tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 27, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EST
being debated across the country. that's happening right now. billy: not to be gloomy, but what happens if somehow a republican is not elected president? mr. scalise: after the passing of justice scalia, one of the great conservative thought leaders in the history of the ourt -- billy: specifically, what will house republicans do if they fund themselves having to work with another democratic
president? mr. scalise: we've got to lay out the case for just what is at stake in this election. i think it has become more clear what is at stake. if you want a balanced federal budget, electing a republican president is the only way to do it, because on the democrat side, bernie sanders is talking about everything being free for everybody. that was obamacare. that did not work out that well. hillary clinton is agreeing with that. that's not going to work out well. if you want to save medicare from bankruptcy, we have a plan for that. they do not have a plan for it. if you want to know the direction of the supreme court, just go no further than the people running for president to see what that direction would be. the country is going to decide this. the people of america are going to decide this, but we are going to continue to show just what is at stake and there is everything on the line, from the direction of the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. billy: so -- and you could lose the senate, too, by the way. mr. scalise: right. he legislative branch. billy: why is congress taking so long to address what puerto rico says is an urgent need to address their situation, their fiscal calamity? mr. scalise: well, the first thing is there are things going
on right now to see if there is an involvement, a role for congress to play. it has to come up with puerto rico coming up with solutions to their problems. they are not alone. as a territory they have problems, but there are a lot of states that have similar problems. we do not want to set a precedent where others come behind and say, hey, we want that, too. it has to be well thought through. right now there is not a unified answer to addressing this question at the federal level. they still ultimately are going to have to solve their problems and come up with the best ways to get their finances in order. again, a lot of states have similar problems. and those states are working through those problems. we don't want washington to be the place where people come for a bailout. this is not -- you know, we're not going to give somebody a bailout. we have our own problems we have to address.
so states and territories have to address their problems and if they want to put better solutions on the table, this is the time to do it. billy: financial control board or some sort of oversight board, that would -- why would that be taking so long to approve? mr. scalise: again, the committees of jurisdiction are working on this right now. they're having hearings. they're meeting right now. not only with the members but with people from puerto rico, with people from other places that have similar interests that puerto rico has. let's figure out if there's a way we can do something that we can get agreement on that solves the problem. right now we don't have a final solution. billy: another topic. has leadership pulled the plug on a long-term f.a.a. bill? mr. scalise: no, the bill just came out of committee. obviously there were a lot of disagreements within committee that chairman schuster worked through. it's a complicated bill. it's a bill that ultimately, when they passed it, there were a lot of amendments even on the
last day. and i think chairman shuster continues to have conversations with people that really do understand that the f.a.a. needs reforms, the f.a.a. does have its authorization expiring, so there's a timeline. and he's working through all of those different -- billy: so no decision -- no definite decision has been made? mr. scalise: no. there's still, again, chairman shuster's still meeting with a lot of people to work through all of the different issues that are involved. and there are many. billy: we're going to open it up for questions in a few minutes. really more general, you've been the number three man for mr. boehner and now you're the number three man for mr. ryan. hich is the better boss? mr. scalise: that's not a -- billy: i think you probably lean one way. because the current king is the king, right? mr. scalise: look, just to put it into perspective, four years
ago i wanted paul ryan to run for speaker. i've been a huge fan of paul ryan since i came to congress. i joined the republican study committee right when i came in after a special election and paul was putting together the path to prosperity. and i was really excited that there was a member that was laying those bold ideas out on the table and that became the foundation that resulted in the house budget that we passed when we got the majority. so not only do i think he's our best ideas guy, but i also think he's the closest person i've seen to ronald reagan to articulate a conservative vision to people who don't typically vote republican. because we haven't done a good job of laying out our case about why conservative policy is better to build the middle class that's eroding, why it's better to get people out of poverty. our ideas are proven, we just don't do a good enough job of explaining them and paul is the best at it. i'd put him at the top of the field today. if he were running for president. he's not, so i've been a big fan of his. four years ago i asked him if he'd run for president.
he didn't want to. he ultimately became our vice presidential nominee. and i think added a lot to the ticket. but i do think he's in a special category. somebody who's got that reagan-esque and kemp-esque quality. he worked for jack kemp, to really inspire people who don't necessarily consider themselves republican to actually see why conservative policy is the best answer to the problems our country's facing. billy: so you would like to see a brokered convention? mr. scalise: no. i just think he's really one of the best conservative minds in the country. billy: have you talked to mr. boehner since he's left office? mr. scalise: i've seen him a couple of times up in washington. and he seems to be very happy. the speaker's a tough job. you can say the whip's job is a tough job. i think it's a great job. because you keep the pulse of the membership, you really know what's happening in the house. but the speaker's job is probably the toughest job, especially when you consider that barack obama's president and he might go down as one of
the most divisive presidents in our country's history. he's not worked hard to bring congress together, to solve problems. it's created a very divisive atmosphere in the country and being speaker during that time is not easy at all. billy: ok. let's do some questions. we have somebody with the -- oh, beautiful. questioner: hello. i am jay with the hindu american foundation. several conservatives who are strong on foreign policy, chairman corker, rand paul, ed royce, ted poe, john mccain, have really disapproved of the president's notification to sell eight f-16's along with other equipment to pakistan with a subsidized sale. is this something you can rally conservatives and reach across the aisle to halt in order to save american taxpayers over 800 million? mr. scalise: the armed services
committee deals with these issues. i haven't seen them come out with the best approach. i don't want the full house to be trying to make the decisions that generals and the people, the experts in the field, ought to be making. but that's why you have a house armed services committee that has members with the best expertise on the direction of defense. my main concern is we have a strong national defense which has been depleted over the last several years and it's got to be strengthened. our military readiness has been degraded. we've got to strengthen that. we've got major threats around the world and i want the best minds in our military to be determining what that best approach is to keep america safe. and so the house armed services committee is working through that right now. i'll be looking forward to seeing their plan that they ome out of committee with. questioner: thank you. adam with the american library association.
you mentioned the p word, mr. scalise. privacy. 194 republicans, almost 80% of the caucus, 115 democrats, are the 310 co-sponsors of the most co-sponsored bill in congress, h.r. 699, the email privacy act. it shocked me, and i had to check it three times, to learn that a warrant is not needed after six months to get the actual content of people's emails, all of your drop box files, basically everything in the cloud. no speeches. when this bill comes out of committee, as happily it finally is poised to do in judiciary, what is the best path to the floor as the clock ticks down on this particular congress? mr. scalise: i'd like to see us take it up. i'm a strong supporter of privacy. i'm a strong supporter of a free and open internet. i do have concerns where you see the f.c.c. trying to get more involved in writing technology policy. that should be the role of congress. i do think when you look at
this debate that's going on nationally on privacy, it's an important one that congress is being drug into and i think in some ways we've got to address some of the problems where you have threats to privacy. and then the balance is always, how do you make sure to protect national security and privacy at the same time? that's probably the biggest debate we have in congress. and i do think there are always ways to strike that fair balance. there are cases that pop up from time to time like we see right now, with apple, that challenge that and force everybody to really revisit our laws -- are laws adequate and what is the proper role of government think? sure don't want the federal government being able to tell a company how to write an operating system or how to develop hardware. so you've got to balance privacy with national security and find the proper balance. questioner: to be clear, this debate is -- mr. scalise: this is a much broader
debate, this ladies and gentlemenslation you're talking about. really deals -- this legislation you're talking about. really deals with the privacy of individuals' email. i've raised these concerns to some of the companies who allow emails to be viewed in a broad sense, where maybe the people writing those emails don't realize that they're being viewed. i have some real problems with hat. questioner: good morning. you talked about the task forces already a little bit. can you elaborate on the logistics of, you know, will the recommendations or will there be a publication of recommendations, will take -- will stakeholders at all be able to post ideas or is this a round table talking? mr. scalise: the task forces are very real detailed policy
conversations amongst members of congress to figure out which bills we want to bring to the floor, if we want to have a better tax plan, which we all agree we need to have, our country is not competitive right now. you see major companies leaving the united states of america to invert and go to other countries. it's not because they want to. they don't want to leave. the tax code is forcing them to leave. because we are not competitive as a nation. how do we best do it? the details really do matter. we have members right now meeting to work through and see if we can come to an agreement on legislation. ideally i'd like to see be able to bring actual bills to committee. we don't have a predisposed outcome and leadership. we made it very clear. we didn't start this to say we want this bill and that bill and that bill to be on the house floor. we want the committees to then go to work on these ideas. and they're really good ideas that are being discussed in these task forces. like i said yesterday i sat in on the task force on restoring our article one powers, to re-establish the balance of power.
there are people across the country that think we have zero-based budgeting where if you had a government shutdown, everything literally shuts down. that's not the way the law works. you go back to the budget act, which literally congress decades ago gave most of that power of the purse to the president. it's bad policy. i want us to change that policy. our members are now meeting to come up with the best way to re-establish that balance of power. and if that's going to result in specific bills, might be one bill, might be four bills, but ultimately those conversations are going on right now amongst our members, that's going to go to the committees and then the committees hopefully produce final pieces of legislation that we can vote on on the house floor. billy: kind of to that point though -- can you tell us the agenda that's being crafted for -- put together in sort of a contract with america booklet form, how will it be dispensed to the public? i mean, how will joe voter know what exactly the conservative agenda that you guys have?
mr. scalise: there's no misconceptions that the house is going to drive the agenda for the presidential election. i do think the house can actually help lay out some of these issues so our presidential candidates can comment on them and they should be asked to comment. if we come up with an alternative to obamacare in the form of an actual piece of legislation. look, when i was rnc chairman, i led a task force to write an alternative. we came up with a bill called the american health care reform act. less than 200 pages. actual legislative text. and half of our conference signed on as co-sponsors to that bill. you can look at a piece of legislation and if you like it, endorse it. if you have maybe a change this part, i'd change tax deductions to tax credits. let's have our candidates for president be commenting on and taking positions on those pieces of legislation. so that in an off year, congress can have a contract with america type document where we lay out the vision, but let's make no mistake. our presidential nominee is going to be laying out that vision.
that's going to be the job of our presidential nominee. we just want to put a lot of those good ideas on the table now so they're not fighting amongst themselves over who may be the better person or who has the worst idea on this or that, let's lay out good ideas that we can coalesce around and hopefully our nominee will be able to turn and say, ok, i want toa really good idea about how to get the economy back on track and how to stop all these radical federal agencies from being able to write rules and in essence laws without any public input. we're going to have really good ideas that we've already brought to the house floor, to address those real problems and hopefully our presidential nominee then says, i'm going to embrace that idea or tweak it a little bit and this is what i will do as president of the united states. and then let hillary clinton have her own approach. at least we can have a debate about good ideas between our presidential nominee and theirs over how to get the country moving again.
questioner: long time civil servant with both legislative and executive branch. today i'm jane voter in terms of this question. it seems that since 1977, congress has only passed appropriations four times without continuing resolutions. so the situation seems neither new nor unexpected, just sort of increasingly more worse, increasingly more severe. i wonder, in terms of if really there's an interest in saving money or sort of how government functions, has there been any thinking or studies on the impact of what running on continual continuing resolutions, omnibuses, no budgets, threat of shutdown does? i'm thinking planning, wasting. if you tried to tell a company that they were not guaranteed with their budget, that they had no idea how much money they were going to get and you a all of a sudden they had to spend it, not to mention all the time that's wasted in government and employee time, you'd probably come up with some pretty significant figures. so it seems that it can't be laid at this president or this party. i think since 1990 there's been really no party that's put
forward a budget that's balanced. so a lot of that -- mr. scalise: the republicans have. the last time a republican house has balanced a federal budget was in 2002. the last time a democrat house passed a balanced budget was in 1969. when man walked on the moon. so -- but to get to your question. it really is an important point. because these showdowns and these crises, it hurts our country. it hurts our economy. it's not just making washington look dysfunctional. and actual -- it actually hurts the ability for the federal government to be more effective and efficient with tax dollars. look at the department of defense. if you have a continuing resolution instead of an actual d.o.d. appropriations bill signed into law, then they can actually do planning. you know, companies plan years in advance. a government agency should actually be laying out plans as well about how to best use taxpayer dollars. but if they don't know what their budget's going to look like until literally the day before it's about to take effect, it's real hard for them
to do planning and a lot of times what they do is suspend contracts and then they have to start that contract back up again, even though they know that ultimately something's going to get worked out. they can't do long-term planning. and it costs even more money. to do the same thing, so it does lead to a less efficient government, to not have a functioning appropriations process. it's why we want passionately for this to move forward. again, i'd like to see the president leading this charge. he should be the one leading this charge to say, let's come together and move appropriations bills. last year when we were passing bills out of the house, to do this, months in advance of the deadline, the president was sitting on the sideline. he never once said, harry reid, who was his senate leader, on the democratic side when harry's blocking every bill, he never once said, harry reid, take the bill up and y'all debate your differences. that's what congress is supposed to do. he sat on the sidelines and almost encouraged it. so you had this dysfunction get even worse. so i agree. it hasn't happened in a long time. it should happen every year. when we passed a balanced
budget last year that we got an agreement with the senate on, it was the first time since 2002 that congress had come to that kind of agreement. it shouldn't take 13 years for congress to agree on how to balance a federal budget. questioner: obama has not been president since 1977, so maybe there is a time of introspection for congress to kind of look at what their role is. mr. scalise: right. our role should be to do that job and ultimately it takes two sides to do it. when the senate refuses to take up even one bill, when we pass six bills over to them and they made it very clear, we're not taking up any of them, that's irresponsible. somebody should have called out the people that were voting not even to take up a bill. the senate's supposed to be the most deliberative body in the history of the world. that's the way it was created. they turned the 60-vote requirement into a way to be the least deliberative body in the world. that's an abuse of their responsibilities. be nice to see the president chime in on this. but hopefully both of our presidential candidates, republican and democrat, will have an opinion on this. i'd like to see both our republican nominee and the democrat nominee have a plan on
how to actually get this process working again. what is their approach? i'd love to hear it. questioner: mr. scalise: sure. my approach would be, look what we've done. we passed a budget. we passed appropriation bills. we need to keep doing that. we need to cap actually moving the process forward properly. it does take both the house and senate to make that unction. questioner: hi. kathleen shane with the american college of cardiology. thank you very much for taking care of s.g.r. we are now in the midst of a major health care transformation for physicians and hospitals and patients. and interoperability of electronic health records is key. it's currently a mess. we have many different systems out there. we have data blocking. we have all kinds of things going on. what can you do and what can congress do to basically enable us to get to a system where our records can be effectively shared?
i know everybody in this room has had a problem with getting their records from one place to another. mr. scalise: this is something that's still evolving. it's been -- you know, you talk to private hospitals. they spend millions and millions of dollars to develop systems so that medical records can be shared with the doctor, from the doctor's office to the hospital, and ideally between hospitals. truly interoperable. one of the things that we've been pushing is to get -- let's start with these federal agencies. the va, for goodness sake. there's so many problems within the va. but shouldn't they have a functioning interoperable system? so that they can share their medical records of veterans with maybe the hospital at that the veteran goes to in normal times, maybe sometimes the veteran goes to the va to get treatment, and then he goes to his local hospital. shouldn't that information be interoperable? the va has not done an adequate job of making their records interoperable. i think it starts with the government agencies being the leaders in at least doing what
a lot of people in the private sector are already doing. and at the end of the day, you know, you're going to have to see a better ability for hospitals that have their own systems of medical records to be able to share them electronically with other ospitals and physicians. questioner: thank you for being with us this morning. and on a friday, too. it's great to see a member of congress here on a friday. mr. scalise: great to be here. questioner: i'm mark peril with the homeland security and defense business council. there are contentious political conservative progressive issues that differentiate but in the issues of homeland security, homeland defense, it should rise above politics. it should. so the broader question is, not going to either what mr. mccaul is doing or mr. goodlatte or certain of these issues, but to your role, are you under the mandate that the hastert rule still exists, that on every
issue you need a majority of republicans or how often are you discussing, as i saw when i was on the hill many years ago, too many years ago, discussing with mr. hoyer the whipping of the united states congress to get a majority on certain issues that may not be bright line conservative-progressive, particularly in the area of homeland security, that we see it being pushed to the extremes of politics? how often do you in general talk to your counterpart on the democratic side in order to get 218, 219, regardless of where those numbers come from? mr. scalise: steny and i talk on occasion because, you know, normally i'm meeting with house republicans so that we can coalesce around the things that we're moving forward. clearly we do talk on those issues where it takes bipartisan votes to get things
passed on the trade promotion authority, for example, probably the most complicated bill that i worked on as the majority whip. free trade's always been a conservative ideal. it's always taken a coalition of republicans and democrats, mostly republicans, but also democrats, to put that together. and that case, the majority whip was -- the minority whip was against the bill, so we were working with other democrats. but ultimately built a coalition. on national security, i think frankly you've seen strong bipartisan majorities to address the problems that we've been facing. if you look at isis alone, we've been calling on the president to come up with a plan. in fact, the president signed into law a requirement that he lay out a detailed plan to combat terrorism around the world. he's failed to meet that deadline. he puts out this plan this week on closing guantanamo bay and sending those terrorists into the united states, which by the way, people of both parties do not want adamantly. strong, strong bipartisan opposition to bringing gitmo detainees into the united
states, so the president, instead of meeting the deadline to lay out a plan to combat isis, has been spending his time trying to figure out how to bring terrorists into the united states against the will of people in both parties. so i'd like to see the president work with us on those areas of strong bipartisan support. again, look, the iran deal. there was strong bipartisan support against the iran deal. you want to talk about a national security issue? that's going to be a threat to the united states for generations to come. and republicans and democrats came together to oppose that plan. unfortunately the president went a very different direction. when we have come together on a lot of national security issues, unfortunately on many of those we found the president on the wrong side. but there is strong, strong republican and democrat support in congress to do what it takes to keep our country safe. and that's been very bipartisan for a long time, including in this congress. billy: on that, is there still
a hastert rule in the house? the most recent speaker ignored it a couple of times and maybe that was to his detriment. has speaker ryan said anything about his view of the hastert rule? mr. scalise: our objective is to always have bills that 218 republicans would support at a minimum. currently we have 246 republicans. there's a special election that's coming up shortly. to fill the vacant seat in ohio. if you look at where we've been as a conference on most of the complicated issues that we've worked through, we've been able to get not just a majority of house republicans but in fact over 218 house republicans to come to an agreement. but clearly not on every issue. and so -- mr. scalise: ideally you'd like that to happen on every issue. we don't live in a perfect world but we strive to get to that point. billy: there was never really an actual rule. mr. scalise: not a formal hastert rule. you'd like to be able to have 218 or more republicans come together on every complicated issue.
clearly that's not been the case. i'm sure it won't be the case all the time. but most of the time it ill. questioner: good morning and thanks for your remarks. peter with the four-a's. you mentioned briefly tax inversions earlier. where do you see corporate tax reform falling? is that going to be tackled this year or next year? do you see it being a comprehensive approach or do you peel off a specific challenge like inversions? mr. scalise: i know chairman kevin brady just came in as chairman of the ways and means committee when paul ryan became speaker and he had a lot on his plate from day one. ut he's had a passion to bring tax reform out of the ways and means committee, to actually pass a bill that not just addresses the serious problem of our uncompetitive corporate tax rate, but also the personal ate.
because if you're at 35% and you want to bring the overall rates down to at least 25%, 20%, somewhere in there, you don't want to have a case where the corporate rate is lower than the personal rate, because there are a lot of people that have companies that are pass-throughs that they're filing on their personal returns, so you want to make sure that both the corporate and personal rates are much lower than they are today. so that our country can be competitive again, so we stop forcing companies to move out of the united states just to be able to stay in business. so that if a company is making $100 billion in foreign countries and they want to bring that money back into the united states to create more jobs here, they're not punished by the united states and the i.r.s. if they want to do that. which they are right now. it's psychotic policy. it needs to be reversed. kevin brady wants to bring a bill out of the ways and means committee that finally tackles this in a comprehensive way. billy: this year? r. scalise: this year.
questioner: good morning. thank you for your remarks. i am melanie from the blinded veterans association. and there is a wide variety of legislation in the house right now on a number of issues related to interests of veterans and their amilies. i would like to know if you have any thoughts about what the priorities might be for the congress to actually pass -- i know there were some bills just passed recently and there's talk of an omnibus bill later
before the end of the session. do you have any thoughts about what might be the priority issues for the congress to act on before the end of the session? mr. scalise: if you look, we've identified very serious problems within the va, where the va is not meeting their mission to take care of our veterans who went and fought in other countries, got injured and came back home and a promise was made to them that they would be taken care of by the va and the va has failed in that mission. i've been very angry about what's happened. you've seen us pass legislation last year, for example. where you had these secret waiting lists. the va denied they existed. we actually exposed that through our house oversight functions. we passed legislation to allow the president to hold people accountable and fire people responsible for it. the president hasn't done that at an adequate level. i'd first call on the president to exercise his abilities under the law to go and fire the people who did such a disservice to our veterans by not providing the proper care. we also passed legislation to open up the va system so that if a veteran is being denied care, is waiting too long to get the care that they deserve, that they be able to go to a private hospital in their community. that law's on the books right now and from everything we've
been hearing by veterans back home, the va is not doing an adequate job of letting veterans know about that. it's almost like they don't want veterans to know that there's real competition, if they're doing a horrible job. and the va's been failing in their mission at number of facilities across the country. it's not isolated, it's been widespread. we've identified problems, we've passed some specific legislation to allow our veterans to have more opportunities and i'm still really frustrated that it seems like the va is trying to hide those facts from our veterans because they still want to keep them forced into a va system that currently is not working as best as it should be. by the way, we've increased funding to the va over the last few years. so they've had more money and they've failed to meet their mission. and it's a serious problem that congress is going to continue to stay on until they get this right. billy: we only have -- we have to do a little rapid fire here now. do these two right there. quick question before that.
are we going to see a benghazi committee report any time soon? or closer to the election? mr. scalise: i'm not sure what the end result of the committee is. i think one of the things that's been so good about what chairman gowdy has done is that he's made it clear that they're just going to go and continue to get the facts. unfortunately they've had a hard time getting all the facts. all the parties involved at department of state should work harder to get all the information that's been requested. but they continue to uncover more things and they're going to keep doing their work until they get all of the facts out there for the public to see. about what happened in that tragic incident in benghazi where we lost four americans. billy: i'm sorry. questioner: good morning. amy with the american chemistry council. the toxic substances control act hasn't been reformed since it was first passed in 1976. and the senate passed a bill unanimously in december and the house passed a bill last june, 398-1, so it's hopefully going
to be a success story. but i'm wondering if you can comment on any timing or efforts of house leadership right now to try to resolve those two bills and get something to the president's desk? mr. scalise: it is really important we get that bill done. we've been working very hard on the bill that we passed out of the house and we've been in negotiations with the senate for some time to ultimately see if they can resolve the differences. it's a big priority. we want to see it get done. and i think chairman shimkus on the house side has been doing a very able job at leading that effort, working with his senate counterparts, to ultimately get an agreement that we can get signed into law. questioner: great, thank you. questioner: hi. darin wyatt, national industries for the blind. i have to ask an election question. this batch of presidential hopefuls in my lifetime is definitely the worst and that's 30 years. my dad said -- he's 63, he said
in his lifetime it's the worst he's ever seen. so you have bernie sanders who -- i think he means well, but the handshaking across lines from democrat to republican, it wouldn't happen, the relationship building wouldn't happen. just in terms of his policies. hillary clinton, a lot of people don't really trust her. ted cruz in my opinion is just way too creepy. and marco rubio is cookie cutter and it appears that he just got his backbone 12 hours ago. donald trump, who is going to be the republican nominee, he's going to do that, he has come up with two policy ideas in the nine months that he's been around. he's going to build a big beautiful wall with a door in the middle. and he's going to bomb isis oil fields and then have his buddies from exxon come over and build them back up as soon as possible. that's what he's going to
do. so as a conservative, and this is coming from a guy that still doesn't know who he's going to vote for, and it's kind of frightening at this point. as a conservative, how can you possibly defend trump? when you introduce him at your events? when he is going to be the republican nominee? this is a guy that is a fire-branding fear mongerer. and he's frightening. and the fact that the united states of america is at the point where he's literally going to be the republican nominee is, at least for my eneration, so scary. so i'm just wondering. mr. scalise: i wouldn't agree with all the assessments you made. obviously it's a lot more complicated than what was laid out. but if you look at the race, any race for president, after months of a grueling primary process on either side, whoever's in there and on the
democrat side, it's just two people right now and on the republican side it keeps going down, but it's still a number of people, whether it's three or seven that are viable. but they spend all their time beating up on each other. all you see are the worst parts of each person because that's the job of the other candidates is to identify, unfortunately, why they wouldn't be so good. eventually in these debates especially it's more focused on boating up each other -- beating up each other. so you see the flaws more than you see the positive raits. what i would go back to is 1980. i do think the similarities between 1980 and today are the closest you can find in generations between two presidential races. you had a lot of malaise in the country, you had an economy that was sluggish, you had major foreign policy challenges around the world. and you had an incumbent democrat president and you had a very contested republican primary. just look at some of the things that george h.w. bush said about ronald reagan. they weren't calling each other
good guys. but at the end of the day, you ended up with a nominee in ronald reagan who picked george h.w. bush to be his running mate. and when reagan ran, he ran on a very positive, it inspiring vision and brought large numbers of people out and one with an overwhelm magazine jort and did really great things to get the economy moving again, get the country back on track. i think the same thing can happen again. i can't tell you who the nominee will be. we might know more after tuesday night but we can't assume that one person runs the table tuesday night. i think you'll continue to see a competitive race. don't expect each of them to point out how nice the other guy. however much long tier goes, weeks or months, they're going to continue to say how bad the over guy is but -- the other guy is but at the end of the day, they'll come together. at that point, who's going to do the best job of going to the american people and laying out their bold vision for how to inspire people and get the country moving again? people are hungry for those ideas.
the candidate that can do that is going to be the one who can win. both of them need to do. it i would encourage our republican nominee, whoever that's going to be, to be a reagan-esque inspiring figure. go and excite people again about what's great about this country. the american dream's real. people still want it but they don't think it exists anymore. how are you going to best rebuild that american dream so that people can actually just work hard, play by the rules, you can actually be part of the middle class and even more if you want in your life. that still exists but it's fading away and we can get it back. i want to see the candidate who can best inspire people to then be our next president. i still think that's achievable. billy ok, i somehow let us go over time. i enjoyed it. and very much appreciate talking to you. i enjoyed all the questions. there were some great questions out there. let call a close here. national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
interesting, easy to understand. the government is so large. we have to cut through a lot of the noise and other things. members of congress talking about wonderful things they're doing. and try to get people to be more involved and make it personal so they understand the impact on them and their families and children and grandchildren. we work with a bipartisan coalition of members of congress, which then was called the congressional pork busters coalition and they came up with the definition of what was called pork barrel spending and became the term earmarks. and we went through all the appropriations bills and started the pig book. i believe the first year was about $3 billion and went up to
$29 billion. and every year that we can find earmarks in the appropriations bills we release a congressional pig book sometime around april or may. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> duke university professor christopher bail is the author of the book, terrified, how anti-muslim fringe organizations became mainstream. he spoke to students at duke university about some of the factors that are contributing to the anti-muslim sentiment in the u.s. this is just under an hour. >> professor bail is an
assistant professor of sociology at duke university studies how nonprophet organization and other organizations create cultural hange. his research has been published by university press including this wonderful book that we'll come back to in a second, american sociological review, sociological theory, meth odds and research. well published scholar. his work has been recognized by american sociological association, for research, nonprofit organizations and voluntary action. the society for the scientific study of religion and the society for study of social problems. he's been supported by the national science foundation and the robert wood johnson foundation. his research has also been
covered by major media outlets such as nbc news, national public radio, and "washington post." and as of today c-span. he earned his phd from harvard university in 2011 and his first mono graph is qut terrified. " a study of how anti-muslim fringe organizations became mainstream. please join me in warmly welcoming professor chris bail. [applause] >> thank you. i would like to begin my talk by looking at re cent media
headlines. probably most heard donald trump's comments last month in which he claimed to have observed muslims in new jersey celebrating after the september 11th attack despite widespread disbelief of this statement he doubled down and later called for a ban on all muslims entering the united states. his competitors were not too far off his field. so ted cruz several days later made pointed comments that implied that most or even all muslims passively condone terrorism. marco rubio tried to outtrump trump and claimed that we should not only be shutting down certain houses of worship but any place where muslims congregate. and then ben carson nabbed one
of the biggest fund raising hauls for his disparaging omments about islam. i don't think we'll see an end to this any time soon. so my research question that i set out and will answer today is simply, how did this anti-muslim sentiment become so mainstream? how can a leading candidate for the presidency, leading candidate for the republican party, disparage one of the country's largest religious groups given that our country has foundational principles surrounding religious liberty and freedom? you may think there's a few easy answers to this question. muslims or people who call themselves muslims are implicated in some very terrifying recent events. most recently the san bernardino attacks. but when we look at the numbers, as my colleague has
done, we see quite clearly that we should be much more afraid of a variety of other threats to our well being than terrorism. or at least the threat of terrorism, there's no clear cut evidence that it's increasing on an exponential scale. maybe it's isis that's terrifying new organization that has proven that it can take over large slots of territory, that has committed horrific acts of terror against u.s. citizens and european citizens, that's pruen its capacity to do harm in places like paris. and yet i'm going to show you today that this story really begins years before isis was around. maybe this is just 9/11, you might ask. maybe this is a story of a kind of butterfly effect. st americans pre-9/11 barely
knew any muslims. the survey is less than one in three americans had ever met muslims. i think it's much more possible that they didn't knowingly met a muslim. muslims have been in the states since the beginning of our history. nevertheless, an event of the scale of 9/11 surely would provoke some type of backlash. what we see is actually an uptick in positive sentiment towards muslims and specifically muslim americans after the attacks. e don't see an oppressionive anti-muslim growth from 9/11 on. if we go back to the aftermath, prominent republicans such as george w. bush were in fact outwardly going out of their way to say islam is a religion of peace. were criticizing various
evangelical leaders who said a variety of disparaging things of muslims. and this image here is bush leading with numerous leaders than one in three americans had ever met muslims. i think it's much more possible that they didn't knowingly met a muslim. muslims have been in the states since the beginning of our history. nevertheless, an event of the scale of 9/11 surely would provoke some type of backlash. what we see is actually an uptick in positive sentiment towards muslims and specifically muslim americans after the attacks. we don't see an oppressionive anti-muslim growth from 9/11 on. if we go back to the aftermath, prominent republicans such as george w. bush were in fact outwardly going out of their way to say islam is a religion of peace.
were criticizing various evangelical leaders who said a variety of disparaging things of muslims. and this image here is bush leading with numerous leaders of mum muslim organizations. . though these organizations were once peripheral actors within the broader family of organizations trying to shape public mount e about islam, one of the significant campaigns to shift opinion against islam. i will show you considerable influence against our counter terrorism policy, the recent wave of so-called anti-sharia laws. and perhaps most disturbingly how they've even been hired to train counter terrorism officials. and all of this, of course, occurs in the broader context of the so-called battle for hearts and minds that we currently find ourselves in. surely, as i will show you at the end of my talk, these fringe ideas about these anti-muslim ideas get picked up by international media where i think they may do their most significant harm by tarnishing the reputation of the united states which was once a paragon for religious freedom and making it seem as though the
u.s. is in fact anti-muslim blsh validating the claim of groups like isis, u.s. is fundamentally at war with islam. but this is the subject of my book that was mentioned, terrified, how anti-muslim fringe organizations became mainstream. historicically social scientists -- i'm a cultural sociologist. we've looked at small cases of organizations that exerted profound change on public discourse. so we tracked down an organization that shifts say the way we talk about nuclear energy or any type of big social problem that we all kind of deal with. there are a variety of problems with that approach. we wind up studying groups that succeed and not groups that failed. and ended up with a distorted picture on how groups exert
influence on public discourse. when i was trained, i was learning alongside other social scientists about the new wave of comptational social scientists, or so-called big data. the increasingly large amounts of data available due to the rise of social media, the internet, the mass digitization of ark kivel and historical records and so on and so forth. so i leverage this method to try to answer this question. who gets to speak on behalf of slam before the mubble and why? and to do this i collect add massive samplele of press releases. these include not only anti-muslim fringe organizations but also groups like the council on american islamic relations or various other kind of advocacy groups,
religious organizations, think tanks. all nonstate and nonprofit groups trying to shape public discourse about islam. i then collected all mentions of these organizations in a large group of media documents. these includes newspapers such as the "new york times," u.s.a. today, the washington times designed to measure the political spectrum from left to right, as well as tv. fox news, cnn and cbs. the innovation of my work is to use a plagerism aggoer yitsdzm to see the influence on this larger public discourse about islam. what's neat about this is we can not only identify kind of verbatim quotes. so here we have a press release that says bias and hailt are un-american. this will also identify near
matches or paraphrased quotes. bias an tolerance are un american. they measure the each organization about islam. i also conducted interviews with the leaders of all these organizations -- ory. a subsamplele. both those that succeeded as well as those who had little or no influence shaping public discourse about islam. and so let me tell you the story that begins my book. actually begins with a history of muslim american organizations in the united states and the broader struggle to shape these public opinion about islam before the 9/11 attack. but today i will focus mostly on the post 9/11 period because it has the most implications for the current type of main
streaming that we're seeing mong conservative leaders. it's difficult to forget this image. what most of us may forget is that there was an outpouring of sympathy for muslims after the 9/11 attacks. yearly surveysed of american opinion of islam, which shows you there was an increase in positive sentiment towards muslims after the 9/11 attacks. this, on top of dozens and dozens of statements from all l civil society groups, arguing that muslims are a peaceful people who are being victimized in apocryphal minority among them who are hijacking the religion for political ends.
as an example of how the plagiarism detection analysis and show us this. i needed to get a few minutes to walk you through this graph. each of these circles describes an organization, think tank, or advocacy group, and so on. the size of each circle describes how much media influence they have. or many times newspapers television channels regurgitated their press releases. have a lot ofme influence, but most organizations have no influence. circlestion of these describes the similarity of these messages. languagehe type of organization uses to describe muslims. ais could be anything like
muslim as victims of narrative, or as long as inherently dangerous and violent religion narrative. what we see is that most groups, as i just mentioned, were using a mainstream narrative that was simply mainstream muslim americans are a peaceful group who are being victimized by a group of political radicals who have hijacked their religion for a political and. but if we look at who got the most media attention, it is groups like the middle east forum or the center for security policy. relatively insecure organizations at the time, who are receiving the lines share of media coverage. aese groups were advancing stealth jihad narrative. their narrative was essentially that muslims, and muslim americans in particular, are
secretly plotting to undermine u.s. constitution, implement sharia law, and they hide behind political correctness in so doing. is the messages that came out on the forum. they lost a campus watch campaign. -- and they launched a campus watch campaign. the idea was that universities have been infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers, and that a concerted campaign was needed to out these folks and to prevent the future generation of u.s. leaders from being duped into the idea that muslims are a peaceful group, when he was arguing they are a trojan horse pat. on the right, will see the anter for security policy,
percentage rental in the anti-sharia movement and the various laws that would attempt to prevent sharia law in the united states. he accused the white house of being infiltrated by extremist, -- including grover norquist. media, they get in the why did not mainstream muslim organizations get into the media? i claim in my book is because of the emotional significance of their message. it really alerted a public that has very little idea what islam wants, muslims were, the majority of americans had not met a muslim, and the majority of americans were unable to identify the corolla as the holy
book of islam. -- a crime as the holy book of islam. -- the corolla -- the koran as the holy book islam. absence of another major terrorist attack we might've seen these emotional appeals disappear. but it turned out very differently. it appears that these minority voices are actually the majority view.
this surge of anti-muslim sentiment in the media, i argue in my book, created a riptide of reaction among these mainstream muslim organizations that increase the profile of anti-muslim organizations. what muslim groups were saying in their messages. you may not be able to read this. on the top, this is the number of press releases per day from 2001 to 2003. you can see it was very common for organizations to dispatch press releases that condemned anti-muslim sentiment. these were things like the crimes against muslims, controversies about whether obama should be able to pray an
airport, so on and so forth. many organizations were critical about these types of issues. of thewer line shows all press releases that were picked that condemned anti-muslim sentiment. you can see the majority of their voice in the media was condemning anti-muslim sentiment. this tag here describes the number of press releases that condemned terrorism. theps of al qaeda, then first and foremost organization. sliver, describes the number of press releases by mainstream muslim organizations that received any media coverage. you can imagine for a moment that you are an american with very little information about islam, and you are confronted by a media that shows you a variety of fearful and compelling
messages that show it is a dangerous religion, combined with an apparent absence of condemnation on the part of muslim americans themselves, and instead, a group of people, muslim americans who whose more concerned about dispatching and discarding anti-muslim sentiment than they were about condemning terrorism. and so, i will show you in a anti- how this helped the muslim narrative coalesced. anti-muslim organizations were able to accuse mainstream muslim organizations of condoning terrorism, because they never publicly got their message out that they were unequivocally condemning terrorism by groups by al qaeda. time, it lendse credence to the idea that these groups were hiding behind political correctness.
that they were more concerned about criticizing anti-muslim sentiment than terrorism itself. time muslim american leaders were enmeshed in very next in debates about whether and how terrorism should be condemned, there was a very real concern that i condemning terrorism you would make it legitimate that islam has anything to do with terrorism. many organizations, such as the -- time onhis desk condemning anti-muslim sentiment than condemning terrorism. i will come back to that the new little later. a riptidenalogy is somewhere that mainstream muslim is attackingps
fire with fire. so many of the condemnations of anti-media -- anti-muslim attentionalso got they were emotionally charged. the interval of motion that the media gravitates toward private i argue in the book it is one of the recently did not get much media attention. yet again, these condemnations for the mediafire, increase the program of anti-muslim organizations, and let them to achieve anything more standing within the mass media.
9/11, can see, after organizations produced anti-muslim messages. between 2001 and 2003, and vessel for 2006, the number organizations producing anti-muslim messages born in double. circlesr of the describe the emotional tie of their messages. the emotional tie of the anti-muslim groups was increasing as they grew in size. at this point they represent a minority of all groups struggling to shape american public discourse about islam. how did they become mainstream? how could they raise $245 million and compel major political figures to express
such anti-muslim views? here is one more year of data. the plagiarism detection analysis for 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008. the number of organizations that are expressing an anti-muslim narrative increases threefold. these ties between these organizations described organizations that share a board member. not only did they grow in size, but they forged allegiances to that whenrganizations enable them to solidify their stature in the public sphere. more importantly, they could , andties to financiers that her political connections that will solidify their stature .
this is several of the largest anti-muslim organizations in the country at the time, and shows that their donations to contribution in the u.s. dollar over this time frame from 2001 to 2011 grew exponentially. even at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. the increased media profile of these organizations gave the understanding necessary to become visible, to become an organization that could be donated to. with this money, they began to further consolidate their capacity to define islam and the american public sphere. is to ways they did this invent experts. the very idea of a terrorism export is a oxymoron. terrorism is by definition
overturn and indiscriminate. even among academics there is very little consensus about how my terrorism happens. there is an industry, a very well-funded industry will who call themselves terrorism experts. many of whom have driven credentials to call themselves such chris -- have very little potential to call themselves such. they do not think the languages of the places most affected by terrorism. who have also people the sense of being muslim, and therefore get an additional by thef credibility color of their skin or their accident with that are in fact not muslim. examples are those from lebanon, palestine, who became high-profile video voices during this timeframe.
they publish several bestseller books on the new york times bestseller list. these organizations funded and propelled these terrorism experts into a celebrity, which now, picture yourself as the american public, you do not know beenabout wasn't, you have exposed to this very scary message, and now people who live muslims are saying that muslims are terrorists. you can see is a bunch of evidence that begins to adhere to this meant i muslim narrative. not only are they funding this write booksple to and give talks and so on and so forth, but they are creating their own infrastructure for public outreach. this is an organization which the middlemedia from east and north africa with the express aim of identifying these -- his speech in the middle
east. sesame the scene from street in palestine, which the organization translated as i will shoot the jews. this is a woman who is talking to two young children. this went on to air at cnn, and one of the administrative assistance quickly realized that it had been mistranslated. it did not read i will shoot the jews, it read the jews are shooting us. this is the type of manipulation and is possible when you have such power to define the public conversation. they also funded major film. they spent about $90 million on a film called obsession. film, which has very scary
sounding pnm music and compelling cinematography, was given to every major u.s. newspaper in the run-up to the 2008 election. it draws the correlation between radical islam and not see as -- and nazism. this again lends credence to the idea that americans being duped by mainstream muslims. by 2008, we've reached the position where anti-muslim organizations are no longer part of the fringe
they are part of the mainstream. they have their own media infrastructure. meanwhile, mainstream muslim organizations have little media influence. they are involved in excruciating debates whether and how to respond to these anti-muslim organizations. as a result, they are falling out of public view. this i argue in the book provided an opportunity for anti-muslims organizations to attack the legitimacy of mainstream organizations. you can also say who is mainstream and is not. groups like the council on american islamic relations are widely accused of tacitly condoning or even encouraging terrorism. there is an act of congress, which is designed to condemn the organization. the fbi breaks ties with the council on american islamic relations, which at the time was the largest muslim-american advocacy group. we don't have good data on that. but it's at least one of the larger organization. in the senate, we see hearings on the threat of domestic
radical organization led by joe lieberman and later peter king. in which only one of the mainstream muslim organizations appeared. it would not surprise you to know who else appeared, anti-muslim organizations and "terrorism" experts. but, i argue a book, had very little occasions to call themselves such. with this plagiarism detection approach, i can use it to compare the spread of anti-sharia legislation. one thing around 2008 is some of the anti-muslim organizations got together with advocacy groups that designed policy. and sent it into a bunch of legislators. i got my hands on a copy of that model legislation. i used the plagiarism detection software to compare it to the legislation introduced in so many u.s. states. you can see on the left, these
are groups that introduced the legislation. the number next to them represents the number of words in a text that were lifted verbatim from the anti-sharia model legislation. you can see in some cases, mississippi, 80% of that language was lifted directly verbatim. minnesota, similarly, other groups were much lower. kansas is only 2%. as many of you may know, some of these legislations actually passed. it's still under review by higher courts. but the irony here, of course, is that as many have argued, this is a nonproblem. not only does the u.s. regularly allow religious jurisprudence in matters of arbitration, and nobody was ever trying to issue sharia to challenge the constitution. nor would there be a legal mechanism for them to do so.
the idea that this campaign got some attraction was quite telling. but i told you about the media, our policies and counterterrorism policies. what i haven't told you about is the regular public. what does it do to the public? we have been speculating it created an increase in anti-muslim sentiment. and indeed, if we look at public opinion surveys from 2001-2003, at first a blip at the 2000 data. but the increase, around the time of the anti-muslim organizations are gaining traction, we see a steady increase. the percentage of americans exposing negative views about muslims increased. i cannot draw a perfect causal link between these two things, but it's telling that it occurs at the same time. one other neat thing about this
moment in computational social sciences that we can harvest data from facebook. we looked at positive sentiments. one of the larger grassroots organizations that currently does a lot of public lecturing around islam have very strong support among twitter users. not a representative sample of the american public. but they have come to define the media cycle itself, twitter users that is. from 2005-2010, the number of controversies about the expansion or construction of mosques, or violent attacks uppon mosques. there has been an 800% increase
from 2005, when anti-muslim organizations were having their day in the media, to 2013. just marked troubling increase. again, no causal links can be drawn. it does occur alongside campaigns from groups like "stop these localization of america," act for america. these are grassroots organizations, one responsible for the protest of a mosque. also many of these other controversies. we saw a surge, the so-called koran burning, the sophomoric film that made a variety of slanderous statements about islam. thankfully, some of my work is starting to get out there to try and right this wrong, to correct the misperception that muslim americans do not condone terrorism. and that anti-muslim organizations have an
exaggerated stature. surprisingly, or perhaps on unsurprisingly, the anti-muslim organizations are not so happy about that. they are happy that they are winning. negative messages are about muslims are increasing in the media, even left-wing media. this is a story not about fox news, but cbs, and so on, which relies on many of the same sources i discussed. they also don't like my book very much. this is the first review of my book. [laughter] so what can we do and what can be done? the first and most disturbing thing we need to think about is the potential for these ideas to travel abroad. we saw evidence earlier of the koran burning affair, groups condemning americans and obama,
using that as fodder for recruitment. it wasn't until recently that we saw evidence that anti-muslim sentiment was directly being used for recruitment by terrorism organizations like this. here the leader of al-shabaab using trump's call to ban all muslims as evidence that there is no gray zone. they either need to join isis or leave. this is the danger. we have seen this before. we have seen this with the koran burning affair, with the sophomoric film "the innocence of muslims." the danger that these fringe ideas can do is tangible. not only upset people, understandably, but they contributed to the misperception that there's some kind of conspiracy among u.s. government to be anti-muslim. i think this is probably the most dangerous threat we face now.
others will speculate, of course, that the rising sentiment creates the potential for increased radicalization. to the extent that young people feel that they can't belong in a society where the majority of people have negative sentiment towards them. we have not seen evidence of that. but the potential is possible. what can we do? we are not going to fix the emotional bias of the mass media tomorrow. despite many well-intentioned attempts. it is no easy thing to talk to the media. but we are not going to convince fox news to stop amplifying emotional concerns about terrorism. we're not. we can, however, begin to decide how to pick our battles.
the one message for my book that i want to resonate in the public is that if we put our attention against people like trump, if we fight fire with fire, we are going to burn everything down. instead, i think we need new messages that refocus the conversation around something that i know, having talked to so many mainstream muslim organization, which is that muslim americans unequivocally condemned terrorism in all its forms. and are furious at groups like isis. and yet they have not shown in the public spirit that genuine anger and fear that we know from sociology that bonds groups together. that is corrective and preventative against bias. i think we need to capture that emotional energy, channeled towards the media, and see if that can right these wrongs. thank you. [applause] >> if anyone in the audience has a question.
>> hi chris, thanks for the presentation. i was eagerly awaiting the last parts of the presentation. which is basically okay, fine, and now what? and i candidly would like to hear more aggressive in an approach to taking control of a dialogue then we have seen before. i am not holding you responsible as an academic for taking that lead, although you are the guy with the data and ideas. and you do have a moral pulpit than most at this point. and candidly, since you are not a muslim, you are in a slightly better position in speaking for the great unlawfulness to this great amount of muslims. your thoughts on that. prof. bail: i certainly agree.
i think all of us, especially those in the academy needs to be more vocal. i talked to the washington post, done various interviews. but i can say all day that muslims unequivocally condemn terrorism, and somebody that is not muslim, i have very little legitimacy, apart from the data. it's important, but not as compelling as the genuine emotional fear and anger that i've seen from talking to mainstream muslim leaders. who i think are understandably concerned that there is a media motif of an angry muslim. you go on fox news and become angry, you only serve to further the stereotype among angry muslims. but there is anger that is anger about attacks on your religion. then there is anger, that is equally genuine, that is towards group like isis or daesh. there has been a lot of understandable hesitation about whether that's a good idea. i think given what i've shown you today, the opportunity, the time has come for that type of corrective discourse.
the majority of americans now have this conspiracy theory in their heads. you can't simply throw facts at the problem. some recent research coming out of political science and social psychology show that the more facts you throw at them, the more they double down. it exacerbates the problem. i certainly will do my part in any opportunity that i get. i also think that muslim americans themselves could benefit from more vociferously and emotionally condemning the groups that have slandered and terrorized their religion. >> my ideas that islam, as i see it, from a very limited exposure is not the same thing as radical people who happen to
be muslim. that is a distinction, which i don't believe i have seen enough of. i don't think i've seen enough, a full-page ad in the times, or whoever else it might be, coming from people who i think would reasonably represent mainstream american islam. saying hey, we agree with you that these guys are nuts. that is frankly, is a call to arms. using a miserable analogy, but we've done the same thing with 150 or 100 years ago. this is the kind of thing we should address earlier rather than later. prof. bail: sure, i agree. i think it's worth pointing out though that muslim americans are an extraordinarily. diverse group for us to assume that a group can come together with one single voice, when did represent the full spectrum of political ideologies. muslims, by the way 3 to 1 for president bush. they speak dozens of language is, come from dozens of different countries. for a long time, they have enjoyed status as a minority. we had little blips within the iran hostage crisis.
by and large, muslim americans were either a model minority or in invisible minority. seemingly overnight, all of that changed. i think for us to assume that muslim american organizations can come together overnight is unreasonable. >> we have reviled minorities in this country that have gained power successfully. prof. bail: interestingly some of the muslim organizations use jewish organizations as a model. so you are right. >> thank you. >> as a cultural sociologist, i
want to stretch you into europe. i'm reading a book called "hunting a season," which is about the capture and killing of the reporter by isis. the capture apparently occurred before we ever heard of isis. the killing occurred later. this notion of mainstream as it relates to european folks. are we stunned, or shouldn't be, by the number of folks that now see isis as a mainstream organization and yet are of european heritage? any insights on that? you talked about needing to do something now. i'm wondering if it's not too late. but it's already happening. prof. bail: i do know something
about europe. i have done studies in britain, for example. i know the muslim population in britain and france fairly well. there are some major differences. one, the population has been more visible for much longer. example, in britain, the debates about islam go back to the salman rushdie affair, animals in public spaces. also the type of muslims that migrated to britain were by and large much less well-educated, have lower incomes, and were more segregated than u.s. muslims. the result was a much more politically charged situation, until recently. we are headed in that direction. but historically, britain has been having this debate for a very long time. and so i think the idea that europe's own attempts to integrate muslims are failing
are creating radicalization is plausible. once again, what can be done about it is how it can be used to stop isis is another huge million-dollar question. i think on the one hand, we thought for a while that countries like france, which famously unite around the principles of republicanism and offering citizenship to anyone born in france. of course, today we learned of attempts to remove that right for people accused of terrorism. even france, the paragon of this model integration, that anybody can be french, is now disappearing. we have seen how vividly in paris, how that has gone awry. i think we don't know a lot about isis. we are not experts. we don't have data on who goes to them. there are some studies from political sciences that look at recurring rates, and who goes to
syria, for example. we are in a different moment now and then we were 10 years ago. this is a real threat. i think it's worth reminding ourselves of that. even if these are people who many of us believe are not muslim and who are slandering the religion, there's also a question worth asking, which is, if they call themselves muslims, who are we to say that they are not? lots of people unite around that. you can't simply say, well, in this speaks to the previous question on who gets to speak on behalf of muslims -- no one gets to speak on behalf of them, because of the diversity of the religion. i think it's a dangerous organization, terrifying, no doubt. could european integration policies be modified to help fix this problem?
i think so. but these groups that i have observed in the u.s. has many transnational ties in britain and elsewhere. for example, the famous dutch politician who is famously banned from britain for incitement towards muslims. he is a regular guest on many of these lecture circuits that i have described by anti-muslim organizations. the debate has not gone in britain for much longer. how you fix that and how you rebuff that kind of xenophobia -- not aware of any kind of magic solution. but again, from european colleagues i have heard it similar processes are in play in europe. perhaps the solution could be similar in europe.
which is to say that french muslims and british muslims need to more forcefully condemn terrorism in an emotional manner. they can benefit from the shared solidarity. >> a couple books i've read, most of them women. sherrie, i can't think of her name. she works for american enterprise. these books, at least the two authors on thinking of, very vividly describe what it is like for women. genital mutilation, all that. it is really tough to read. i think an underground group of women that are tuning into this
and then extrapolating to islam broadly. i think that has not been, at least i'm not aware of it being countered, or even how it could be countered. i'm wondering if you have a comment. prof. bail: the attacks against-- >> how harshly islam, in their experience, treats women. prof. bail: i should say i'm not an expert in islam abroad. i am aware of many cases such as saudi arabia and iran where there is clear evidence of discrimination against women. there is also worth noting that many of the heads of state in the world are muslim women. i think that is an amazing feat, that we ourselves of that accompanist. --we ourselves have not
accomplished. but you do hear about these egregious things, particularly among isis. the was a new york times exposé, women and how they are treated by isis. it's just terrifying. the can't really speak to how real that threat is. i can, however, say that many of the most promising muslim american leaders are women. the former leader of the islamic society of north america, there are dozens of people that are leading advocacy groups, side organizations. some of the best are muslim american women. if anybody can fight that fight, it is these folks. >> well thank you all for coming. as chris mentioned, ingrid is coming to campus and about a month.
♪ >> washington journal, live every day with policy issues that impact you. coming up, green party presidential candidate will join us live in the studio. plus, eric erickson's new book. be sure to watch this morning. >> tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. here are some of the programs to watch for this weekend. 730 p.m. eastern, david randall talks about some of the books incoming college freshmen are asked to read before the first day of class. on sunday night, former nsa and
cia director michael he gives an inside look at national security is look playing to the edge. interviewed by the former cia director of the clinton administration. metadata is the outside of the envelope for electronic communication. american law enforcement is traditionally looking at the outside of the envelope. the supreme court decided that your phone calls also was essentially the outside of the envelope. cd, all weekend, every weekend, on c-span two. television for serious readers. clinic --ntial candidate hillary clinton and bernie sanders were in south carolina yesterday. show you those next on
c-span. and at 7:00 a.m. we will open our phone lines from washington journal. during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. ♪ >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton was in orangeburg, south carolina friday for a campaign event with congressman james clyburn. he officially endorsed her last week and he gave introductory remarks at this event. it is just under half an hour.
[applause] >> thank you, very much. i will not be here long as you can see or hear as my voice is not good. i don't need to be here long because the lady i am about to introduce has really introduced herself to this state and this nation for the last several years. as many of you know, when she graduated from law school, hillary clinton, not clinton then, came to south carolina with the children's defense fund. she came here on a mission to help young boys who were incarcerated but forced to serve their sentences with adults. she came here to reform the system. she did not stop there.
she went on to alabama and worked undercover to reform the school system which many of us remember was originally segregated. she did not stop there. she went on down to louisiana and into arkansas running an age program. she has been first lady of arkansas. she has been first lady of the united states of america. she is been a united states senator. and she has been secretary of state. [applause] i don't believe that it can be contested successfully, when i say that nobody in the history of this nation has ever gone for
the presidency with a resume that this lady has. [applause] and so, i am proud to stand with her. i said to someone the other day, from day one, my heart has been with hillary clinton in this race. [applause] and when i was asked why, i said one word -- she is a fighter. no one has suffered as much castigation as this lady has suffered. she is resilient. she has weathered those storms. and so, when i think about continuing the significant progress we have made since eight years ago, continuing to
build upon a health care system that is now in place, many of you may not remember, that a long time before, access to health care was called obamacare, they used to call it hillary care because back in 1993, my first year in the congress, she set out to establish universal access to health care. she did not succeed in getting it done. but, from that program, came this ship. the state children health insurance program. that to me is doing a great job and is a significant development in our country. [applause]
i believe sincerely that this nation is well underway to redeeming that great promise of building a more perfect union and i can think of no one from the crop of people running today, better equipped, better prepared, more capable of getting us there then hillary rodham clinton, the next president of these united states. [applause] ♪
sec. clinton: hello, south carolina state. i am so grateful to be here and to have the opportunity to talk to you about what is at stake in this election and i want to thank congressman clyburn for being here with me. for his support and his guidance. if i am so fortunate to be the next president, i am going to be counting on congressman clyburn
to help me make the changes that we need in washington. it is always a special treat to have mrs. clyburn here as well. thank you emily for being with us this afternoon. you know, when i think about this election, i really do believe that it is one of the most consequential we have had because there is no doubt in my mind that there is a big divide between what i believe, what president obama believes, what congressman clyburn believes and though many others and what you are hearing from the republican candidates. that is why getting involved is not only a good thing to do, it is essential. i want to make a few points to you about why i believe that it is more important for young
people to be involved this time because so many of the issues, their problems, the concerns that i hear from young people will either be addressed or they will be ignored. let me start with the economy. i happen to think that we have got to create more good paying jobs, we have got to raise income, we have to give young people chances to start mall businesses, to be entrepreneurs, to chart their own future. that is why i have put forth plans on how we can create more jobs in manufacturing, infrastructure, in clean, renewable energy. we can do that if we set our minds to it. it is also important that we provide more access to credit and more support for small businesses. everywhere i go, can people say they have a great idea that they
are burdened by debt and they do not know how to get the credit they need. we have got to fix it and i have a plan. we also have to raise minimum wage. people who work full-time should not be mired in poverty at the end of the year. it is way past time to make sure that women get equal pay for the work we do in the workplace. everything i have just said, the republic inns do not agree with. they do not believe we should be working together to invest more in new jobs. they say, leave it to the market. they don't believe in raising the minimum wage.
they don't believe there is a problem with equal pay. that will be one of the biggest issues in this election and they will try to convince people that there philosophy of trickle-down economics is what folks should vote for. let me make two historical observations. we were on the right track in the 1990's when my husband was president. income went up for everyone, not just folks at the top. middle-class families, working families, and where people were lifted out of poverty than at any time in recent history. what happened? the supreme court elected a republican president and they went back to trickle-down economics. they took their eyes off the financial markets. and the mortgage markets. in comes a new dynamic, and extraordinary young president, barack obama. what does he inherit? the worst financial crisis since the great depression. president-elect obama calls me shortly after the 2008 election to see him in chicago.
i did not know why -- turns out he wanted me to be secretary of state but the first thing he told me was that the economy was so much worse than what they told him. 9 million americans lost their jobs. 5 million lost their homes. $13 trillion in family wealth wiped out. president obama does not get the credit he deserves for digging us out of the ditch that the republicans put us in. i will tell that to everyone. we will wage a campaign on that because if you listen to the republican candidates, they want to turn the clock back as if none of this has happened. thanks to leaders in the congress like congressman clyburn working with the president, we were able to get ourselves out of that ditch, stand up again, get 40 million jobs back, save the auto
industry, put the toughest new regulations on wall street and most of that did not get any help from the republicans. so, i am a proud defender of president obama. i was honored to serve as his secretary of state. we became not just partners, but friends. i am not going to let the republicans rip away the progress we have made under his leadership. i will tell you something else he did -- the affordable care act. the affordable care act which has moved us towards 80% universal coverage in our country. democrats have been trying to do that since harry truman. president obama got that done. i heard congressman clyburn say it was called hillary care.
i worked really hard but the companies stopped us. so i turned around and created the children's health fund. that is why i was so thrilled when the president was successful in getting the affordable care act passed. republicans want to repeal it. i want you to ask -- what would they replace it with? you want to get rid of what we have that is helping all of these folks? they want to give it back to the insurance companies so you can be denied health insurance for a pre-existing condition, where women will pay more for our health insurance than men and young people will not be permitted to get onto their appearance policy up to the age of 26. we are not going back there, my
friends. we will stand and defend the affordable care act. we will take it further. we will go after prescription drug costs which are out of sight. we are going to finally make sure medicare can negotiate for lower drug prices because once we get to care to do that, then prices will go down. we pay the highest prices in the advanced world for drugs we helped create through research with our tax dollars. we are going to take that on, front and center. we will work hard to make sure education provides a quality opportunity for young people no matter what zip code they live
in. i was over in williamsburg county, one of the county that is a long interstate 95. you may have seen a documentary from a few years ago that was called -- the corridor of shame. they filmed schools falling down around the teachers and students. terrible conditions. the supreme court of the state has ordered that the legislature do something about that but so far, they have been unwilling to act. i don't think it should matter where you live in south carolina or america. you are entitled to a first-class education. we will work hard to make sure that we provide support particularly for schools that are educating low income kids that need extra help and support. it is also important that we have more early childhood
education because that will help us get more kids ready to succeed by the time they get to kindergarten or first grade. we are going to make college affordable. we are going to lower the cost. we are going to make it possible to go to college, debt free when it comes to your tuition. you will not have to our own money to attend college, a college like this that has such a storied history. i have a fund for historically black colleges and universities, public and private. [applause] because i know, i know how important they have been to educate so many leaders, so many professionals across the years. that they have been operating. we are going to do more to make sure that they keep educating young people, now and far into the future.