tv Discussion on White Supremacy in Law Enforcement Military CSPAN December 7, 2021 10:23pm-11:13pm EST
starting with senator jones. i want to welcome former u.s. senator from alabama, senator doug jones, will be one of our two panelists in today's conversation. as a u.s. attorney for alabama, senator jones successfully prosecuted two kkk members for their role in the 1963 16th street baptist church bombing. and he has been a prominent civil rights advocate throughout his career. notably, senator jones has join action as a distinguished senior fellow, focusing on racial equity and social justice issues, as well as criminal justice and democracy reform. i'm also very excited tour rep welcome representative anthony brown, from maryland's fourth congressional district. representative brown served on the house armed services committee, as well as the committee on veterans affair, transportation and infrastructure. the congressman hat is also co-chair of the new democrat coalition for national security
task force. he is a retired colonel in the united states army reserve. he has a military record spending more than a quarter century, as an aviator and jagged officer and he was afforded the legion of merit and brown star for his distinguished military service. he's also the author of legislation, tracking extremism within armed services. extremism within ato get our c, violent white supremacy currently pulls poses one of the threats to american democracy and security. senator jones, you've prosecuted one of the most infamous he crimes in american history, and now we are a senior fellow here at cap action. and you've worked on the team that recently released a comprehensive national blueprint to end whites premises violence. can you talk about the key federal actions that are needed to curb white supremacist activities within our government institutions and in our military specifically? >> thanks, nicole. and thanks everybody for
joining us. especially my friend congressman brown for being here. this is such an important conversation and cap's national policy blueprint on combat in white supremacy is very important. and the first and foremost key is the recognition. you know, talking about this in today's world and enlight of everything that is going on, that has been one of the most significant developments in the last year. so cap has been leading that effort. getting this front and center and there's any number of things -- i would encourage those that are watching today, if you haven't gone on the cap website and see this blue print, please do that. take a look at it, spread it around. because it encompasses so many good recommendations, but also provides the basis for where we are today. things we've got to do our relatively simple. [inaudible] for instance, i think it's incumbent upon doj to establish
some federal advisory committees. this needs to be a whole of government approach to develop policies and guidelines to implement strategies. that's the key. implementing strategies and helping law enforcement across the spectrum. federal, state and local, to mitigate any white supremacist action. we talk about extremist action and that's true. and we should always talk about violence in a larger context. but i think we would be remiss if we didn't talk about white supremacy in particular, because it has been acknowledge that is the most significant threat that we face from extremist violence. we need to update and this is why we're here today. we need to talk about the department offense and their process and resources, and orders prevent infiltration and detect white supremacists, extremism and the associated risk. remember, all the members of our military today are also going to be veterans one day. between the two groups, the
infiltration of white extremism is extremely troubling. we have seen it time and time again. i think it starts with both the department of defense and the veterans affairs. the department of defense can develop recruitment and clearance strategies. the more on their questionnaires and recurring background checks. monitoring. the military is on the one hand very rigid. but on the other hand, they're also rigid for a purpose. and with that rigidity comes the ability to monitor better than any other department within the federal government. so, we've got to update, clarify the departments programs. we've got to work on making sure that their policies, their expectations, and their training and enforcement policies all are rooted in -- based in trying to root out extremist. lastly, we can't talk about
military without talking about the department of veterans affairs. we see all the time issues with our veterans these days. it is a serious issue with regards to mental health and access to mental health. veteran suicide's. but that begins in part with the department of defense. so, i am so happy to be here today. i'm glad each of you joined us today to listen to the topic. but especially proud that to share this virtual stage with my friend congressman brown from maryland. congressman brown, you have devoted your life and career to keeping this country safe, both from foreign and domestic extremism. you've clearly made in this congress the goal of rooting out extremism in the military. you served on the armed services committee. something you are passionate about. i'd like, if you would, to start out talking to us about
your bill. what is they, are with the prospects are, and the importance of this kind of legislation coming from congress, not just the executive branch. >> sure. thank you senator jones. i want to thank you for your decades of service to our nation in the justice department in taking on perhaps one of the most significant civil rights cases in the country. i want to thank you for your service in the u.s. senate. it's a real delight to be with you this afternoon. i want to thank cap action for inviting me. let me start by saying that, having spent 30 years in the military, i do know that the threats that our country faces, that our military takes on every day, they are not just the threats that are presented on distant battlefields from foreign adversaries or
terrorists. i know, you know, cap knows and that's why that national strategy blueprint for countering white extremist violence is a much overdue and greatly appreciated document. we know that for decades, if not more than a century, we've been grappling with extremist ideologies within our own communities. homegrown and even in our military ranks. so would i set out to do, in partnership with my colleagues in the house and senate, is to essentially give the department greater tools and authorities to address this growing problem. army cid last year had a report that said that extremism in the military grew 66% in 2020. d.o.d. reported to congress
identifying extremist recruitment in the d.o.d. as a real threat. we said, hey, the department has greater authorities and greater tools. in a nutshell, the barebones outline of the legislation is this. first, we clarify that the secretary of defense has the authority to exclude from participation in the military and separate from military service and the one who not only participates in extremist activity but is a member of an extremist organization. we think it's important to go after the membership pieces well. i'm sure we will talk a bit more about that and the first amendment implications. but we clarify that authority. we direct the secretary to define extremism, to define the procedure that will be there and clear for identifying and
eliminating those members. the next thing we do is -- and a lot of, this frankly, it overlaps with the blueprint, the task blueprint -- data collection. we ask members of the military to what extent extremism exists and you will get a varying degree of response. some commanders will tell you there's no extremism in our ranks at all. others will say, yes, we have a serious problem but we don't know the full accent. so we do data collection and reporting and analysis. the third component is training. it's important that we train everyone from the private to the four star admiral general, what do we mean by extremism? how to identify? it how to promote our values against which extremism is inconsistent? so, training is very important. the final piece --
and that training, i should say, is not just for military but for those who are transitioning out of the military, to veteran status -- and then the final piece, it's to develop an institutional capacity within the department to do the oversight, the monitoring, the training, the enforcement. because we know that so long as extremism exists in america, the military will be the object, not the subject, but the object, the target of extremist groups that want to recruit from the military, to get the training and experience that the military provides to its members, for the purposes of defending our nation. not for the purposes of filling the ranks of extremist organizations. so as long as extremism exists in this country, we need that institutional capacity within the d.o.d. to fight the good fight against extremism. >> let me ask you quick about the data collection.
that's an important part of this, the cap blueprint. from someone who has dealt with this in the private sector, data collection is a real problem. we've got thousands of -- i mean, literally 12,000 or so agencies out there that report no hate crimes whatsoever -- and having been a local prosecutor, sometimes i can understand they don't want to get tagged with that. thatbut without the data, you really are facing an uphill battle to try to root this out. i know that the military, as you've noted, is pretty rigid and there is a lot of deniability there for the same reasons. so tell me a bit about how this bill will help with data collection. and will you be able to get the department of defense buy in with it? to make sure that the data is collected appropriately? because we have seen -- and i know you know this --
even on sexual crimes and sexual harassment issues within the department of defense, there's been a low level of data collection. how can we make this better when it comes to white supremacy and extremism in our department of defense? >> sure. i will start by saying that it will be a challenge. it will be an uphill battle. regrettably, to get the department of defense to work with congress on this issue. when it comes to issues other than, you know, the level of funding or fighters and other procurement accounts -- where we seem to work better with the d.o.d. -- when it comes to issues surrounding protecting the force, supporting military families and personnel, we always find it much more difficult. sexual assault, that's one example. and the racial and ethnic disparities under the uniform
military code of justice, that's another example. and unfortunately, in addressing extremism, the department just recently sent their policy statement to congress, in which they outright oppose the provisions that are in the house version of the defense authorization act for this year addressing extremism. that's one of the items they identify as onerous, the data collection and reporting requirements, which everyone who is looking at this issue understands is critical, fundamental to understanding the scope of the problem and getting after the problem. so i'm hoping we will be able to work with them on what the true concerns are so that we can get to a yes as well. but some of the things we are looking at in that reporting -- and we've looked at even before this year -- is that you have to approve things like questionnaires and
surveys conducted every year in the total force. asking service members about their experience, so you can understand the prevalence, the frequency and when it really looks like. so that's really important. the other piece is encouraging the d.o.d. to work with other agencies, homeland security, doj and the fbi, sharing information and trying to harmonize what that database looks like. what the data collection -- i mean, literally down to the field that you populate in a database, so that the information can be easily shared and analyzed. we also need for the department to really update and publicize and report to congress on this data that they are collecting. we want to look at the how many instances are reported -- not only in surveys, about
disciplinary actions that are taken, that involve extremist behavior, whether it's separations, administrative actions, actions prima facie in the military code of justice. i think only then can we have a full understanding of the scope of the problem in the military. >> you know, congressman, and the coal, i've never seen any government agency, for profit sector people who won't collect data. they always talk about the word. but i think what you are doing is so important and you've laid out exactly why the data collection is so important. nicole? >> thank, you i just wanted to dig in a bit more to this really interesting conversation about limitations. and give this back over to you, senator jones. you are friends voluntary reporting regarding hate crimes and law enforcement. not military but law
enforcement themselves. can you talk a bit more about the challenges of getting law enforcement data on hate crimes and extremism in communities and within the law enforcement sector. >> it's extremely challenging. and you've got -- at one point there was a component, mainly about the communities themselves. you really don't like to collect the state in the sense that they believe that it somehow reflects badly on their communities. mayors and county commissioners and chiefs of police and sheriffs, they don't want their communities being tagged as a hate crime filled community. they also know that, quite frankly, with a lot of these hate crimes, it comes a lot of played listed as well. so -- collect the state. i've seen it here in alabama. i mean, you would think that we were just a bastion of equality and diversity here in alabama. and we all -- the case. i think that's exacerbated now
because of the political dynamics that we see here between extremism on the right and on the left. i was last week at the national association of attorneys general. the d.c. attorney general colleagues they had an incredible conference on hate and combatting hate. there were a number of folks who did not come because they felt like they -- that it was a political issue targeting them on the right. on the political right. and so i think that the challenge now is both a practical challenge in terms of the law enforcement and the communities themselves not wanting to be tagged and labeled. but also there's a political dynamic as well, where people just will not look one way or the other. that's something we've just got to get over. we've got to get past that. >> well, senator jones and representative brown, you both have distinguished careers in law enforcement and the military. representative brown, can you
talk about your engagement with military and veteran communities in developing the legislation that you have done and can you talk about how those constituencies have been receptive to the reforms you are outlining? >> sure. we've done a number of things, for example, i participated in a conference with the association of defense communities. and i want to make clear that they are not promoting a policy provision to address extremism. but they did have an open forum to discuss the topic and the issue. and i was able to present back from representatives and defense communities across the country. they too have done some looks at this and they've done some studies, they extend understand the extent of the problem. they engage formerly with the department of defense. that's why, for example, in the
provision that we've put forward, we were initially going to define extremism based on discussions with the military, informally. we deferred to the military. it's our understanding that the d.o.d. is working with the department of justice in coming up with a definition that would withstand constitutional scrutiny or challenge. we also in those conversations deferred to the department, to establish the procedures. and i'll add that both democrats and republicans have really been harping on this with the military. on what those procedures will be, if in fact you are separating members, because of extremist ideology or behavior. so instead of defining that, which we were ready to do in congress, we deferred to the military. we've engaged academics on this. we've engaged various advocacy groups, southern poverty law center has done a lot of work in this area. just to name one.
so we've really tried to tap into the best thinking, to understand the best practices in the best approach to giving these tools to the military. because i truly view them as tools to better perform their mission. the military, their primary mission is to go to war and when deterrence fails, to fight and win that next war. and sometime sometimes in all of that effort, to focus on winning that war, we sometimes forget about the men and women fighting. so this is an opportunity to say let's not forget about the good, bad, indifferent among our forces. take the tools, take the authorities, put them to good use. because we do not want the military to be undermined by extremists. nor do we want extremist groups to use the military and
military member participation as a propaganda tool for further recruitment. >> nicole, i think it's so important, too, what congressman brown is doing here. that this comes from congress. this comes from the house and senate. this needs to be and all of government approach. and while is directed more towards the department of defense, for sure, i don't think it would be appropriate to just rely on that department of defense or the executive branch that comes and goes. congress needs to step up. congress needs to stand up and speak out on this, because it will be both right and the left extremism. clearly, white supremacy is the biggest issue, i think, in the military and across this country, when it comes to violence and domestic terrorists. but the fact is, all of these can be applied in any number of ways to return extremism.
and i think it's really important that what congresswoman brown is doing with regard to the congress, just like last year in the ndp we put in language to make sure the department of defense went through the issue of renaming bases and other assets that have been named for confederate generals and confederate officers. this is very similar to that. it's an assistance to the department of defense to let them know that congress is serious about this. >> let me also add and to pick up on that whole of government approach that senator jones has now mentioned at least twice. the national strategy that the biden administration recently published on addressing for counter the counter domestic extremism, puts a huge premium or focus, priority on that whole of government approach.
so, not just the department of defense. not even just the department of justice. it's homelands a security, veterans affairs. quite frankly, it's health and human services, because there are aspects when we talk about how you go to underlying causes of extremism behavior and ideology. if you're going to go after those policies, it truly takes a whole of government approach. not just the federal government. the federal government working with state, local and tribal governments. working also with international partners. while we're talking about domestic terrorism and extremism, that's originating here, we are beginning to see trans national affiliation. right? think about the raising right wing actions in germany, austria, to name just two countries in europe. so, it's a whole of government approach and that certainly been the focus of the biden
administration. and it's also the focus of the congress. >> thank you for mentioning that. the wipeout strategy is so important here. i think it's an important note to end on. so, question for both of you is, that white house strategy tasks the domestic policy council, led by ambassador susan rice, was leading this work and partnering with civil society to tackle the problems a root causes of white supremacy in america. including in the merit in the military but across society. so what do you think are some of the key actions for the domestic policy council to consider? and similarly, what is really necessary for congress to do with this bill or in general to tackle this problem in this session? session>> congressman, let you. that >> okay. some of the things we've already talked about -- collecting information and making sure that it's sheared broadly.
i know for example, congress's response to the january 6th insurrection, we tried to create an independent commission similar to that post 9/11 commission, to look at information sharing across government. so, whether it's focused just on january 6th or more broadly, extremism, information sharing. also, i do think we've got to and what the strategy calls for is giving greater resources, not only to prevention of domestic terrorism, but also to prosecution and to make sure that all of our u.s. attorneys, all of our state attorney generals and district attorney are reading off the same sheet of music. sharing resources, coordinating their efforts. i know senator jones would know much more about that than i do. enhancing things like investigation. but also, and i did mention
this earlier, because i knew this to be one of the important pillars of this strategy, is going after some of the long term issues that contribute to domestic terrorism. what is perpetuating hatred and the division? the sense that we live in a zero sum sort of economy and society me? how do we foster a equality of opportunity where everyone feels like they've got a real fear shot at the american dream? so, those are some of the strategies that we are working on and congress stands ready to support the initiatives coming out of the domestic -- president's domestic policy council. and any other branch of government that's willing to work together to address domestic terrorism. > those are all perfect.
nickel, i've got to be honest with you, as you are, at cap we're very proud that so much of the biden administration's blueprint for doing this is taken from the cap work that we did with the mccain institute. that's because it's in recognition of the issue. and the congressman is right. what essentially we're doing is trying to leverage the executive branch and the united states government to really enhance the responsibilities across the government, both state and federal. you've got to prioritize the threat. i think that is happening. for too long, this was kind of written off as just the spotty problems here and there. but i think we have seen now that this is a real priority. it has to be because in part, this is a national security issue. there is no question, because of the context overseas and domestic. we've got to elevate this threat we've. got to continue to elevate the
threat. we've got to enhance corporation and you can do that with carrots and you can do that with sticks. you do it with carrots by just working together with the state agencies, local law enforcement. but on occasion you have to use a little stick. you've got federal funding that goes to the states, these local communities, stay ages and stay investigative authorities rely on. you can't infuse that leverage a good bit to get them on board with so many of the priorities we've got here. we've talked about data. that's an important part of the recommendations. we will go through that, but the qualitative data is just so important here. congressman mentioned protecting communities in prosecuting crime. that is really important and i think we sometimes prosecutors often get hung up on the prosecution angle of this, and that's really important. call a hate crime out for what it is. a hate crime. because it sends an incredible message. but protecting the communities
is much more than that. it is much more than simply and after the fact prosecution. and alleged utterance. what you really have to do is work with communities for transparency, to get education out there and educating the public about what is going on and educating people about the problems that we've got in this. and dealing with mental health issues. never underestimate the mental health part of this. finally, i would talk about employing some of our financial and technological groups. we've got a lot of tools for the treasury department rule out those that are financing these issues. these are in part lone wolves, but in large part, they're not. they're getting more organized every day. we saw it with what happened on january 6th. and i think while we have to balance the first amendment, we've also got the necessary financial tools. that's how the ku klux klan
really got damage in the 19 80s, when the southern poverty law center filed a lawsuit and not only got a judgment, but broke them financially. we've got to make sure that we have the ability to go after them financially and prosecute financial crimes. but go after them even in a civil context. finally, i think we have to recognize -- and this is going to be perhaps one of the biggest challenges -- our social media platforms and technology companies bear some responsibility to their public and to their users as well. just last night, we're seeing the 60 minute show with regard to the facebook whistle blower. i'm not going to make any allegations one way or another on that per, but i will see that we've got to balance this. we've got to get technology companies and social media platforms engaged in this, because it can be a blessing but also a curse and dangerous.
i can't, nicole thank, for this great discussion. congressman, and again i want to encourage every buddy that's interested in this to take a look at the cap program that's on the website. our blueprint is really an outstanding piece of work. >> thank you, i'm actually going to introduce another senior fellow at cap action, simon clark, to start addressing some of the audience questions. the first question from the audience i'm going to direct to you, simon, is a significant contributor to the blueprint that senator jones mentioned. given your expertise and contribution to the blueprint, can you talk about what are the administration is taking the threat of domestic extremism, particularly white supremacy, seriously, and what actions you see them taken today? >> tha>> nicole, thank you very. this administrator has done an extraordinary job of focusing
on the national security threat from white supremacists and anti government violence. and really come up with a strategy to deal with it. [inaudible] from the white house was impressive. having said that, they can't do it on their own. they need help. they need help from congress, civil society. we need to keep the focus on this threat and good reporting makes a difference. good civil society, activism, particularly the shut down online recruitment that -- having congress be engaged and active looking for solution as representative brown is doing right now with his bill is absolutely crucial to making sure that we make progress. >> another question from the audience, but i will direct to both you senator and representative. first question is, what do you see as the relationship between
racism and white supremacy in the military? how successful has the military been in rooting out racism? >> i'll take that, if you d>> it mind. let me start off by saying that by extremism -- well extremism rooted in white supremacy and nationalism is the predominant component and threat that we currently face, and it's not new. go back to the ku klux klan and the immediate aftermath of the civil war. think proud boys, with keepers today. by extremism were not limited to those motivated by racial hatred, religious or ethnic hatred and division. it also includes those who just want to disrupt and overturn government.
right? think january 6th. there were many people within that instruction that had no affiliation whatsoever with any of the more white supremacists, white nationalist groups. they want to disrupt democracy. right? i think timothy mcveigh. when you think about his experience, while he was tangentially associated with white supremacist groups, his primary motive was he wanted to disrupt government. trouble government. he saw government as overreach. if you have that component, and of course you have some extremists who are single issue minded. whether they're acting out on their views about abortion, about environmentalism, about animal rights. you see extremism behavior as well in those single issue oriented people. but yes, white supremacy and nationalism is the primary driver that we're seeing in the military and across the country. that's why fbi director wray
spoke to congress about that. that's why secretary, defense secretary offense ordered a standout earlier this year. general milley has spoken passionately and appropriately about the rise of white nationalism in the military. so, it's important to get our hands around it. you have senior commanders who have literally said before congress that extremism does not exist in our nation. and we know that's wrong. just statistically speaking it's inaccurate. the d.o.d., they are committed to eliminating extremism. they need to do better reporting, better data collection, better training. so it's really incumbent upon them if they are going to be consistent with the presidents commitment to addressing this, the commitment of where congress wants to go, we've got to work together, congress and
the department, to get after extremism, and in this case we really are talking really primarily about white supremacy. survey after survey shows that in the military, service members are experiencing more and more racism, antisemitism, in language. it's in conduct. so the problem exists, we have to get after it and they need the tools, and i need to accept the tools congress is ready to give them. >> i think we just have to be very candid that part of this problem in the military is a reflection on parts of our society as a whole. people in our country, as the country becomes more diverse, they were people who are fearful of that. they have felt all along that they were part of the dominant class. and when they feel like they are not going to, be they strike out. and i think that that is especially true because the military, in their hierarchy --
and there are superior officers versus the subordinate officers -- the people are drawn to that. and i think we have to recognize that a bit. that this is part of a fear for some folks. and we have to address that fear, and let folks know that we are all in this country together. and our military is to support everyone and to protect this democracy that we cherish so much. >> you've both spoken quite a bit about policies, training, data collection that needs to change in the military and law enforcement, to root out extremism and have military and law enforcement that lives up to its reputation and serves everyone in america. keeps everybody safe. what kind of resources are required to carry this out and is there currently sufficient resources to implement these policies? or would more be required? >> again, i'd be happy to take that up first. i'd say this publicly to the
secretary of defense, secretary austin, and general milley, last week. in a hearing. the hearing happened to be on afghanistan. but i took it as an opportunity to make a statement about extremism in the military. well i commended both of them for their actions to address it and the department's commitment. i said, you know, you are opposing these provisions. you are saying that training requirements and data collection are onerous. we have now three of the four committees that are responsible for the level of defense spending in the house and senate -- it's three out of four and i think it will be for soon -- they are all going to appropriate an additional 25 billion dollars to the department of defense this year, above the presidents budget request. so, you can't tell me that data
collection is onerous. you can't tell me that training is onerous. you've got the resources. we are giving you the authorities. okay? it's about doing difficult things and that's what this is. it's difficult. i have no doubt about that. but it's certainly not because of a lack of resources, both training and data collection. the resources are there. >> and nikole, i think it's important that people realize that the resources in this particular instance are important for the department of defense. but in a broader context, we have to have either a reallocation of some resources or additional resources that go to the department of education. that goes to hhs, for mental health issues, that can come in the form of grants that can go into the states and communities, to the nonprofit communities out there, that are trying to elevate this issue and root out
the causes as well. we talk about a whole of government. we need a whole of country approach. because so many things can start at that local level. and in our families and in our communities and schools. when we talk about resources we have to think about those as well. those folks will end up in the military. but if we've already educated them, if we've already gotten them in a position where they are not going to be susceptible to this, we have achieved a monumental goal at that point right there. and gone a long way to diminishing the role of extremism in the military. >> and if i may add one other important area for these resources, it's our veterans -- >> absolutely -- >> so when you look at the january 6th insurrection, it's alarming. i've seen different numbers but anywhere i think from 16% to 20% of those who were indicted had prior military experience. only one was active duty.
so they are all veterans. we need to resource and partner with veterans affairs so that they can stay connected to veterans, and studies have shown that often the attraction of these extremist organizations is that it gives veterans who have now left the military, the structure, the purpose that they see in extremist organizations -- that sort of like substitute community. so we have to engage with our veterans, keep them involved in programs and activities addressing their health needs, emotional and behavioural and mental health needs. and i think that that can go a long way as well to ensure that those men and women who get those soft skills and hard skills in the military are not going to be the target of recruitment by these extremist organizations. >> totally agree. >> thank you both so much for
this incredibly rich conversation today. i'm going to end it with one last question to both of you, which is that you've mentioned the whole of government approach. you've mentioned a whole country approach. for everyone who is watching today or who will watch this online, virtually, in the future, what is the takeaway that you would like them to have for this conversation? or the one thing that they can do in their communities to help address the threat of extremism within the military and law enforcement? >> well, on this one, senator jones, i will let you lead -- >> i go back to our friend john lewis, stand up, speak out, cause a bit of trouble. i think part of the problem that we've got today is that so many people in our local communities will not confront the issue. they are afraid, for whatever reason -- some may be afraid for their safety. but they are afraid, afraid they will get bullied online,
and i think people have to stand up and speak out. they have to talk to their children about this. and i think they have to demand -- and i mean demand -- that their public officials, candidates running for office, and public officials that are now also -- that they also stand up and speak out. this should be a bipartisan issue. it should not be a republican or democratic issue. this is an american issue we need to deal with. we can only deal with it when people take a strong stand and stand up for what is right in this country, about all people and the equality that we represent. >> would i would say and i wholeheartedly agree with that is that to better educate yourself as individuals. and understand the history of this nation, given that -- and i think we've talked about this -- the overwhelming number of people involved in extremist organizations in this country today has to do with white
supremacy, white nationalism, we are races becoming a divisive factor, the significance of races probably as great today in this country as it was at the height of the 19 50s and 1960's civil rights era. and quite frankly, some may argue that -- right at the fall of reconstruction. and to understand this issue, efforts to provide opportunities to all americans regardless of the race or ethnicity or geography, it's not an effort to divide the country. it's actually an effort to bring the country together. and demonstrate that everyone in this country has an opportunity to pursue the american dream. but our country was founded on a document, the constitution, that embedded racism into our founding document. there were laws and practices that perpetuated that. so, in our effort to overcome
and get beyond, that we should be viewed as -- and not somehow creating divisions that don't already exist. we are trying to remediate and ameliorate to get beyond racial divisions that go back centuries in this country. and that takes a lot to do for the typical man and woman out on the street. the reason why i say that is because a lot of members of congress have different thoughts on understanding that as well. >> well, thank you both so much. thank you senator jones for being here, for your career and history and dedication to this issue. thank you representative brown for your service and for your service in congress and the military and rooting out of extremism in the military more generally. thank you to everyone for participating, for your questions and interest. please continue to follow the cap action website for some of the materials we have referenced as well as upcoming
>> and we see director and commander -- general paul nakasone talks about cybersecurity and national security joint up virtual event hosted by american university. >> my name is rajesh de. for those of you those of you who don't know me, i cheaper -- it's a total privilege to be here with general paul nakasone. g