. somehow dismissed the possibility, but circumstances force us to consider it seriously
because there are valid questions if the current situation continues. mark my words. remember, there are some 30,000 palestinian a story's -- palestinian security forces and the egg knowledge the key role in preventing the situation from spiraling out of control including during the turmoil of three wars with gaza. did not blow up in the west bank. the idf could be forced to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers in the west bank indefinitely to fill the void. our israelis prepared for the consequences this would have for their children and grandchildren who serve in the idf? the inevitable friction leads to confrontation and violence. one of the financial and strategic costs when israel now already facing new threats in the region?
our israelis ready to accept the heightened risk that chaos, lawlessness, and desperation allow terrorists and extremists to take hold and fill the vacuum and take advantage? without the pa israel would also shoulder the responsibility for providing basic services, including maintaining schools, hospitals command line order are theyare they ready to make up for over a billion a year and assistance that the pa would no longer see provided? what about the additional billion in development related assistance, most of which goes to the west bank? what would happen if aa collapse under the pressure and there was widespread unemployment and poverty? this brings us to a broader question. if there is a risk that the
pa could collapse, and it collapse, and it is in is drilled to come in israel's interest to survive as the prime minister suggested, should more not be done to help sustain it? this really goes to the heart of a bigger debate because the truth is that many of those arguing against the pa simply don't believe in two states. the prime minister has been clear that he does not want a binational state and that he remains committed to the vision of two states for two peoples, but at the same time many current israeli ministers have been equally clear that they oppose the palestinian state not just now whatever. so my friends, we have to be clear eyed. we cannot come to a form like this still have meetings, go back and forth and maintain and pretend. we must be honest about whether a one state solution
first, no one should be lulled into a forced complacency that the pa would still be there under those circumstances. in fact the chances that it would collapse increase over time every day. and it would collapse sooner than later under those circumstances. let's focus on a few other critical questions. i am just asking questions. how does israel possibly maintain its character as a jewish and democratic state when from the river to the sea they were not even be a jewish majority. then next question would millions of palestinians be given the basic rights of israeli citizens including
the right to vote: they be relegated to a permanent underclass? with the israelis and palestinians living in such close quarters have segregated roads and transportation systems with different laws applying? would anyone really believe they were being treated equally? what would the international response be? a decision to unilaterally annex large portions, how could israel ever have true piece with its neighbors? as the arab piece initiative promises and as every arab leader i have met with in the last year reinforces to me as recently as the last month that they are prepared to do, how will they do that if there is no chance for a two state solution? and wouldn't israel risked
being in perpetual conflict? i think the answer will make it clear to all. the one state solution is no solution at all for a secure jewish democratic israel living in piece. it is simply not a viable option. and no less a statesman than the man i admire the most in the world, one of the great warriors for piece, as shimon perez put it himself, anyone who rejects the solution won't bring a one state solution. they will bring one more not one state. my friends, that brings us to a broader question. what more can actually be done to advance it? these are important
questions for all of us who care deeply about israel, and i do care deeply. a 100 percent voting record and i remember fondly every visit. great friends. great friends. but i asked people to answer this question honestly as possible. this is not an abstract issue. the status quo is simply not sustainable. the fact is that current trends, including violent, demolitions are imperiling the viability of a two state solution, and that trend must be reversed in order to prevent this untenable one state reality from taking hold. i cannot stress this enough, enough, terrorist attacks are devastating the hopes of israelis who want to believe that piece is possible and violence must stop. yes. the palestinian hopes are being dashed by what they
see happening. they are focused on the reality that few ever see, the transition contemplated by the oswald process has been reversed. nearly all of areas see is effectively restricted for any palestinian. much of it claimed for israeli state land or settlement counsel. we understand there was only one granted for all of areas see. and they are regularly being legalized demolition of the palestinian structures is increasing. you get it? at the same time the settler population has increased by
tens of thousands over just the past five years including many in remote areas. we are clear about that. the continued settlement growth raises honest questions about israel's long-term intentions and will only make separating from the palestinians much more difficult. there are no easy answers, but we cannot stop trying to find solutions that move us closer to piece. that is why president obama is called on both sides. a genuine commitment. suggested steps on the ground that would reverse current trends and resume the oslo transition in ways that do not affect israel's security at all. and i want to stress that point. increasing palestinian civil authority does not happen at the expense of israeli security.
the economy will enhance security. and the palestinians must also meet their commitment. including combating violence improving and building institutions. these steps can be an important beginning. but these steps could help begin to reduce tension, restore measure of hope, open up new possibilities and hopefully create some political space for people to be able to make bigger more critical decisions. again, i repeat i know these are difficult decisions.
i understand why israelis feel deceived. i understand why they feel there is no hope. there will always be a reason not to act. but you have to keep those questions i put to you in front of you every moment. now is the time to see beyond the politics and the pressures of the moment. both sides need to act in the long-term best interest of the people, not as a kind of concession. it is not a concession to be doing things that make you safer. broaden the political space to make choices. and begin to give justice a sense of rectitude to agreements which have been signed. and if everyone keeps waiting for the other person to move 1st the situation spirals downward.
the obviously hope that both sides will choose the path that leads towards piece. we want both to show they are serious and we will be there every step of the way in every way possible to support them in that effort. we are ready to bring jordan , egypt, the rest of the gulf states for regional security arrangement that includes israel and will make the entire region safer , and i no that many in the region are absolutely committed to recognizing israel and a way that israel wants to be recognized and move forward to make the region of financial hub. they are waiting to help realize the vision of the true piece. we all no this is not an impossible dream. it is achievable, but it
demands of we never lose hope and we all draw strength from those who sacrificed so much for piece. itzhak is the example of that. the prime minister dared to take risks and make bold initiatives to end the conflict because he knew answers to some of those questions i posed. because he knew the alternative, believed it was essential for the future security and prosperity of the jewish democratic state of islam and because he understand beyond all the complicated factors that influence the events in the region that this is a struggle it transcends any distinction of national and religious identity, start overtime people who are intent on opening wounds versus those that want to close them.
the legacy endures as a challenge, and then his memory i asked everyone to try to find a way that we commit to use our words and actions to advance the cause of piece. [applause] [applause] >> wonderful to have you here. that was a great speech. i just want to say on behalf of everyone here how much we appreciate everything that you do.
your untiring efforts in every regard, not just the israeli-palestinian issue, climate change. your inspiration, and we hope. in that regard. >> i have to ask him all the questions. your staff said i was the only one i could ask you questions. in that regard there is a certain sense of what you had to say. the underlying message is basically it's up to them now. it is up to the palestinian authority and the government of israel that in a sense
you have done what you can. is that the message? >> not completely. not entirely. is there frustration? sure there is. you were there working with us. we may great progress. we advance the ball in many different ways. very close. things got in the way of it. i don't want to go backwards , but i think that i believe we do still have -- exclusively not up to them but it is mostly up to them. we can help shape, support, provide a foundation which will give them confidence that if they do x, y, or z we will be there, others will be there in the
following things will happen that is important. the united states always plays a fairly critical role in providing that kind of assurance, and we are an unparalleled convener. we have an ability to bring people to the table, to help in these matters. but fundamentally -- and i say this respectfully, folks outside the on the other side of the fence, the choices are clear. if they get weaker i believe that is a danger for islam. how is israel advantaged out of chaos in the west bank or to have another war with gaza? gaza is ready. it is very, very tense.
it is important for us to take steps with respect to gaza and the west bank together. there are some things he is prepared to try to do. the violence is made the climate difficult. politicians screaming at you it closes the political space but nevertheless you have to do what is in the best interest of the country the one person who is most committed to nonviolence, you send an incredibly negative message to the rest of the people who are frustrated.
you have to give life to these instruments are want to find ways to give life to them in order to feel that different set of possibilities. right now a lot of young people growing up in the west bank you don't see a future and the question is what choices we will they make? i think israel has a vital national security interest in morning to do more. i believe there are people within the security establishment who believe just what i said. is predominantly up to them and asked to be a greater indication of the thingsthat are willing to do to move down the road.
>> an example, oslo divided the west bank and the three sectors. a sector which has exclusive security and administrative rights. security in israel, administrative the palestinian. 60 percent, as i just said. notwithstanding that it is supposed to be exclusively within the jurisdiction, and the reason for that, israel asserts that they do not do it and have not done things
to protect israel and so forth. so israel is going to resort to self-help. there should be a greater effort cooperatively with everyone including us. military representative to west bank. work with them and uphold the agreement. we started this process we put in a bunch of economic measures. increasing the amount of water that flowed, the number of permits for work. the problem is we are three years down the road with a
disappointing process in the intervening time that reduces trust and hope. just coming in with the same kind of measure will not get it done again. what i'm trying to persuade people is to go further to indicate a political horizon , something that begins to say yes, you can have a state. there is a way to get there. open up opportunities for them build, have some agriculture,agriculture, do some business and begin to strengthen themselves. that will begin to send a very different message. it does not mean you have a big negotiation. that opening up a new set of promises personnel, you cannot produce, but it is real and tangible in terms of the transition. as i said earlier, it does
not have any negative impact on israeli security because he was still have the legal right to israel for full security. only affects the right to build some housing. that is one of the kinds of steps. >> and it sends a signal. >> that is absolutely correct and very important. right now because of the municipality laws and the settlements that are there there is a significant reduction in the availability, a lot of areas that have been taken under state control and therefore are not available to palestinians which raises questions about whether it is ever going to come back or not where israel is really going with this. both sides have legitimate
questions, the other day i was in cyprus where we are working hard to try to break the conflict. and i had dinner with the leader of the turk and president of us does he at least, the leader of the greek separatists. and we have now built the support of the turkish government angry government very much supporting the movement forward, and they are talking to each other. they had dinner together and they sat there and had a discussion about how they can provide for each other security on my resolve. that doesn't happen in this conflict. 1948. it does not happen. so we have to change the paradigm. rather than keep blaming each other we have to start saying you know what, we have to build. we need to build command that is what we think these
policies can begin to do. >> well, he needs to change the rhetoric about law. he made some very incendiary comments about the alloc's of moss. there were some very insightful comments made. i think one of the problems is he does not control some of the people. it is not control the arab-israeli the runaround and grab a knife. nobody controls that now. that is social media driven and a reflection of some of the challenges we face with what is happening in terms of the radicalization of unemployed youthful populations that have no sense of future. so the issue here is can the palestinians work with, deal with a transition in their own government which has to improve? there are levels of
corruption and challenges that must be taken on. there are in addition textbooks, education, things like that, a lotthat, a lot of things that could begin to change that would reflect the israel that the palestinians are working. but if you are not sitting down all you are doing is hurling invective is on each other on aa daily basis, there is no prayer of beginning that kind of conversation which is a problem today. other than the security exchanges there is good cooperation there when they are working still despite everything else. you could begin to break down some of these barriers. >> one more question. you have done an amazing job
all of these external parties around the table. they disagree on so much. how do you see them actually getting to an agreement for the commitment? if i said i am going to go, the russians who fear that there will be chaos, the saudi's who won't do anything unless, how do you navigate that? in particular, how do you deal with the fears about the day after? that seems to be what motivates a lot of the concern. >> you don't have one day after. you have a process. and this is what we work hard to achieve. i had a very constructive meeting with the prime minister in belgrade the other day on the sidelines
of the osce. and that followed a very constructive meeting that president obama and i had with president the day before in paris. two days before in paris where we really talked about these questions and believe it or not despite all the other problems it was genuinely constructive and trying to find answers. i think russia understands and he ran is coming to understand that the better how much you might want to be, even if we were the most machiavellian and went back on the promises, which we are not about to do. couldn't do it.
you have the right narrative you can build and do a pretty good recruitment tool which is what they are doing which is the danger. and so if they stay those who are continuing to fight will attract more jihadists. and ultimately it is they who will be the tougher fighters of the better on in the more perceived as capable of getting rid of the sod. then what do you have? that is your day of implosion, progressive transfer. in doing so they are supporting hezbollah, iran, and the sod. and if you have an interest in having a relationship with the sunni world which they do that is not a good equation. so i think that there is a
reason here. that isthat is what happens and diplomacy or in anything. politics. people have to have a reason, and interest. your interest has to be defined and you have to be able to make a tangible. russia has lost america. a report on unrest in russia i think there are reasons that we all have to want to end this as fast as possible. we are trying to set up a transitional negotiation where a sod has to begin to devolve some power. the election is fixed. a ran had its own proposal
of cease-fire, constitutional rewrite, unity government an election. the question here is when and how can we get to the point where it is clear that a choice must be made and you can have a smooth transition with the christians are protected, jews are protected, the sunni are protected and you have all segments of society. the other thing, as i said is a nonsectarian unified state. it is absolutely vital to have a ran, turkey, jordan, lebanon, russia, the united states and all the other allies united and wanting a united syria.
that is why this is sort of a decent shot. if russia and iran stand as a block and allow a sod to simply stiff the process and get in a transitional it will be clear the problem children are and are options will be narrowed. what happened in paris. they can alter the politics of europe in an existential way forever. we all have an obligation to recognize danger, danger to russia because there are more than 2,000 chechnya and spiting, learning tradecraft
so there is a lot of reason that people have an interest. what we have been doing and is the right strategy, trying to underscore to everybody what their interests are and get them to act on those interests. if we can do that successfully we may get somewhere. i'm not sitting here saying that this will work. i am saying that it could if everyone plays the role making the right choice. if they don't we are still going to have to go destroy them. we will just have to decide to do it in a different way. >> i think i speak for everybody here. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> on the next "washington journal," jordan fabian on the gun-control measures president obama proposed in the wake of the san bernardino shooting. then, bill pascrell of new jersey on the u.s. strategy against isis. isis, our conversation on and preventing terrorist attacks in the u.s. continues with senator bill cassidy of louisiana. is liveton journal"
every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with your calls, comments on facebook and twitter. >> today, the pakistani ambassador to the u.s. talks about u.s.-pakistan relations and regional security challenges. cli that 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house ended to the classroom. this year, our student cam documentary contest ask students what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's "road to the white house" coverage and get all the details about our student cam contest at c-span.org. >> homeland security century jeh johnson spoke about national security in several lights at
the all dulles muslim society in sterling, virginia. he responded to comments by donald trump that almost one entry into the united states should be halted. this is about 15 minutes. waste me back here. -- nice to be back here. i want to thank those who are up your with us, and the other members of the community. i know i speak to most people in this room, including those appear with me, when i begin these remarks by saying, my fellow americans. as i've said for some time now, we're in a new phase in the global terrorist threat. it includes terrorist directives and terrorist inspired attacks. it includes plots from overseas and the potential for the long factors in the homeland.
this new phase requires a new approach to counterterrorism and homeland security. outreach toclude muslim communities across the country. over the last two years, i have been to boston, new york, brooklyn, suburban maryland, minneapolis, chicago, columbus ohio, houston, los angeles, and other places for this purpose. one of the most meaningful discussions i have had on this was in june of this year, here at the adams center. leaders of this community. we began that session when boy scouts led the pledge of allegiance. in the wake of recent events, i return here today. inmessage today is this: responding to this new vilifyment, we must not
american muslims. we must not throw a net of suspicion over american muslims and an entire religion. we must not force american muslims to run and hide and retreat to the shadows. counter to our homeland security efforts, and it is un-american. now more than ever, it is time to work together to protect and defend our communities, our families, and hour homeland. arereality is that there 1.6 billion muslims in the world. it is the second largest religion in the world, behind christianity. one in four people on this planet are muslim. which the muslim faith, spreads across every continent of this planet, are sects as
diverse as christianity. within this country alone, there are about 3 million muslims. they include african-americans, egyptian americans, indonesian americans, iraqi americans, syrian americans, and many others of different races and skin colors. the overwhelming, overwhelming majority of american muslims, are men,ms worldwide, women, and children of peace, who seek to live their lives in peace, and want nothing to do with terrorism. anyone who does not understand that does not understand islam. the very essence of the islamic faith is peace. the standard greeting is peace be upon you. the principal victims of the so-called islamic state and al qaeda are muslims.
women, andon men, children who left their homes in syria as refugees are fleeing the very same terrorism and violence that we are concerned about. now, and i hope you know, that as long as i am secretary of homeland security, i will continue to speak out against the discrimination, vilification, and isolation that american muslims face in these challenging times. now i have an ask. it is an ask of the people in this room and all muslims across the country. terrorist organizations overseas have targeted your communities. they seek to pull your youth into the pit of violent extremism. help us to help you stop this. if you see something, say
something. this is more than a slogan. if you see someone turning toward violence, say something. say something to law enforcement, or to one of you in your community, for your legislators. when people self radicalize, someone close to them is almost always in a position to see the signs. help us to help you amplify your message about the true meaning of islam as a religion of peace. help us to help you warn young people about the barbaric, oppressive, and dangerous nature of isil and the danger of traveling to a place like syria. encourage your youth to challenge their peers. encourage your youth that if they see someone attracted to isil's message, they tell them that there is a better way to change the world without violence. most of all, do not become
bitter. do not lose faith. have faith in this country. over and over again, in the life of this nation, there have been classes of people, who by virtue of their race, religion, or nationality exist on the margins of society, who were the object of prejudice, scorn, and suspicion, and who seek to win acceptance. it is also the tradition of this great nation that ultimately those who once existed on the margins of society become part of the fabric of our society. in 1949, during the mccarthy era, the red scare, my own grandfather was called upon to testify before the house of american activities committees to deny that he was a member of the communist party, and to
defend the patriotism of african-americans. today, his grandson is responsible for the homeland security of this entire nation. one month before my grandfather died in 1956, and this was in the area of jim crow, the segregated south, before civil rights movements and laws, he said something that i believe today. "bitterness grows out of hopelessness, and there is no hopelessness in this situation. however uncomfortable and ,enacing it may be at times faith in the ultimate strength of the democratic philosophy and coded this nation as a whole has always been stronger in the impulse to despair." ink you again. -- thank you again. thank you for welcoming me back. as i said before, now more than ever it is time to work together to build bridges and pursue a
more perfect union. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] sec. johnson: all right, i will take a couple questions. >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: can you tell me who you are, please? >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: im glad you don't expect me to way into the politics. >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: i do not comment on what candidates for office say during this political season. the remarks i just
delivered speak for themselves in this regard. thank you. >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: ok, all right. yes, ma'am? >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: i have spoken here today. i have spoken numerous other misery atcluding in westminster college in september, about what i believe to be the obligation of those of us in public office and those who aspire to public office and command microphone, to be responsible in our rhetoric, responsible in our suggestions,
and not suggest things that are overheated and are responsible. i have said that on numerous occasions, and i say it here again today. >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: my remarks speak for themselves. yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: i think the private sector, the tech sector with a largere microphone, a larger platform.
the message is not a government message, so i am interested in seeing the tech sector come together with leaders in the muslim community to provide a larger platform, to provide a larger microphone. we recently announced the formation of a community partnership, and one of the positions that i have given the director of that office is to do what we can to match up community leaders with the tech sector, and we have begun to do that. yes, sir, right here. >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: which is organization, sir? >> [indiscernible]
i'm sorry, i: didn't hear your -- oh. well, given the nature of this no readily are available, quantifiable metrics. but i have been to 10 or 11 cities now, major metropolitan areas, to engage in this conversation. listen to the community. i'm going to keep doing this. my goal is to continue to do this for as long as i am secretary, and to bring as many of you in the press with me, to amplify this message. i think it is important, and every time i go out to places like this, i interested to meet new people, like the people appear with me. we will keep doing this in as many places as possible. yes, ma'am. >> [indiscernible]
sec. johnson: good question, and i'm glad you asked. if you see something, say something means conduct, behavior, suspicious behavior. it does not mean the color of a person's skin. it does not mean a person's language or accent or clothing. it means suspicious behavior. as i said, there are 1.6 million billion muslims on this planet. one in four are muslims in this world.
if you see something, say something, i am talking about suspicious behavior. i am talking about an unattended suitcase, somewhat engaging in suspicious behavior. of something by virtue someone's identity. ok, one more question. the gentleman in the back. >> [indiscernible] sec. johnson: this is something that we have been working on for several months now. i will have more to say about it in the coming days. i want to leave something for the day i actually announce it, so thank you. ok. one more question. right back there, yes. >> [indiscernible]
sec. johnson: well, what i said in my prepared remarks speak for themselves. we are doing a number of things, militarily, in law enforcement. in addition, given the new phase we are in, it requires a whole government approach, enhanced federal protection service in several buildings, enhanced aviation security. we continually evaluate whether more is necessary. we made enhancements and security of the waiver program moreyear, and i announced
again this august. congress is interested in working with us on thi i would like to see congresss. do something effective in this area, and i hope that they will. we will see a bill offered in congress and the next day or so to help us enhance the security of the visa waiver program. engagements like this are also critical, in addition to a number of other things that we are doing to. tomorrow, i fly to london for a conference with my european ministerial conferenc counterpas about greater security sharing in europe, to talk to them about some of the things we would like to see european countries do in terms of collecting what we refer to as api, advanced passenger information, pnr, passenger name recognition. this is a conversation i will be having with my european
counterparts on thursday. we have continued that conversation. i think that there is a fair amount of urgency in europe to work with us on this, so i hoping that we will have productive conversations. it's a range of things we are doing that i have laid out previously in remarks this morning, and we always evaluate whether more is necessary. a homeland security, you take step and then you continue to evaluate whether more is necessary based on the current environment. when a message here todayi to y is twofold. one, the answer to the current environment and the answer to what we see in terms of the global terrorist threat is to not vilify an entire religion. our have an ask of
community leaders here in this country and the american muslim communities in this country, which is that if you see something, say something. terrorist organizations are targeting the young people in these communities, so we are in a position to work together and to help each other, given how the global terrorist threat has evolved i believe that engagements such as these have become essential to our efforts. thanks a lot, everybody. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> today, smithsonian secretary rton on the nature of
the institution, live from the national press club on c-span3. today, the pakistani ambassador to the u.s. talks about u.s.-pakistan relations and regional security challenges. see it live at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span three. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house with access to the candidates at townhall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greets. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone. eventays, every campaign we cover is available on our website, c-span.org. >> republican presidential candidate donald trump held a campaign rally in south carolina on monday.
he addressed a number of topics, including a statement he put out earlier calling for a, quote, "shutdown of muslims injuring the united states." this event is about an hour. >> wow. thank you, thank you so much. we start by paying our great respect to pearl harbor. we don't want that ever happening to us again. so i want to thank everybody for being here.
andsands of people outside, sometimes they will say, would you like to wait an hour until they come in? we can't get them in any way. we all got together, we are lucky. [cheering] >> a lot of big news today. the big one is that cnn came out with a new poll. iow, great state. , trump that -- in iowa, trump at 33%. [cheering] >> beating everybody by a lot. 16%,at 20%, carson out rubio at 11%. trump at 33%, just came out in iowa, we love iowa. by the way, a great ship named after iowa. the other big pull that came out just two days ago was the trump 36%.ll,
i won't even mention the other numbers because they are so low. [cheering] >> when you have so many people 17, and thenad they started to drop -- bing, bing. [laughter] >> i love it, i love it. you will be losing a lot over the next little while. when someone is at zero, eventually they will drop. [laughter] >> the only problem is there is nothing to pick up. anyway, you will be seeing that. one of the things that is so important in the same poll, the big national cnn poll, on the 55%.my, trump [laughter] [applause] >> on the budget -- im really good at these things. trump 51%.et,
everyone else -- [cheering] oh, here's one that i started and i took a lot of sort of like the one we are talking about today, i guess you heard about it. i have hurt -- taken a lot of heat on this. illegal immigration, had i not brought that up in trump tower in june when i announced that i was going to run for president -- which takes courage to run for president, believe me. all of my life i have heard, if you are a successful person, you have done a lot of deals, you can't run for president. and yet that is the kind of mindset and thinking this country needs. we are being run by people who don't know what they are doing! [cheers and applause] very sad.
on illegal immigration, trump, 48%. that's with 15 people. everyone else, no good. on a thing called isis. isis. don't worry, we will talk a lot about isis. can you believe it? here we have generals who go on television that talk, they do all talk. a lot of military people. who is military here? i love you! speaking of it, we're going to make our military so strong, so great, nobody is ever going to mess with us again. nobody! they are never going to mess with us. in many ways, it is the cheapest thing we can do. the cheapest thing. instead of fighting these wars that we don't know what we're doing and we have leaders that are afraid to do anything, there great, so strong,
that people -- they're not missing. and we're going to take care of our great pets, our wounded lawyers. warriors. being taken care of. we have illegal immigrants that are taking care better than our incredible veterans and it's not going happen any longer. not going to happen. not going to happen. so with isis, trump, 46%. can you imagine this with all of his characters running? up.oreign policy, trump way in theory you could say, well, maybe it's not my thing. people want to see strength and they want to see protection. they want to be protected. and that's it. i watched last night and i watched the president truly that didn't know what he was doing. he didn't -- he didn't know why
he was there. he refuses to use the term "radical islamic terrorism." he refuses to use the term. i don't even know if he knows on. the hell is going i really don't. [applause] and then we're looking at hillary clinton. and honestly, i know hillary, it is just going to be an extension of obama, maybe worse. she's got no strength, no stamina. remember that. you don't need a president with no strength or stamina and being ripped off on trade and ripped off on obamacare, which is going to be replaced by something really good. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: when our soldiers aren't being taken care of and our military has never been like
it is today -- one of the generals was on television, as usual, saying we are the least prepared now than any time he has ever seen it and he has been a long time, retiring. that is how we are. in the most dangerous world we ever had because of the powerful weapons, we have people that don't know -- i'm telling you, i watch these generals being interviewed. you think general george patton would have been interviewed? after total and complete victory. general douglas macarthur, they're not big for interviews. they shoot first and talk later. these guys -- and i don't think we will have to. just so you understand, bush -- [laughter] was beingsterday, he
interviewed, he is talking about me. he was segment isis things about me. of course he said he will be elected he is at, what, 3%? no, he said some things, i said, who says that about an opponent? you don't say those things. you'll find out what he said. he said very nice things. happens,u look at what where he is upset with me because he says, the tone -- the tone of donald trump is not nice. time, we it all the have people whose heads are being chopped off in the middle east because they are christian and for other reasons and being dumped and drowned in steel cages. and we talk about my tone. hillary says the same thing. "mr. trump's tone is not nice." these people are living in a different planet, different planet. [cheers and applause]
mr. trump: and remember what i said about hillary. we need somebody's who is strong and with incredible energy and incredible intelligence and all of those things. i know a lot of tough people, but they are not smart. that's no good. they are easy. we need tough. we are so far behind the eight ball in this country. go 19 train the budget they dollars. signed is going to make it $ 1 -- 21 chilean dollars. trillion dollars. who ever heard of the word? 10 years ago, there was no such word. we go $21 trillion in the very near future. we are really in trouble. we have to rebuild our country. we have to rebuild our infrastructure. we have to rebuild our military, and yet we do deals with china where there is a trade imbalance
$400 billion in their favor. japan, they send the cars by the millions, $70 billion a year imbalance. that's like a loss. you look at mexico. we are going to build a wall. it will be a real wall. it will be a real wall. it's going to happen. it's going to happen. the people i'm dealing with, and i focus on hillary. i have to get through these 15 people. there is 15 of us. came at me strong, he went down. governor walker, and i stuck him he went down. every guy that attacks they all may, went down. we have to keep it that way, right? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: lindsay graham is at zero. zero.
[crowd booing] mr. trump: i don't get lindsay graham. i don't get him. he is little. >> we don't, either. we don't: he says, either. he is literally at you see it. zero. and he keeps talking. and he is on television all the time and he doesn't go up. he is at zero, folks. his ideas are so bad, i am more militaristic than him and i know how to win. and he doesn't. he just wants to attack. and now he sits with john mccain. it is like they are the bobs the twins. there are was sitting together. it's true. do you ever notice? sometimes i want to see him by himself and he is always in with john mccain. but you gotking it, to know what to do. with me, i was against the war in iraq.
other great temperament. but you have to attack -- if you're going to do something, you have to know what you're doing. i said if you attack iraq and you wipe it out, a ran is going to take over the entire middle east has you're going to ruin the balance. it was so simple to me. and actually, they sent a group from the white house to see me because i got so much publicity -- so much publicity that they sent a group from the white -- i, see mr. trump, see said, fellows, you're going to have a ran takeover the middle east, and that is what is happening. and a ran as when a takeover iraq as soon as you're sitting there. either way, iraq with the second-largest oil reserves anywhere in the world. we lost thousands of lives. we wounded warriors, who i love them all over the place. $2 trillion.
i don't know what she said, but that's all right. i don't know what she said, but whatever it is. treat her nicely. thank you very much. >> trump! mr. trump: all right, treat her nicely. thank you. you know, they have a system now. -- weill have four people were interrupted four times one at a couple of weeks ago and four people, one person at a time, and they will screen something and then the next day, the press will say, you have thousands of people here tonight and it will talk about three or four people -- and i case, 1 -- that person had a very weak voice. [laughter] mr. trump: what a weak voice. strange. strange.
it's too bad. the funny thing is, i look at democrats and liberals and conservatives, republicans, and wouldn't be good for all of us if we could get together and really make our country great again? isn't that what we want to do? [applause] mr. trump: i will bet you if i spoke to that young woman that quickly -- i really think i could convince her that we are all in this together, folks. we want to have a strong country, right? -- what a good guy this is. you have been so great to me. a pastor and a great guy. he has been so great to me. i appreciate it, pastor. thank you. thank you. [applause] mr. trump: if you think about and you'll have some that can be satisfied no matter what, they're just troublemakers, etc. but most people aren't and they
mr. trump: that was the same person. i got a tell you, so far the security isn't doing a great job in your. i will tell you that. that was the same person. why don't you get her out? honestly it is inappropriate. ,security, strengthen yourself up. see, our country has this kind of security. that's the problem we have. get her out. please, thank you. treat her nicely. but she should now one person. be taken out. same person. that's one person. they let her out to give her a second chance in the same thing happens. but you would think -- you would think that everybody -- we're all in the same basket that everybody, every single person -- [crowd chanting]
mr. trump: i have a lot of time. does everybody have a lot of time tonight? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i don't want the person to be hurt, but security is very weak. i can't believe these security people. one person. one person that we have wasted five minutes. all right, get them out. thank you. so you would think if we could get together we would be in the , same boat. last night we witnessed something that i thought was highly inappropriate. in fact, i tweeted, "is that
all there is?" about the president's speech. i wrote something that is very alien in important probably not politically correct, but i don't care. [cheers and applause] you know, we're the situation in california very recently where somebody was making bombs in an apartment. the mother saw them stop the mother did notice anything wrong. i watched the sister being interviewed. believe me, she was lying like crazy. at the brother was wonderful guy, i didn't know, i did know." i watched the next or neighbor saying, "oh, we do not report them because we did not want to racially profile or profile." give me a break. give me a break. we're like the stupid country.
some of the different ways. can you imagine what our great leaders of the past would have said with the kind of craft that is happening with us? they did not report them because they thought it was profiling. oh, ok. they saw bombs, they saw the pipe bombs. this wasn't to build bathroom when this bomb is this long. you have to put too many of them together for a bathroom, right? we thought, maybe, but would it not want to racially profile. oh, ok, you're innocent. or how about where the families and the girlfriends and the wives and never thing they go back with the world trade center. the worst -- worse than pearl harbor. without world trade center, they were killing us and civilians. at least while it was a dirty rotten snake attack, at least -- at least -- well, that was -- [laughter] mr. trump: think goodness he is on my side. but while it was an attack, at least it was military. but this was an attack on the
world trade center. is, we are happened out of control. we have no idea who is coming into our country. we have no idea of they love us or hate us. -- no idea if at they want to bomb us. we have no idea what is going on. and i look at polymers. these numbers i hated to look at. and it is very, very sad. i will go after some of the numbers. 25% of those polls -- and this was for the center for security policy, very highly respected group of people, who i know, actually. this is people living in this country. 25% of those polls agree violence against americans is justified. there's muslims. 25%. in thislims living country -- by the way, i have friends that are muslims and
their great people, but they know we have a problem. they know we have a real problem. something is going on. and we can't put up with it, folks. we can't put up with it. respected, highly number of polling groups want to be governed according to sharia. you know what sharia is. so i wrote this up. mainstream media wants to surrender the constitution. the mainstream media. these people back here, they are the worst. they are so dishonest. no, no, they are so dishonest. [cheers and applause] they're so dishonest. i had a reporter from nbc and ask like him another one i think from cvs, they actually in columbus, ohio, i headed tremendous crowd like 10,000 people. it was a love fest. it went on for a long time.
everybody stayed until the end. i had one of the politicians who horrible debater. he made a statement that, oh, they left there for 10 minutes. the press was there. they sought. nobody says it was a lie. nobody is leaving except for the one person who was screaming. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: so we asked the press to report it was a total lie, they don't want to do it because it is nothing to do. we get the biggest crowds. they don't to show this crowd. they're not going to show all of china get in.side they have the cameras in my face. i say, and the crowd. pan the crowd. they don't show it. no, no. i say fan it and they never, ever do.
i say, fan the crowd and then never do it. i guarantee you that young woman that just got taken out after interrupting us three times, i guarantee that cameras will be on her. i guarantee. it is disgusting. so we talk about the media. by the way, some of the media is terrific. but most of it, 70%, 75% is absolute dishonest, absolute scum. scum. they are totally dishonest. [applause] i had one the other day where i finished his speech of may said, oh, trump was interrupted and he left early. for like 45, 50 minutes. i then answered questions and itn i went -- everybody knew was false. amazingly, there is a media group that calls the media. the next day, they did the most pitiful story about what a lie it was from nbc. she is back there.
little katie. she is back there. what a lie it was. [crowd booing] mr. trump: what a lie it was. katie couric. tot a light was from nbc have written that. it was a total lie. and they did -- i do know that a group like this, where they actually criticized the media. and they said it was a total lie. and i loved it. i loved it. i loved it. and other people pick it up. third-rate reporter, remember that. third-rate. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: the mainstream media wants to surrender our constitution and our constitutional rights. and i don't want that. i want isis to surrender. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i want isis to surrender. very simple. it's very simple.
so here's what happened. little bit of a controversy. it is a great day because the poll numbers are through the roof. i like that. i -- is there any way we could call the election tomorrow? wouldn't you love that? now they're coming at us in full force. they're not coming at me, they're coming at all of us. because, you know, we have a noisy majority. they used to call it the quiet majority. people are fed up. they are fed up with incompetence and stupid leaders and fed up with stupid people. [applause] mr. trump: they are fed up with stupid people. where our president makes a deal for sergeant bergdahl, a dirty moroccan, no good traitor, who, think of it, they knew he was a traitor because a journal and a kernel which is the his group. six people were killed looking for him, ok yet the young -- i watch the parents on television.
i have seen the parents. i watched the parents on television. devastated. will never be the same. they left to try and bring him back. he left. he deserted. in the old days when we were a strong country, it would be boom, gone. , that would be called desertion. now her the other day they won't even do anything to him. can you believe it? he is going to have nothing. so he left. and they treated them pretty rough. he said, "i should have done this. this isn't working out the way i thought." anyway, so we get him back. and here's the deal. we get a dirty no-good traitor, six people killed. they get five of their greatest killers that they have been after. think of it. for six years -- in fact, i hear nine years. so they get -- right now, they are out on the battlefield trying to kill every one of you
-- trying to kill everybody, including you folks. so we get bergdahl and they get five of the killers they wanted for many years. that is the way we do it. the iran deal. we gave them $150 billion stock is called amateur night. billion.hem $150 24 days -- 24 days. we think there's something wrong? but it we have to wait, is much longer than that because there is a whole process before the clock starts ticking. so it could be forever. but the best is, where they have the right to self inspect. you doing nuclear weapons? we will inspect tomorrow. oh, no, we're not doing nuclear weapons. the persians are great negotiators. somebody would say that is profiling. trust me, they are great negotiators. horrible is a
negotiator and obama is a horrible negotiator. horrible. horrible. these people are horrible. [applause] mr. trump: i always thought obama would be a unifier. anever thought of him as divider. i backed mccain, he lost, by the way. i don't blame him because a lot of things were happening. but i backed mccain and he lost. i backed romney and he sort of went away on vacation or something last month and he lost. and i said, this time i'm going to do it myself. were not going to lose. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: and the recent fox poll that just came out has me beating hillary one-on-one. i love that. that is so important. so we put out a statement. we watch this and it is
impossible to watch this gross incompetence that i watched last night. and we put out a statement. just a little while ago. these people are going crazy. [laughter] mr. trump: they will report it, probably. shall i read you this statement? donald j. trump is calling for -- you have to listen to this because this
is pretty heavy stuff. it is common sense. remember the poll numbers, 25%, 51%. remember the poll numbers. so remember this. so listen. donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on! [cheers and applause] mr. trump: have no choice. we have no choice. [cheers and applause]
mr. trump: we have no choice. according to pew research, there is a great hatred towards americans by large segments of the muslim population. most recently, a poll from center for security policy released data showing that 25% of those polled agreed that violence against americans -- these are people that are here, by the
way. people that are here. not 1%. other way, 1% would be unacceptable. 1% is unacceptable. 25% of those polled agree that violence against americans here in the united states is justified. -- think of that. as part of the global jihad.
[boos] mr. trump: they want to change your religion i don't think so. i don't think so. not going to happen. as part of the global jihad and 51% of those polled agreed that muslims in america should have the choice of being governed according to sharia. you know what sharia is. 51%. sharia authorizes -- and this is -- i mean, it's terrible. sharia authorizes such atropical -- atrocities as murder against nonbelievers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to americans, especially women. you look, especially women. tough stuff. and we have a president that won't even mention the term.
and you're talking about numbers like this. mr. trump stated without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. where the hatred comes from and why we'll have to determine -- we have to figure it out. we can't live like this. it's going to get worse and worse. you're going to have more world trade centers. it is going to get worse and worse, folks. we can be politically correct and we can be stupid, but it is going to get worse and worse. determinere able to and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victim of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad. these are people who believe in jihad. they don't want on our system.
they don't want our system. reason oro sense of respect for human life. they have no respect for human life. [cheers] mr. trump: that's all right. he sounds like he is very exhausted. he's tired. so they have no respect for human life. so we have to do something. now, we can be weak. we can be ineffective and we can be foolish. that's all right. i'm sure he is a nice person. i'm sure he can be reasoned with. be very gentle. whenever i'm cap, the presses, oh, he was nasty. whenever i say, "the very
gentle," they say, he's not as strong as we thought he was. can't win. so i try and cut it down the middle. i try and cut it down the middle. be very nice. a prior to paris, which was disaster -- which, by the way, if some of the people in those places where there was absolute slaughter had guns, you wouldn't have had the carnage that you had in paris! you wouldn't have had that carnage. if they had guns, you wouldn't have had that carnage. [applause] so important a second commitment, we have to preserve and cherish it. we can't let these weak leaders diminish it. if they had guns in paris in -- five people in that room, parents and fries has probably the toughest gun laws anywhere in the world, and it was like target practice. come over here. boom!
come over here. boom! people are sitting by the hundreds and many others are going to be dying, sitting in a hospital in many cases waiting to die. ago same thing a few days in california. no guns. we didn't have guns. the bad guys had the guns. and these young people -- and i tell the press, you have to stop calling them masterminds. these are dirty, rotten scum. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: these aren't masterminds. remember the guy in paris, i was -- the mastermind. i was watching all of the networks, i won't mention it, but some of them disgusted me. "the mastermind is on the loose." and we have kids that are watching the internet and they want to be masterminds. and then you wonder why do we lose all these kids? their young and impressionable. they go over and they want
anchors. to join isis. and we have our anchors. i think i've got the mostly stopped. i don't hear them too much. and they say, "the young mastermind." "brilliant young man." i don't even to get a high iq. i call him, the guy in paris, the guy with the dirty filthy had. bing bing bing star shooting everybody. so the press has to be responsible.
they're not being responsible because we are losing a lot of people because of the internet. we have to do something. we have to go see bill gates and a lot of different people that really understand what is happening. we have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing the internet up in some way. some of you will say, "freedom of speech, freedom of speech." these are foolish people. we have a lot of polish people. we have a lot of polish people. we have got to maybe do something with the internet because they are recruiting people by the thousands.
they're leaving our country. them with a back, we take them back. "oh, come back. where were you ?" "i was fighting for isis." go back. when they leave our country and go to fight for isis, they never come back. they never can come back. they can never come ever, ever come back. it's over. how about that? another become radicalized. they're totally radicalized. how about the woman, she was in pakistan that saudi arabia, she comes in on an engagement deal. and she radicalized the guy, probably a guy who couldn't get women. i don't know what the hell's problem -- probably the first woman he's ever had. i don't know what was going on, but he became radicalized quickly. he becomes radicalized and then they go on a spree. folks those days are over. , those days are over.
we have to be tough and we have to be smart. we have to be vigilant. mosqueshave to look at respect mosques, but yes -- we have to look at mosques. we have no choice. web to see what is happening because something is happening in their -- man, there is anger. there is anger. and we have to go about it. we can do these people that are sitting back like in the world trade center, like some of the different things. we can't be people that knew what was going on to ask ago in california, probably for months they knew what was going on, and they didn't want to tell anybody. we can't be that. we have to be strong. when we see violations, you have to report those violations and quickly. don't worry about profiling. i promise, i will defend you from profiling. i promise. [cheers and applause] so when i started
this whole quest, who knew it was going to turn into this? it has been an amazing thing. no matter where i go, after minutes grounds. packed. we went to dallas, 20,000 people in dallas. 25,000 people. i mean, mobile, alabama, 35,000 people. here, every time i come to south carolina, everett, go to north carolina come every time i go to iowa, new hampshire, virginia, wherever i go -- florida, we ed.e crowds that are max thousands of people outside trying to get in. usually i do a double. i go talk to them for a while. there is unbelievable love in these rooms. all the same. audience member: i love you. mr. trump: thank you. thank you. i love you, too. stand up. thank you. thank you.
i love you, too. there is and him believable love in all of these places. oklahoma, 20,000 people standing in a park on quick notice. there is an unbelievable love and unbelievable love of the country. we want to see good things. we don't want to be bad people. we don't want to be tough and nasty. we believe in the constitution we can't let people use and abuse our rights. we can't let people kill us. they want to kill us and we can't let it happen. we just can't let it happen. and i have a friend who is is l -- who is a very, very successful man. i went to one event any came with me, with 24,000 people. this guy is a tough cookie, great financial guy, one of the guys i definitely would use to negotiate with japan, china.
believe me, you are going to be in good shape if that happens. we won't have these characters. the whole thing -- by the way, i'm the only one who is self running my campaign. the only one. i'm the only one. [cheers and applause] i'm still finding my campaign. and these other guys, you know, they're getting millions and millions of dollars from people i know. i have one guy who wanted to give me a lot of money and i said, "honestly, i can't take it." which is for me to not take money from him a whole life i've been taking -- now i'm sort of like, what am i doing? but came in and i said, so what you going to do? i don't want your money. he said, i've got to go someplace else. they're like gamblers. i said, but you like me best. he said, i like you best, but have to go someplace else. isy want to be part -- who more than me? i gave millions. nobody knows the system better than me. i know from the other side.
don't forget, i was the fair-haired boy. i was like the establishment. they would all come to me and oh give them money. i would write checks to whatever the max. based to say, senators, don't come to my opposite. anybody with u.s. senator, we will send you a crime pain -- campaign contribution. in the end, the people that give these lanes of dollars to these horrible, corrupt pacs. their corrupt. they totally control bush and rubio and i won't say cruz, because he is been nice to me. he has to hit me first. once he hits me, i promise you -- [laughter] mr. trump: i promise you. i have a nice to chris christie but he really hit me today post up chris christie. i don't know, he is a friend of mine. but he is not doing well in the polls and you really really hit me today. he hated this and yet he said, anybody -- you have to look at some of the statements from the
past. and he really hit me on the whole thing with we have to stop the muslims into a finite what is going on. does that make sense, by the way? until we find out -- [applause] mr. trump: he talked about, that's an experience. the statement of an inexperienced man. a statement i made about we have to stop people that want to kill us from coming in. does that sound like a next.'s? chris, who is a friend of mine, he hit me hard. i said, i've got the them at least once. here is the story. [applause] mr. trump: the george washington bridge. you about it. how do you have breakfast with people everyday lives, closing of the largest bridge in the world, the biggest in the united states, traffic flowing during rush hour, people could not get across for 6, 7 hours. ambulances, fire trucks, they are with them all the time, the that did it.
they never said, "hey, boss, we're closing of the george washington bridge." he totally knew about it. he's got a very from the group of people over there. i don't know, look, it is called life will stop you have to be smart in life. i would say there is less than 1% chance -- it could be, but i doubt it. he knew about it. they did mention of one of their meetings? i think that breakfast everyday or every other day. they do and say, "chris, tonight we're closing up the george washington bridge because the mayor of a certain area is against you?" they did mention a post of nobody believes it. number two. nine downgrades of the state. nine downgrades. i have property over there. the taxes -- always an expression, coming out of my ears. nine downgrades. you had christie so friendly
with president obama during the flood. actually called and said, let me ask you, is he going to vote for obama yet though i thought it was going to vote for obama. i don't know, i think you possibly did. and romney. was very disappointed. one of the reasons i was disappointed, he called christine had dinner right after the election. if you do that to me, i would never have spoken to him again. -- if christy addenda to make i would never have spoken them again. when he talks about lack of experience, i filed papers were everyone said, well, that is unbelievable. i probably would have felt even if i didn't because i built a great, great company. tremendous cash, tremendous assets, tremendous network, very little debt. unbelievable cash flow. and i filed. herybody said, number one, won't run. and i ran. i took a deep breath and i went, let's go, to my wife. and we can done that escalator. hopefully, it will be a
great scene because we will have turned run our country and it will be a positive note. [applause] then they said, oh, he announced. all of these talking heads, most of them who are now smart people, believe me. then they said, they went to ivy league college. so did i. most didn't, by the way, but they say, one is pray and because he wears glasses. remember perry? well,appens is they say, it is where you sign your life away. i signed. did i said, well, he won't sign his financial statement because maybe he is in his riches everyone things. then they said, and if he does, he will last for many, many delays because you're entitled to 45 day delays, delays. they will delay until after the
election. i said, no. i filed ahead of schedule. and what happened? remember? they couldn't believe it. it was much, much better than anybody -- i built a great company. and the reason come honestly, worth billions and billions -- great cashow debt, ge flow, a big chunk of the bank of america building in san francisco, so many great things. land all over, lynn on the potomac, landoll over. in north carolina, the great piece of property. some of you know it. right in the best location. and what happens? what happens? i filed. and they said, i can't believe then they -- i can't believe it. then they said, maybe you won't do so well in the polls. people never thought i was going to run. and i told the store the other said to me, you
know if you run, you will win, don't you? she is very smart. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i said, what do you mean? she said, if you don't run, you'll never poll well. they did these early polls. they weren't great before i announced. she said, the only way you're going to get a poll number coming after announced because nobody believes. even though they say you are running, it doesn't matter. nobody believes you are running. so i said, i'm getting these lousy early numbers. i don't want to run and find out it doesn't work. it's true. it's true. so we go down on the escalator. i took a deep breath. i'm telling you, and you know what i'm talking about, the press down there looked like the academy awards. there were so many cameras. i've never seen anything like it. the entire atrium of trump towers packed with press.
i just said, let's go, to my wife. i took a deep breath and i went down. and i talked about lots of things. including illegal immigration. illegal immigration was such a big subject. i'm telling you, had i not brought it up -- and i took heat. i took heat like nobody has taken heat. rush limbaugh said the most incredible incoming that of ever seen a human being and door company said -- and then he doubled down a week later because i was right. is now illegal immigration one -- it is one of the biggest things. and then you have the killing of eele and the killing of jam and in california, a 66 euros veteran. female. killed.odomized and in many, many more. and they take our jobs and a lot of other things. so all of a sudden, everyone is
saying wow! ,and the pull start. and almost from the beginning, i been at the top room almost day one. almost day [cheers and applause] one. mr. trump: the reason is, look, the reason i tell you certain things and the reason why i have -- i talk about what i've done -- a little ice getting ring. the city couldn't get a bill for eight years. they were in for like $29 and they couldn't get it done. went to the mayor new york mets , i will get it done like that. he did want to be shown up. and if it cost more than two main dollars, i will pay for it. i got it built for peanuts, got it done in performance. and we had a skating in central park. and i still run it wil. did a bigger version of that in the bronx.
the thing has been under construction from 20 to 30 years. they couldn't get it done. i got it done in a year and it is very successful. it's what i do. and that is what we need. that is what we need in our country. i'm building on pennsylvania avenue, one of the great hotels of the world at the old post office site. i got it in the obama administration. everybody was bidding and wanted it. one of the most sought-after projects in the history of the general services. can you imagine me getting it from the obama administration? gsa, who are really professionals, they want to make sure, number one, it got built so they wanted strong financials. they also wanted a great plan. this incredible plan. the job is under budget, a head of schedule. it was going to open up in 2017, sometime during the year 2017, now it will open up probably in september 2016 record for the election on pennsylvania avenue. [applause]
mr. trump: this is the kind of mindset, we have trillions in flames of dollars offshore. pfizer is leaving the united states. in the old days, someone would leave for south carolina or florida or someplace where the taxes are lower. they would leave for north carolina. today they leave this country for other countries, so we are now losing pfizer. we lose many of our great companies. $2.5 trillion all sure, at least. everyone believes they should come home, democrats and republicans. for three years they can't make a go because there's such gridlock. there is no leadership in washington. sowill make this country great. we have people -- and i will know,ou something, you
somebody said something to me the other day and what i really want to do, i want to be -- it's all right. don't worry. forget it. what we want to do and what i want to do, i want to be the people's president. think of this. i don't work for any of the lobbyists. i don't work for any of these people that are leading our country in the wrong direction. thank you. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: the best thing i've seen going around and nothing i've seen more than anything else is how smart the people are. they don't believe those people in the back -- i'm telling you, they don't believe them. the people are really smart. what has given me more inspiration than any other
single thing are the people that i've met, the incredible people of this country. we are going to make america great again. and you know what? we're going to make a greater than ever before. and i love you all will stop thank you very much. thank you very much. south carolina, great. thank you. we love you. thank you. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates, town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greets. we're taking your comets on twitter, facebook, and by phone
and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website c-span.org. >> josh earnest met with reporters earlier in the day and on the other end of pennsylvania avenue, christina marcos is following this story for the kill newspaper. she is joining us on capitol hill. thank you for being with us. let's begin with the comments made and that radio interview by speaker ryan. what did he say? >> speaker ryan said this morning that it seems congress might not quite reach the friday deadline to give the government funded and they might need a little extra time to get everything done before lobby makers can go home. >> that means, what come into the weekend, next week? >> kevin mccarthy just told reporters in the left -- last half hours he is considering forcing the house to be here on friday as well as into the weekend because the thinking is
if they only need a few more days to get everything done, it would make more sense to just keep the members here and the weekend rather than having them fly back home thursday afternoon or friday afternoon, then come back two days later when they could just stay here for a few extra days and then not come back until january. >> this is a $1.1 trillion spending bill and part of the debate focused on so-called riders to this bill. where does that stand? >> that is what is causing these talks to slow down. originally, the appropriators who are involved with the negotiations on this big spending bill, they're hoping to release the text of the bill by today, but that is no longer looking like that is possible because they are still hung up over policy writers and that includes halting environment regulations, slowing down financial regulations, and getting finance roles as well as refugee resettlement programs and the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in paris last
month. so there's a whole variety of things that run the entire gamut of what might be in this goal. >> is anyone in the republican leadership talking about the possibly of the shutdown? >> no. in the event that congress doesn't pass this spending bill for the omnibus by friday, they will still pass some sort of stop gap spending bill, maybe lasting two to three days to a week to buy themselves time. so it is not a matter of if there will be a shutdown. no one is expecting that to happen. it is more of a matter of canceling vacation plans if congress has to be her a few extra days. >> there's also a debate over these tax breaks, the tax extenders. explain what the issue is and what congress needs to do before lawmakers leave for the holidays. >> this has become kind of an annual holiday tradition in recent years. we have the whole variety of tax breaks that expired the end of the are, including things for
research and development, tax credits, that sort of thing. lawmakers are working on a package to renew those credits. some of these provisions are very popular, such as the research and developing credit business has champion. a lot of lawmakers are trying to make believe some of these tax credit permanent. the trick is always a matter of paying for them, whether it is for short-term or make them a permanent part of the tax code. >> what else is congress did to achieve before the christmas holidays? >> that is mostly -- the main two things are the spending bill -- tax as the tactics extenders package. also lawmakers tried to push through the final days, the measure to renew 9/11 first -- joner benefits from stewart has been on health to lobby lawmakers to renew these
benefits that the authorization expired a couple of months ago and they're trying to renew it before the new year. it is not clear whether it will be included in the omnibus spending bill or if it will be included in the attacks extender package. at more details available thehill.com. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >> today, the house financial services committee hears from members of the financial stability oversight council, including securities and exchange commission chair mary and richard cordray. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. today, smithsonian secretary the future ofon the institution. see a lot from the national press club at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3.
she was such an authentic person. i've always other is more to the story of ladenburg anyone has covered, silly when i wrote -- story of ladybird, certainly more than i wrote. she had a very important staff, very important project. she wrote a book as soon as she left the white house. modernlly invented the first lady. >> sunday night, historian betty boyd caroli discusses her book " lady bird and lyndon" and released pages of the first lady's diary giving an inside look into the marriage and political partnership of lady bird and lyndon johnson. >> i think a perfect example of the conclusion i came to, which is those women saw something in those men, the ambition, the opportunity to really climb and
make a mark in the world, and they married them in spite of parental objection. so she is a good example of that. and that is why i decided i had to find out more about her. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. c-span,today on "washington journal" is next. returns a.m., the house for general speeches. at noon, takes up legislation to change the u.s. visa program. another bill to create a new office under the department of homeland security dealing with chemical and biological weapons. coming up in 45 minutes, jordan fabian of the hill on gun control measure president obama proposed in the wake of the san bernardino shooting.
host: good morning, everyone. welcome to "the washington journal." we will begin with your reaction to donald trump calling for a ban on muslims entering into the united states. you can start calling right now. the fourth line this morning for muslim americans (202) 748-8003. you can join the conversation on twitter, facebook, or send an e-mail.