tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 5, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
, is that also being driven by drugs? mr. samuels: it can be driven by drugs. the gangs and those associated with that activity is part of the structure. senator let me stick with : director samuels and let me ask the questions in terms of -- why haven't we been more proactive in terms of these programs being reauthorized? is there a risk aversion there? who was to be responsible for releasing some of you to the public that will commit another violent crime? can you speak to why we have not taken advantage of this programs more robustly? mr. samuels: my authority is very limited. when you look at taking advantage of the various programs that are being referenced. with compassionate release, we as an agency did a thorough review and we determined a
couple years ago when we were looking at the number of individuals who would meet the criteria for the release based on a terminal illness, we discovered that there were 200 inmates in the bureau of prisons. once they were identified coming up to go further in making sure that for those individuals being considered, that they have the resources if they are given the opportunity and released under that program. 200 inmates agencywide with a population at times that was at 220,000 is a very small number. senator: we are talking about passionate release, early release, release of foreign nationals. are you saying that the law or the regulation is written to restrictively and doesn't give you the latitude to utilize those programs more fully? inspector general, i will be asking you the same question. mr. samuels: we moved from apple
to nonmedical. even when we look at those cases , when you are looking at the criteria as well as being responsible for public safety for any of those individuals having the propensity to continue more criminal act to become a we have to take that into account. with the pre-transfer program, i share the concerns that the inspector general has raised. we identified through the audit a problem there. and at times provided a number of trainings and opportunities as our staffing and the inmate population under consideration for the program. we have seen an increase. however, when we submit to the application for consideration, there is another process that takes place with the department working with the various countries who have agreements under the treaty transfer program to make determinations on when those individuals are removed. senator: they would probably
rather have u.s. bear the cost of keeping those people in prison. can you speak to why, from your perspective, why these programs have not been utilized more fully? inspector general: it is the way that programs have been structured they narrow restrictions in which they have been in use. 65 and older is where the threshold was set. the inspector general increased the use of that program. if there's only two w o. and part, it is because of the 4000 plus inmates who are over eight c5 in the federal prison system. they have to meet criteria, both with regard to meeting the criteria and in the treaty
transfer, the discretionary calls that have to be made. and perhaps it is risk aversion. perhaps it is a feeling that, i somebody got a jail sentence -- >> appropriatel scale criteria? mr. horowitz: requiring people to serve a long period of time and to demonstrate a lengthy period of service in the sentence. for inmates who were the least dangerous, presumably had low sentences, they couldn't get released because they hadn't served a long period of time. that seemed odd to us. senator: that is something should take a look at. thank you. senator ayotte: director samuels, i want to ask you about a particular prison in my states that is important, especially
fdi berlin. i wanted to ask about what the status is of staffing at that facility. it was staff that 290 and there are about 1200 incarcerated individuals there. can you give me an update on levels and what the ultimate goal is for capacity there and staffing? mr. samuels: thank you, senator. right now with continued activation of the facility we are working very closely with the warden and thatstaff. we are ensuring come as we build a population, we are making sure that the inmate-staff ratio is where we are comfortable with the number of staff we have it the solidity. this has can -- at the facility. the applicant will is not where we would like it. but with recruitment efforts we
have seen we have a vary good pool for hiring individuals to work at the facility. senator ayotte: this is an area of our state where people are always looking for more jobs. so to get people from the area that have strong backgrounds one of the issues has been a challenge is the 37-year-old age restriction. as the bureau of prisons re-examined this? it is important that my constituents have an opportunity that live in the area to work there. mr. sanders: our focus is to make sure that we are aggressively hiring from the local community as well as looking at veterans. we do have the ability for individuals who are applying who served, to grant waivers. we are in the process of doing that. senator ayotte: i appreciate you
hiring people from the community. i know they are anxious and would like opportunities to work there. as well as our veterans. i appreciate you doing that. i think you will find a really -- they are a really dedicated the people in the area. so thank you for that. i wanted to follow up on the prior panel. there was quite a bit of discussion and criticism actually, on the reentry program from the bureau of prison and the commitment to where we are when someone has finished their time and adding forward successful programs and path to success. with our recidivism rate, it costs us a lot financially and also to the individual to the quality of life, that the present has an opportunity to set a new start.
if there is not a good system in place for success, i wanted to get your comments on what you heard from the prior panel on this issue. mr. samuels: i will say to everyone that reentry is one of the most important parts of our mission. along with safety and security of our facility. the expectation, bureau wide, is for all staff, all the men and women who work in the bureau of prisons have an active role in the reentry system. we have more than 52,000 inmates who are participating in education. we have more than 12,000 individuals actively participating in our federal prison industries program, our largest recidivism program in the euro of prisons. those who participate are to a 4% less likely to be involved in coming back to prison. and for vocational training,
more than 10,000 inmates are participating. for those individuals who participate compared to those who are not, the recidivism reduction, 33%. you are all vary familiar with our is -- our residential programs as well. we are vary at a meant in ensuring these programs are -- we are very adamant in ensuring these programs are provided. it is safer to manage prisons when inmates are actively involved. we are definitely try to do our part to ensure that, for recidivism reduction in this nation, that we are taking the lead. for the number of individuals who come into the bureau of prisons, despite all of the challenges and the figures that you're hearing, the men and women in the bureau of prisons do an amazing job. when you look at the specific numbers relative to recidivism for the federal system, when individuals leave, we have 80%
who do not return to the federal system. 80%. now, we have that 20% who eventually end up in state and are local and we have always known that the overall recidivism for the federal system is 40%. 20% that return to the bureau and the 20% that go into the state system. and i would just also add that when you look at the bureau of prisons, and there's a study that has been done that for the state correctional system, 30-plus, when you look at the overall average for recidivism it's 67%. so i would still say that we have a lot of work to do. i mean, the goal is to have 100% individuals never returning, but as i've already stated for the record, the amount of growth that has occurred over that time period, we are very limited with our staffing. but it does not remove us from the commitment to our mission. if our staffing had kept pace with the growth over the years
i do believe that i would be sitting here reporting that the 80% would have been much higher. senator ayotte so i want to give : the inspector general an opportunity to comment and how you think we're doing on re-entry and any work that you've done on that. mr. horowitz: we're actually, senator, in the middle of the re-entry programs and the use of re-entry and the middle of fieldwork going to the working to look at the education programs because of the occurrence we'd -- concerns we'd heard. i think we will have something later in the year for you to look at. but it is a very significant concern. one of the issues -- i will pick up on what director sam ules said on staffing, that's a significant issue. that's a significant security issue, re-entry, because what you see is, first of all, by most accounts the federal staffing ratio of inmate to staff is worse than many of the state systems, what they have. and that's been exacerbated over
time as the prison population has grown. there's a cascading effect of that. the director and the staff have to pull people out of other programs to do correctional work that they can't be doing some of the other programs we're all talking about. and so that i think is lost sometimes and something we're certainly looking at right now is that cascading effect, if you understaff the prisons, the director has to first and foremost make sure the prisons are safe. senator ayotte: i hope when you issue this report that you'll also give us guidance on what the models are, what are the best models for re-entry. if we are going to invest more resources in this to create a better path for success for people so that they don't -- so we can reduce the recidivism rate i think your recommendations on the piece of what's working best, where we should invest resources would be really helpful. thank you. senator thank you, senator : ayotte. while we're quick on this
subject, apparently only 10,000 out of the 210,000 population participating in that re-entry program, could you quickly describe, both of you? it sounds like a very successful program. why aren't more people engaged in it? senator johnson: in total we reached 45,000 prisoners every year. director samuels: if it's in references to the vocational training programs, we only have a limited number of opportunities that we could provide based on the number of inmates in our system. and that goes back to the crowding with increased crowding. you have waiting lists in the federal prison system no different than any other system. and the goal is to try to push as many of these inmates through and as we complete classes we bring more, you know individuals in for participation. senator johnson: inspector general? inspector general horowitz: there are limited resources meaning
a limited number of classes. senator johnson: senator booker. senator booker: director samuels, i appreciate you being here. also, i appreciate the fact that you visited me in my office and take a lot of the issues and concerns. you represent an administration as a whole, as the president has, done some extraordinary steps around overall criminal justice reform. i'm grateful that you are you a here today. it means a lot. i'd also want to echo, you are a part of the law enforcement community and your officers put themselves at risk every single day to protect this nation. and i'm grateful for the sacrifices that your officers made. i'm glad you mentioned, as we see on the federal and state level, we do have officers, not just losing their lives in the line of duty but also officers who are injured pretty severely or often in the line of duty as well. we as americans should recognize that and that sacrifice and commitment. i want to talk to you really quick and focus my questioning on solitary confinement, begin with solitary confinement of
juveniles. there's a bipartisan dialogue going on right now about putting real limitations on the use of solitary confinement. now, we know this is an issue that faces thousands and thousands of children across america, but when it comes to the federal system this is actually a very small amount. probably would surprise a lot of people we are talking about kids in a matter of dozens. this is in two populations really. it's children that are tried as adults that are housed in adult facilities, and then the contracts, if i'm correct, that you do with state facilities for juveniles as well. do you think it's feasible that, as being discussed in congress right now -- and i've been in a lot of the discussions in the senate -- that we just eliminate solitary confinement or severely limit it for children? being very specific, for instance, placing a three-hour time limit on juvenile solitary confinement and banning it
really for punitive or administrative purposes, is that something you see as feasible and something you would be supportive of? director samuels: thank you, senator. i believe that for this issue and in the federal system, as you already mentioned, we contract out the service. we do not have any juveniles in an adult correctional facility. and the expectation that we have with the service providers for us is that at anytime they're considering placing a juvenile in restrictive housing, they are required to notify us immediately. even if that placement were to take place, there's a requirement also they have to monitor those individuals every 15 minutes. so in regards to your question with looking at the restrictions that could be considered, i would say that for our purposes regarding this that it would be something that is definitely something that should be considered and looked at as a practice. senator booker: so if congress were to act on legislation putting those severe limitations
on the practice with limitations of just a matter of hours, that's something you would agree that's something that is feasible? director samuels: yes. senator booker: i appreciate that. that's encouraging to the discussions going on right now. and frankly, it's a small population but doing it on a federal level would send a signal to really resonate throughout our country and frankly would -- is already being done in some your dictions. -- in some jurisdictions. to adult solitary confinement, if if i may, this practice, as you know, has been harshly criticized. if you listened to the other panel, there's a lot of data from the medical community, specifically, and also civil rights community and human rights communities. a may 2013, report, which i know you're also familiar from the g.a.o., found that the federal bureau of prisons didn't know whether the use of solitary confinement had any impact on prison safety. didn't know, necessarily, how it
affected the individuals who endured the practice or how much, frankly, is costing taxpayers in general. just this year a recent internal audit by the bureau of prisons noted inadequacyies in mental health care and re-entry preparedness for people in solitary confinement. as was said in the previous panel, many people max out in solitary and then find themselves going right into the general -- i should say general population. going right in the public. in many ways i think this report is a wake-up call of the seriousness of this issue. i first want to say, do you know right now how many people are in solitary confinement beyond 12 months or, say, 24 months or 36 months? do you have that data? director samuels: senator, i can provide the data for you. senator booker: so we do track those folks who are saying often -- who are staying often for years in solitary? director sam umes: senator booker, i'd like to state for the
bureau of prisons, we do not practice solitary confinement. in my oral testimony in my written testimony, our practice has always been when individuals are placed in restrictive housing we place them in a cell with another individual. to also include that our staff make periodic rounds to check on the individuals. and i also believe it's important -- senator booker: i need to be clear on that. your testimony to me right now the b.o.p. does not practice confinement of individuals singularly in a confined area? director samuels: you're correct. we only place an individual in a cell alone if we have good evidence to believe that the individual could cause harm to another individual and/or if we have our medical or mental health staff given evaluation it -- that it would be a benefit to
the individual to be placed in a cell alone. we do not under any circumstances nor have we ever had a practice of placing individuals in a cell alone. senator booker: ok. that's astonishing to me. i'd love to explore that further because all the evidence that i have said it is a practice at the federal level. so you're telling me there are not people that are being held for many, many months alone in solitary confinement, is that correct? director samuels: when you look at the bureau of prisons agencywide that is not a practice. we have three forms. we have our special housing units which are the majority of individuals throughout the country placed in restrictive housing. we have a program -- senator booker: so in the s.h.u. they are not individually held? director samuels: no, sir. on average agencywide the amount of time individuals are spending on average, again, total, is
little more than 65 days. senator booker: so the s.h.u. is not solitary confinement, an individual not in the cell alone? director samuels: that is not the practice in the bureau of federal prisons. that has not been the practice. senator booker: i hope there will be another downed. -- another round. senator johnson: senator mccaskill. senator mccaskill: how many have been convicted of a federal crime in the -- violent crime in the federal courts? director samuels: give me a second. approximately 5%. senator mccaskill: ok. so we have 5% violent. 95% nonviolent. i think the thing that people need to understand -- which i'm not sure people do -- is that 5% that committed violent crimes,
you don't even have primary jurisdiction, probably, on most of those crimes in the federal system. i don't think people realize that the federal law enforcement system was not designed or ever intended to address what most people think of as crime in this country. it was originally intended to be just for those kinds of crimes that because of the interstate nature of them they needed to be handled by the federal government. that would be crimes involving the drugs going from country to country. then eventually we started nibbling away at that and started doing bank robbers and then we started doing interstate kidnappings. i know this because we handle a whole lot of murder cases when i was the prosecutor in kansas city and nothing was more irritating to me. we had the best homicide detectives i believe we had in the midwest in the kansas city
police department. we had experienced prosecutors who handled murders every day and invariablely when there was a high-profile murder case, all of a sudden the f.b.i. would start sniffing around and try to grab that case and find some kind of interstate part of the crime so they would take the case as opposed to us who handled murder cases all the time and frankly in my opinion, biased as it may be, had more expertise. i say all this because you're spending $7 billion and 95% of that money is being spent on nonviolent offenders. that's an astounding number on nonviolent offenders. an astounding number. so my question is, how many times have you been brought into the policy questions of who is being prosecuted in the federal system and why? you guys don't get 911 calls. nobody calls the f.b.i. with a 911 call. i used to make the point to my friends who are f.b.i. agents. hey, they didn't call you. they called us.
so the federal system gets to pick what they -- this is not required. they get to decide what they want to prosecute. unlike state prosecutors who have to make a decision on every single case. so are you ever called in to the policy discussions about the growth of federal law enforcement and this massive amount of prosecution that's going on and the growth in the prison system? because these decisions are being dictated by the department of justice and how many cases they're actually filing. are you ever consulted on those decisions? director samuel's senator : mccaskill, when the discussions are taking place, we are brought into the discussion when needed by the department. but i also would share, which i'm sure you are aware, for any policy decisions relative to who is being prosecuted, that remains with my colleagues who
would be more than anyone else regarding this issue capable of responding to that. senator mccaskill: let's talk about the elderly offender program. the way you entered into some of the contracts, you didn't specify out what the cost of home detention was versus your detention, correct? in other words, what you did you weren't able, in the pilot, isn't this correct mr. horowitz, they weren't able to discern what a release into home detention was costing versus incarceration in the prison facilities? mr. horowitz: correct. the g.a.o. found that. senator mccaskill: so you aren't in position what it cost what a home detention program versus prison would be, correct? director samuels: since that time, once the finding was made, we've been working to isolate those costs. senator mccaskill: ok.
how are you doing that? director samuels: we put together procedures within the division, staff who are responsible for the contracting oversight to monitor. senator mccaskill: ok. there were 784 of the 855 applicants for the elderly release program that were denied. 784 out of 855 were denied. can you explain why they were denied that massive amount? these are all elderly. these are not young people. director samuels: i can take your concern back, but from the knowledge that i have regarding this, many of those individuals, it was dealing with the issue of being eligible based on a criteria that was put in place. senator mccaskill: who sets the criteria? director samuels: the criteria for the pilot? senator mccaskill: yes. director samuels: that was
established by congress. senator mccaskill: they said we couldn't -- we said we couldn't go to a home program unless they've served 18 months? director samuels: well, that was something that was done through conversation between department and members of congress. senator mccaskill: well, i'd love to know who was in on that conversation, if you'd provide that for the committee. and i'd like to see the criteria. if you got 95% of your population is nonviolent and you've got -- we know that the recidivism rate for people over the age of 55 is somewhere between 2% and 3%. that's a recidivism rate that any drug treatment program or any state court system would die for. that is an amazingly low recidivism rate. i do not understand how we cannot even -- we're turning down 784 of 855 applicants for a
pilot program. it seems to me that the institution is being stubbornly stuck in the status quo. stubbornly stuck in the status quo. i am so excited that we have critical mass around here. as somebody who, against a lot of political head winds, started one of the first drug courts in the country as an elected prosecutor. i convinced the people in my community and the police department that a drug court was a taxpayer factory. because the people who went into drug court were either on welfare or they were stealing. they weren't paying taxes. and all the nonviolent crimes they were committing because they were drug addicted and the drug court movement, ours began in 1993. it spread all over the country and the world because it worked so well. you know what i had -- i begged the federal government to participate in our drug court program. didn't want to hear a word about it. i couldn't even get them to send
us their mules, the girlfriend mules. they wouldn't even send us those for -- i say, let me take your cases. your low-level drug offender cases. wouldn't hear of it in the 1990's. i'm just not sure we moved that much in the department of justice. i hope we can all work together. i know my time's up. i've got some questions. i would love -- i have some questions for the record about reece county. that contract. why are we using to as a go-between for a federal contract. and also these criminal alien prisons we have that half of them are immigration offenses. i'm curious about the $1 billion price tag on that. so i'll get you those questions for the record. thank you, mr. chairman. senator johnson: i don't want to put words in your mouth. i think we're finding another area of agreement here. you know, the federal government getting involved in something that from my standpoint is better left to the states and local governments because they're better at it. they're closer to it. they use a little more common
sense approach. i say washington, d.c., the federal government, the definition of law is negative unintended consequences. we're seeing that here today. not because of good intentions and not because people are working hard and sacrificing but i think that's just basically true. i want to be respectful of the witness' time. let's not abuse the time. senator booker: the d.o.j. defines solitary confinement as the terms isolation or solitary confinement mean the state of being confined to one cell or -- for approximately 22 hours for day or more with one or two other individuals in -- individuals. the health consequences for solitary confinement, period are well alert. this is a common practice in the federal system. but it's not just with other prisoners. in the s.h.u., often in federal prisoners, in the special management units, it's common as
well. the average stay in that is 277 days. and in the a.d.x., the administrative maximum prisons the average solitary confinement is 1,376 days. this is a real problem. it does exist. forgive me if my semantics are wrong. i think i have more precision now. >> i appreciate you bringing this subject back. director samuels: at the a.d.x., and when i testified in 2012 at that time we had a little more than 400 inmates at the a.d.x. in florence, colorado which makes up less than 1% of our entire population. for that population, those individuals they are placed in single cell and the majority of that population, also, when you look at their offenses, 46% have been involved in some homicide at some point
in their lives. senator booker: again, but the reality is the actual result -- i don't care if it's a homicide nonviolent drug crime, what are we getting for taxpayers for putting them in an environment in which human rights folks consider that torture? and we have a medical community that has a consensus about torture. and so -- or the harmful -- excuse me -- traumatizing effect of that. what i'm saying is -- again, the crime -- violent, nonviolent this is a nation that doesn't endorse torture, or believe we should traumatize folks. if there's no data that supports us actually having something positive coming out of this, it's got to be a practice that we've -- we should end. or severely limit. and that's what i'm just saying. i'm trying to do a data-driven approach, relying on experts and science. just because i want to stay on the good side of the chairman,
i'm going to shift off of this issue because i have enough questions to last another 10 minutes, and i don't think i'm going to get that. >> no, you are not. >> i will tread upon his indulgences as long as possible. so just real quick. a real quick point. federal bureau of prisons houses 14,500 women. as we talked about in the last panel, overwhelmingly these women have children. children of a minor age. the trauma visited upon children and often the primary caregivers, there's a lot of issues. i just want to get to this one reality that in danbury, connecticut, which is a mere 70 miles away from the new york city area, i like to call it the greater newark area, which is an easy reach for visitors from the northeast, that's going to change and those women will now be moved -- slated right now to move to alabama to a facility there which is about 1,000 miles away from the greater newark area, a drive that takes more than
16 hours. so why was the 500-mile policy enacted, which is a good thing which is something i endorse, do the cost of -- due to the cost of families, would you commit to revising the rule to have a presumption of 75 miles, if possible? do you understand? is there a chance to revise that rule? director sam umes: senator, when we looked at the mission change for danbury, we made every effort to try to make sure through fairness for those offenders who were not only living in the new england states, as far as their residence, but we had many offenders who were from texas, california, and what we tried to do is make sure with the realignment that we move those individuals who were not from that part of the country so they could be closer to their family. senator booker: we are taking away of the californians. there are a lot of people from the northeast, a lot of women with small children who are
having those connections effectively severed, and that is very problematic. i'm just going to shift for now, if i can, and i apologize. just want to quickly just look at the private prison issue real quick and shift to mr. horowitz, if i can. i don't want you to feel like i was ignoring you in this hearing. are you concerned about the growth of private prisons that contract with the bop, and we have contracts with a total costing us $5.1 billion for taxpayers, and these are for-profit companies that according to the sentencing project, 33,800 b.o.p. prisoners were held in 2010 and that number has grown significantly. two over 38,000. -- to over 38,000.
i'm concerned about oversight. and there's a lack of reporting, information that's just -- i can get a lot of information easily from the prisons that are being run by the director. but there's this unbelievable, really offensive to me, lack of information and data about our private prisons, and what is going on there. so i went to ask that part of the question and then i am done, just wait for the answer. is the abuse reports of immigrant detainees -- now, i understand these folks are american citizens -- non-american citizens but they , are human beings. and the report of abuse at our private prisons are troubling. thousands of men live in 200 foot kevlar tents in some of these facilities that each house about it 200 men. the facilities are described as
filthy, insect infested, horrible smells, constantly overflowing toilets. this is an affront for this nation for what we stand for. for me it's an affront. i am just wondering what steps are you taking to hold these prisons accountability, and to lift me the -- the veil that protects the american public from being known what's being done with billions of their dollars? mr. horowitz: we issued the report on the reeds county facility earlier this year. focusing on that particular private prisons. some of the issues we found of concern. staffing levels, for example, as you know, reeves county had a riot several years ago. one of the issues was supposedly staffing levels. we looked and saw and had concerns about staffing. we had concerns about the contracting practices. we made a variety of recommendations as to that facility, we're currently looking at the adams county falt in
mississippi, leavenworth and kansas. as well as the broader view of monitoring overall of the contract prisons because that's an issue of concern as spending has increased and the number of , prisoners has gone from 2% to 20% of the overall federal prison population. that's an issue of concern. so we're doing those reviews. several of the contract prisons like reeves, adams, like the willis northeast correctional facility, ohio, had all had riots in the last several years. those are contract prisons being used by the b.o.p. and it has raised the concerns that we are looking at closely. senator booker: and why not better reporting? why can't i or the public get the same kind of transparency and reporting that we would get with the prisons that are directly under the purview of director samuels? mr. horowitz: and that's something we're looking at as well because it is an issue both
what looking at what kind of we are reporting the b.o.p. is getting from these institutions. in addition, what kind of information is flowing and is accessible and why isn't more being done to be transparent about it. >> thank you. i will continually work with you personally, we'll continue to use this committee to highlight these issues. this is an important issue. i want to thank both of you for your service to this nation. i want to thank all the witnesses. i think really did accomplish my primary goal of every hearing is to lay off the reality, let's admit we have a problem. we have when here, -- we have one here. we've taken that first step and admitted we've got a problem. with that the hearing record will remain open for submission of answers and questions for the record. this hearing is adjourned.
book tv, television for serious readers. announcer: in a few minutes, a discussion on the threat of isis. more from aspen with a conversation on cyber security threats. later, challenges on the federal prison system including the author of orange is the new black. ed royce introduced a resolution of disapproval on president obama's iran nuclear deal. it is promised it will get a vote when congress returns from the august recess. senator bill nelson is on the side of president obama. >> president, i rise to announce my decision on the iranian
nuclear agreement. the joint conference of plan of action. this decision of mine comes after considerable study of the issue, as have our colleagues in the senate taken us quite seriously -- taken this quite seriously. i have talked with fulks on all sides of the issue. these include colleagues answer -- constituents, it includes experts on the middle east and asia arm control experts and foreign allies, as we say includes -- it includes just plain folks. i want to say that a nuclear physicist has been especially helpful. needless to say i wish that the
three americans jailed in iran and bob levinson, a former fbi agent missing in iran for eight years, i wish that they had been a part of an agreement, of this agreement to return them. announcer: senator nelson represents florida. congressional quarterly reports he has a key view on the issue. senator in nelson comes up conditionally for the iran bill. congress unlikely to override obama's veto now. president obama has warned he will veto any legislation that tries to stop the agreement. the hill right that if senate republicans oppose the bill, they will also need 13 democrats to override the veto.
a senator against the agreement says it concedes too much. >> the key is keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of iran and their government. the key to that is keeping clear weapons permanently disable iran and remove technology used to produce these materials. this deal fails to achieve this goal by allowing iran to retain clear facilities -- nuclear facilities. the centrifuges used to enrich nuclear matter will not be risk dust destroyed or removed from the country. this deal allows iran's nuclear infrastructure to remain on standby when the restrictions expire. also troubling is the agreement and its lack of restrictions on research and development. iran seeks to replace its
current technology with an advanced centrifuge, that more efficiently and riches nuclear material. -- in riches nuclear material. we are priming for a bomb if restrictions are lifted -- once research and lifted. announcer: mitch mcconnell wants senators to remain at desk during the agreement. the republican said he was hopeful that would not be many meetings during the debate, expected in september. president obama will speak about the iran nuclear agreement at american university, live in the morning, here on c-span. now a discussion on the threat of isis with john allen. he now serves as a special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter
iphone -- isil, it is just under one hour. brian michael jenkins: good afternoon. my name is brian michael jean dickens. i'm a member of the aspen institute homeland security group. it is my pleasure to introduce you to the next panel. iraq syria, worse now than ever before. according to your ramsey will read that this program will explore isil's military successes in iraq and syria, we need to the overall question which is, whether the admittedly
brutal debility of the saddam hussein regime in iraq and the prelude -- revolutionary assad regime in syria were more in line with american interests. is this the best outcome now? that is a status quo antebellum, i would add to that my personal comment, so what? i will leave that to the panel which will be moderated by my friend, eric schmidt. he covers terrorism and national security matters for the new york times. he is the co-author of a terrific book. i bought a next her copy to show you. -- and --an extra copy to show you. the untold story of america secret campaign against al qaeda. he has spent two decades covering military and national security affairs. he has made dozens of troops to iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, and africa.
eric, it is all yours. eric: thank you very much. i want to thank you for allowing me to moderate a panel here. it is a great panel. we have saved the most uplifting news for this afternoon iraq and , syria. you have the full bios in your program, briefly from my left, general john allen, the president's special envoy on global coalition to counter isil. he is also the former ally commander in afghanistan, also served with distinction in iraq. on his left, one of the u.s. government's top sanctions buster cops. he probably knows more about countering terrorist plans then secretary glazier.
on the far left is ambassador to washington. he was formally the iraq ambassador to japan. he is a marathon runner. looking at this topic, you need to have that duration. i am going to start, there is breaking news on this topic today. senator john mccain declared isis is winning. secretary ash carter was in iraq today, one of his spokesman says it will be 1-8 weeks before iraqi forces outside of ramadi will be conducting the full offensive. in many ways, it is a difficult situation. clearly on the iraq side. and in syria, breaking news that
the turkish government, after months of negotiation, including one of the panelists, has agreed to allow u.s. warplanes and drones to fly from one of their airbases for targets. it is seemingly a major shift on the part of turkey in the fight against isis. gentlemen, i want to turn to you since you returned from a trip to turkey and had visited 30 capitals. where are we in this fight? are things as gloomy as senator mccain said today in washington, or are there a few bright spots? mr. allen: well, first, thanks again for your patience, and inviting me a third year and a row. it is great to be on a panel with two dear friends. we just got back from turkey.
it was our tenth contact with them. a whole series of conversations that have been increasingly productive and fruitful. we are old friends with turkey. we have been allies for a long time. we are both faced with the real crises here with regard to isil. we are faced with a real crisis. turkey has for a long time doubt -- dealt with a 1.52 - 2 million person refugee program. we have seen the evolution of the conversation with turkey take a very important turn of late. i will leave to washington, the specific commentary on what the pieces of that are. it is encouraging and important.
eric: how soon could warplanes be flying from there? mr. allen: i will leave that to washington to comment. if it works out, we will be pleased. to your specific point, a year ago today we were facing the real possibility that iraq was going to come apart. we were seeing the public execution of thousands literally. 1700 or so recruits christians , others going under the knife. we weren't sure where this was going to go. about the seventh or eighth of september the new prime minister was designated, dramatically different than his predecessor. shortly thereafter that the president with secretary kerry and a number of other close traditional partners called for the establishment of a coalition that went to work. it was formed quickly, 62
partners today. it went to work quickly. we operate along five lines of effort. a counter and finance line of effort. countering the flow of foreign fighters, countering messaging and ultimately humanitarian assistance and support. the coalition is engaged in all of those lines. the effort is intended to achieve our strategic outcome. since the coalition was formed, the effort with respect to we have seen significant progress. the push against -- has in fact produce outcomes we were hoping for. the government administered program, we are beginning to
press on ramadi. falluja is encircled. we have a number of training bases that have been established to train iraqi forces. the air campaign has been effective. the kurds have been successful. if you were to look at a map at where dash was, the surface area and the population is under -- that is under their direct control has shrunk. it is going to continue to shrink. most of the turkish border, two thirds or so is in the hands of , friendly's. there is a portion that will be taken as we continue to close those aspects of the turkish border. i am always reluctant to take
issue with senator mccain in public. i can understand how there could be some who feel that daesh's momentum remains unchecked. i do feel it has remained checked. it isn't just a military campaign. there is a counter finance campaign. there is a counter messaging campaign, there is a humanitarian piece. they have confluence to strategic influence. it is important to have that larger press active -- larger perspective. eric: talk about the islamic state and its finances. reports that it took over banks, tens of not hundreds of millions of dollars in assets despite the , allied air coalition. even with the constraints put on the last 10 months or so thriving as an economic entity.
mr. glaser: i should start by thanking the aspen institute for inviting me to this, and underscore what an honor it is to be here on this panel with these colleagues. it has been an honor to serve under his leadership in this fight. what i thought i would do was run down, really quickly, what isil sources of revenue on. and talk very briefly about our strategy to counter that. as i have been listening to panelists, previously over the course of the day coming a lot -- course of the day, a lot of people have been coming back to stress that isil has presented us with a new set of challenges, a unique set of challenges. that is certainly the case with the financial aspect of fighting against isil. i don't think we have ever seen a terrorist organization that
had the ability to command, to draw from its own internal territory, these resources area there have been terrorist organizations in the past that control hamas and gaza. al-shabaab and somalia. it is truly unprecedented. sources that can derive from the territory they control. let me run numbers on that. i think the most important source of revenue for isil is the money that was in the bank vault that was there when isil took control of the territory. in particular the bank vault in the central bank of iraq in mosul. when you add that up the numbers -- there were 90 banks with branches in isil territory. when you add it up, the numbers come somewhere between $500 million and up to close to $1 billion area that is just in the bank vault to start with. now the good news is that is nonrenewable.
once they burned through that money, it will not be available anymore. it is money at their disposal. moving on, there are renewable sources of wealth they have. the most important would be extortion or taxation. the normal way a government extracts wealth from a territory. isil does that to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. they will continue to have access to those resources. the territory that isil controls is highly liquid. cash continues to be infused in that territory. both in terms of payment of salaries of government employees, and general commerce that continues to go on with respect to those territories. and iphone stand to profit --isil stands to profit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. then the third most important source of revenue is the sale of oil. and again, there have been a lot of numbers thrown out.
i think all the numbers are soft. i can say we believe in a one-month period, isil may $40 -- made about in one month off $40 million of the sale of oil. you get to $500 million in the course of the year. this is all internally generated. once you look at the other sources of wealth it is much less significant. the more classical sources of wealth, kidnapping for ransom, foreign donations, these are sources of wealth but they are tiny, a drop in the bucket compared to what they could generate internally. that has had to inform our strategy to combat this. the traditional tools we have to target a group like al qaeda aren't as relevant. we have a four-part strategy. i can run through it quickly. first, to cut them off from the sources that we can.
of course to the extent that they are deriving wealth from foreign donors. we have applied sanctions and a certain number of instances in that case. we work very closely with the turks, the kurdish authorities -- on border security on customs , issues to make sure that smuggling is reduced as much as it can. i do think both the kurds and turks have made great process in that area. -- great strides in that area. the most important area of our strategy is the second element isolating isil controlled territory. these are the methods we use with respect to when we want to apply broad, pressure on foreign countries and we are using those same strategies in this case. we are working extremely close with the iraqi government. i just got back. i'm going back to iraq next week to work with the iraqi authorities, making sure that thanks in iraq cannot be used by
isil. to make sure they are cut off to work with them to make sure exchange matters and money matters. if they are going to have this money, we can make it less valuable to them. if all they can do is circulate within their own territory. that is the most important part of our strategy. that men -- then of course also includes working with other countries in the region. turkey, lebanon. and to bring add up to the coalition that general allen leads with countries around the world. the third part of the strategy is understanding their internal financial architecture identifying who the key financiers are within the financial structure. the military targeting targeting with the treasury tools.
we are actively engaged in bang that as well. -- in that as well. the fourth is to identify external networks. as the campaign wages on they are going to need to have access to spare parts. they're going to need access to a variety of international networks that are going to allow them to bring in materials they need. that gets back to classical authorities. we will have the ability to try to disrupt that. that is the strategy. we are still in the early days isil has plenty of money. , maybe i should have just said one quick word about their expenses. if you look at the high end of the estimates, that is 30,000. that is the high-end. you look at the high-end of how much money that has been reported they made, let's say $1000, that is the high end. $360 million a year in salary.
that would be presumably be there major expense. they can cover that. the challenge we face -- it would be great to bankrupt isil. there is a challenge to disrupt their financing, and bring their revenue down to make it harder for them to meet their costs. i think that is an achievable goal. eric: within iraq, there has been concern about whether the army can muster enough troops to mount the offensive in places like ramadi and falluja. there is the fundamental question will the sunni tribes in the west work with a government they don't trust in baghdad. how do you see this reconciling itself to the point where the
president says there is limited american involvement here they , are not sending in tens of thousands of troops. the iraqis don't seem to get along on this. mr. faily: thank you for the time and allowing me to participate. i feel i will learn a lot. i would like to thank general alan and his deputy, they have done a tremendous job. they have done more air miles that anyone else. i have asked him to be generous and pass that on to me, but that hasn't been taking place. the challenges we face is not just security aspect. it is more to do with political within iraq and in the region. it has been inclusive. there has been an outrage -- outreach i think he has done a tremendous job there.
we have more, what you might call legacy challenges in relation to cohesion and social contracts between the communities and that is going to take some time. the focus, we are all focusing on is the defeat of isis. isis can be a good common project for us to enhance social cohesion and focus on the commonalities of that threat. it is a threat to our aunt -- ethnicities and -- in that sense, our strategy is one of attrition. here we significantly need to coalitions -- in relation to finance, the is an international commodity. we need international support there. jihadist transport. here you have a clearer u.n.
resolutions, chapter seven, talk to the jihadists. here our neighbors have not played their part. they need to play a better role, and they need to have a sense of urgency in stopping jihadist. in relation to twitter and others, we need the u.s. to play significant control. this is an international dimension. we need at what i might call a sense of urgency. the challenge is not small. john allen need support from all. the ideology aspect of the -- of it has to be strong. we need to get our politics
asked together -- act together. we are working hard on that. i don't think it is an issue of the will. we continually deal with it. we want to go through the painful process for our own sake, for our own long-term policies. our own long-term policies. to that effect i don't think you can put iraqis at fault. they have been doing it tremendously. every day falluja. we are continuing to do that. we will continue to do that. we have no plan b. we cannot coexist with isis. mr. faily: the u.s. has not
given us any red lines. it is more to do with operational needs then to see how we can help. we understand the politics of washington and react accordingly. but we have is to push our neighbors to act and be responsible to the challenge. they get the challenge but physically, change in their procedures, controlling their borders, it hasn't taken place. here we have a question mark against the urgency of others. eric: you commanded in and bar. is it possible for the iraqis to pull this off in terms of putting together an iraqi army that can go into these sunni cities, not rely on shia militias, and second, going back to the turkey issue, the isis has been supported greatly by these foreign fighters.
mr. glaser: i spent a lot -- mr. allen: i spent a lot of time with the tribes. the ability to organize the tribes and motivate them ultimately was the principal and deciding factor in that part of the war. i still have maintain close contact. they are very committed to the defeat of al qaeda, the defeat of daesh. very importantly, while they were skeptical of the maliki regime, from the governor's i have spoken to of the sunni provinces, they have seen a big difference between the sense of attitude from [inaudible] and the attitude today. they do feel a he has made it
clear the opening of the tribes is something that he supports. he issued a plan with unanimous consent ultimately to take back our lumbar as the precursor. eric: why has it taken so long? mr. allen: we have to understand that the iraqi security forces took a heck of a beating a year ago. reconstituting that force from top to bottom and building capacity back through training, especially with focus on leadership will take some time. they have been in battle. they have fought. they did clear to create -- tikrit. what we would call the regular forces, where the shia
volunteers who answered to the thatfatwa, they prevented that from reinforcing or from daesh from escaping. it is going to have to be a combination of our training the regular forces, empowering the tribes, managing the role of popular mobilization force in combination to achieve our military objectives. many of those elements are scheduled with the intent of the prime minister to be the base elements for the national guard brigades. the tribal elements that are being trained those will be the base elements of their as they come along. there will be a purpose for them over the long term. eric: isis continues to draw
1000 foreign fighters a month. many have come through turkey. what will this new deal emerging today change of this? or will they come in another way? mr. allen: they are always going to try to get in. it is no secret the principal avenue approach into the region, not just to syria, has been through the turkish border. the turks in the last year have really done a substantial effort to multiply the capacity of their no entry list. it is well up over 10,000 now. they have worked and reached out to our european partners. many of whom are working the issue of their own foreign fighters. we didn't perfect the process of sharing information and sharing intelligence until this emergency exploded in our faces.
what we have seen his greater cooperation between european partners and turkey over the last year, given turkey the ability to take action. the point that needs to be made is the first line of defense entering syria isn't the turkish border. the first line of defense occurs in the homelands wherever they may be. this is prevented measures that are necessary and the legal measures taken for accountability that must be imposed as well. stopping the foreign fighter flow is and what happens at the turkish voter -- turkish border. countering violent extremism and the measures, legal measures taken to make it difficult to move from source countries to transit countries. eric: you describe ice is now as
in pretty good financial shape. what did the u.s. government learn in eastern syria that gives you greater pause about this, that may surprise you, and what you tell us about some of the things you have learned that may be able to exploit in general terms? mr. glaser: operation was important for us. one of the most important things we're doing now is simply gathering intelligence. eric: knowledge about isis and its leadership, how much it improve visibility? mr. allen: i don't know about the basic knowledge of its leadership. it has been a real treasure trove of information for us on the financial side. it is information -- eric: what do not know? mr. allen: i can't get into the specifics that we received but
he was a financial figure. eric: do you now see them as a component adversary as you did before? mr. glaser: our information is getting better and better. there has been many other intelligence operations that have given us increasing insight into their finances. they have a lot of money. we knew that before. we know that even more after. they have a lot of money. the more details we can get, more individuals involved, more that we can ask -- understand their networks, the more we're going to work with our partners shutting them down. that is something we are actively doing and our partners are joining us in. eric: tell us about the role
iran is playing on the ground with its actual trainers on the ground and militias that have been trained, economically perhaps. give us more of a regional perspective. we have been talking about iraq. what is going on in syria? things seem to be constricting for the sod regime -- assad regime. mr. faily: people need to understand the importance of the country is not just in relation to recent history. it is a fault line in relation to nationality non-arabs ethnicity, the main shia center fault line, to all the countries versus the geography of iraq in the south. if these are all factors, which will continue a role for iraq to be important.
in relation to iran, the threat of isis is a threat to know national security. whether it is the borders. 40 climate away from the borders. -- 40 kilometers away from the borders. what do you need? they offered anything we wanted. troops and everything else. air force, everything else. we have been controllable in what we can use. we think this is primarily an iraqi project. we cannot do without the support . at the same time we need to go through that. eric: that has given many pause. mr. faily: that is a washington problem. not an iraqi problem. eric: how do they de-conflict? mr. faily: i have yet to find any instance where the u.s. and
the iranians have said we have problems with each other. we in iraq have been careful in how do we deal with that relationship? we understand the extreme nuances and we have not asked both parties to be in cooperation with iraq. what are the commonalities? we have a common operation with the united states, very significant with allies in baghdad. that is very important for us. we have -- they have been more forward positions. there are a few advisors if you compare them to the u.s.. eric: 200 iranian fighters on the ground. mr. faily: the problem is not that. they are literally advising us -- [indiscernible] eric: iranians on the ground.
mr. faily: at least they have different experience and so on. we can see commonalities. we have extremely careful to not make policies. there was a report in belgium. we do not need belgian military support. we need belgium political support. we need all parties to help us. we see a common threat. with other countries, and the sense of isis. as much as we can get, we have no psychological obstacle to the support of the country. eric: one more question and i will turn it over to the audience. one of the main messages that has come from the director through secretary johnson is this messaging campaign.
the strength of the counter propaganda machine that isis has been generating in recent months. general allen, you have said this cannot be a message that was an american message. ambassador, i'm sure you have been working hard. what is going on in iraq, working within the countries in the gulf to combat this message where presumably you can make more credibility. mr. faily: the messaging we are talking about is isis is a cancer in our body. we need to get rid of that, and all methods. we need to deal fast with it. that is the key message. it is this foreign entity that should not hijacked a sunni
brand, islamic brand. it should not be perceived as what you might call international jihadist tourism. to that effect, people now do not see -- they do not see the trendiness of isis. eric: they don't see it? mr. faily: no. you talked about the richness of them. you don't need to be very rich to be destructive. they do not maintain a state. salaries from everything else they do not pay them. they do have a destruction. do they hijacked the majority, no. do you have a silent majority? yes. way to make them more vocal in the fight against isis. eric: sound like they have the money to spend the money to burn. they are attracting the classic
foreign fighters but also families. how do you combat that? mr. glaser: my specialty is an encounter messaging -- in counter messaging. we are going to succeed in depriving them of their ability to use their resources. i've been at the treasury department for 15 years and i have spent that time listening to people explain to me the financial measures that don't work and can't work. i was there in 2006 when we first started to devise our own sanctions strategy. the one thing everyone agreed on was that sanctions cannot work. now the only thing everyone agrees on is what brought them to the table is the financial pressure. we can do this pretty we know how to do this.
we will succeed in depriving them of their ability to use resources. eric: you said in a speech that the counter messaging part is an uphill battle. as you go around the world talking to people, this message seems to be resonating with young people who are prime to hear it. how do you counter that? mr. glaser: we are constant -- mr. allen: we are console looking at the strategy. it is about reinforcing regional at the racial, religious norms that work. the family is, the aspects of regional societies that create a strength, and an ability to be impervious to this message. we are constant looking for ways to counter the message and strengthen the faith of islam and regional norms.
we do that by talking constantly with our regional partners within the middle east. you will hear king of dollar talk about it regularly. we must take back our faith which we agree with him on. he has been clear in saying in the middle east the counter messaging and the importance of the messaging must have an air face and a muslim voice. when i spoken with leaders in southeast asia they are deeply concerned about the potential for the spread of violent extremism, and groups that will be destabilizing over the long-term. we will probably see, as was recently opened in abu dhabi, we are probably going to see one of those come to fruition in southeast asia. we are looking for them in other places as well speaking create a regional, international network of regional messaging centers we
can energize, with localized messaging that can provide support we need to target the populations. eric: none of that has relevance unless you deal from defeats to isis on the ground. you have to create the perception that isis is losing. mr. allen: isis is losing. when you listen to their communications they have problems with morale. a number of foreign fighters rebelled against that brutality and they were executed by the central government. there was during cobol a, a moment in the campaign when everyone said we were going to lose that. daesh impaled itself on the
defenses of co-bonnie -- kobani. recent activities along the border rendered other similar clear messages that there are many places within the daesh infrastructure where morale is not good. as we strangle the defenses, finances, that is going to create additional morale problems. mr. faily: in relation to many extreme islam is losing the battle. mainstream islam, in the sense of focus messaging, that is an issue we all have to work on to make sure that vulnerable people are not attracted to it. that is a global thing we have
to live with. the other aspect is any rack -- in iraq, there is a coalition focus on it. until syria is more centralized the brand devices will not diminish. eric: i will turn it over to questions. if you can identify yourselves. >> thank you. a question for general allen. can you describe the discussions with the turkish government about the possibility of instituting some air exclusion zone. it has been well known the turks have asked for that and would like to see some kind of regime
put in place by our assets. was that in any way part of the discussions to obtain the use of answer look? something that is ongoing in your discussions. mr. allen: it is not part of the discussion at all. >> a question for mr. glaser. there were conflicting reports about whether general sula money was in line to have sanctions lifted as part of this. can you clarify, is he in line to have those sanctions lifted, and was your office consulted before his name was put on the list? mr. glaser: i'm not here to talk about the details of the negotiations with iran.
as a general matter the nuclear related sanctions will be lifted at the time that iran's compliance has been verified. with respect to details on that i would have to get back to you. is he on what list? to the extent that he is designated for his involvement in terrorist activities, he would remain sanctions. to the extent that the sanctions against him are related to the nuclear program, those sanctions will be lifted. those sanctions will be lifted when ayn rand's compliance has been verified. eric: in the back.
>> i'd like to have a question to the ambassador. mr. ambassador. what is iraq? is it sunni, shiite, or a group of nationalists that have banded together to form a new country? where is it going from here? how do you see it today? mr. faily: geopolitics or history. i'm a kurd and a shia. where do you put me in that? i think it rack has evolved as a country. 2003 has given us a new focus, a different project based on democracy, liberalism, market economy.
years of dictatorship. we are an evolving country in the sense of a new project social contract between the communities. how do we move forward, it is ongoing. it is up to us how much we want to have interdependency to strengthen not just the issue of identity but the issue of interest and prosperity of that country. the stated challenges is not unique to iraq. international support, the shape of the post arab spring, it is in our hands what we can do about it. the country has an identity.
it is up to us to identify -- two to find that identity moving forward. >> some european countries are trying a new approach additionally. denmark is focusing on foreign fighters returning to the country, trying to find those who might be disillusioned and would be acting as advocates against daesh. that is a strong message as we saw last week on german tv when one return fighter actually said this has nothing to do with islam. this is a pure slaughter of women and children. i was wondering, is that in approach we should pursue? mr. allen: it is. it is something we have spent time looking at. when foreign fighters, home they are going to come home one way or another. how we deal with them is going
to be important. the idea of a single sanction solution which has long-term imprisonment is probably not going to end up delivering us where we want to being. -- want to be. denmark is a leader in this area. saudi arabia. a leader in this. the country that i have spent a good bit of time studying has been singapore, one of the key members of the coalition. they have an active d radicalization program for foreign fighters a have arrested or have come home with the intention ultimately of not permitting long-term detention to be the outcome. the reason for that is if you view the dealing with foreign fighters in a circular way rather than linear way, it begins at the point of radicalization, whether it is social media or the mom, or the
family. you can have a powerful effect upon that moment of radicalization by recruiting foreign fighters, rehabilitating them, reintegrating them so their voice is our prominent in the process at the front end. the two most important forces we have heard in this process something we are watching very closely, has been the foreign fighter who was disillusioned and able to survive to get home, to tell the message of the harbor. this isn't an islamic utopia. this is a nightmare. the one voice is very powerful pretty other voice that is powerful in impeding or preventing radicalization is the mother of a family that has given up someone to be a foreign fighter.
they are gone, the have lost complete contact or they have been killed. or they have come back and they are and long-term detention. those two factors are very important inde de-radicalization. we are watching it closely. eric: in the yellow. >> following on this gentleman's question and your point about morale, a couple of months go we heard isis had to create the truck drivers want to pick up fighters along the road because they were concerned people were deserting. are you seeing any uptick in desertion from some fighters? mr. allen: we are. reporting is sketchy. the reporting, the sense of a
disillusionment with the reason they came to begin with, this sense of being empowered from whatever point of origin wise, of joining a holy cause to support the caliphate is often dispelled very quickly when they get to the region. we have heard about desertions. we have seen foreign fighters who come home who have talked about disaffection in ranks. even with those reports we have heard significant reporting about executing elements of the foreign fighter community that display any willingness to take a path apart from the caliphate or the daesh internal regulations. the sense that they are a monolith, a juggernaut inevitable, all of that is far from the truth.
it is nowhere near the truth. eric: right in the middle. thank you. >> it seems that this is mostly about a battle for hearts and minds. as normal as it is being treated as a military operation. to what extent has or should our government be trying to win the hearts and minds insofar as what is going on within the mideast is a perfect example of why there should be a separation of mosque and state. the fact that shia and sunni us are fighting, every country proves the point that the mixture of religion and statehood is a bad idea. mr. glaser: can you get to your
-- eric: can you get your question. >> billions are spent on public diplomacy. can you comment on what should be done in that area? mr. faily: the military side instance of not getting isis or daesh breathing space to have control land be on the offensive, that affected other areas. it requires focus on the military side. daesh has its own destruction. until that moment, in relation to ethnicity, heritage others that is a threat. it is not that daesh in itself will floor nurse -- daesh in itself will flourish. as first trying to contain the problem, i don't think it is
just sectarian. it has nothing to do with the sunni versus shia. what you saw with the jihadist to try to go to france or belgium, it is more of disillusionment, which we need to focus on. the united states should not get to and say islamic messaging. it needs to bring parties together. whether it is in egypt, or niger , or saudi arabia to pass the message. that is an islamic obligation. i don't think you can separate the state from the church aspect of it or the mosque in our region. it is to diluted. it will be a futile project. for the state to have rule of
law, respect of international understanding to have a nationstate concept that is a clear message we have to work on. that is our obligation. eric: that is a great note to end on. i want to thank the panelists and the audience for great questions. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> as congress continues to review the agreement, president obama will continue to speak about it here on c-span. the indications of lifting the sanctions on iran as a part of that nuclear deal. the senate banking committee at 10:00 eastern on c-span3.
our coverage of the aspen security form continues with cyber security threats. including keith alexander. a reminder that you can see more of the forum at c-span.org. >> good afternoon. i'm a former assistant secretary for policy. a member of the aspen institute's security group. i'm delighted to introduce our next section. we have talked a little bit about some of the threats and concerns in cyberspace. hackers, criminals, and the state actors three of -- state actors.
this panel will look to what we can and are doing at home and internationally to counter those threats. specifically, the panel will explore questions the rise of these threats and the parallel rise of the new world of ubiquitous connectedness and the internet of everything raise for policymakers. how do we protect connected societies? who's responsible for what? what are the rules of the road? what are the ways where we think it a place where normative behavior is agreed upon internationally? moderating the session we have john, probably the longest and oldest reporter covering this, going back to the 1970's.
writing the same stories until most recently. a reporter in the science section of the new york times. part of a group of reporters who won the pulitzer prize for explanatory reporting in 2013. he has a book coming. request for common ground between humans and machines. [applause] >> thank you, everyone. my panelists to my left, the director of the national security agency. suzanne spaulding is to his left. undersecretary of homeland security. and the general manager of intel
security. we are charged with conversing about the rules of the road in cyberspace and how to find common ground. i thought it was striking that the director spent half of the interview talking about cyber. which shows where we are. i wanted to frame it before we start. i feel like rip van winkle. i think i wrote the first story in cyber warfare which appeared in november, 1981. it was about discovering a backdoor between a mathematics research center. they said to me, maybe we can settle the thing with a giant -- which might be a good idea. i want to place that against where we are. the watson, come here quick
moment happened on 1969. a message sent between message one, note park and message zero. it was remote log into a computer. a young hacker sent a message and typed l-o-g. and on g, the system crashed. a straightforward programming error. here we are 45 years later. there were announcements by the chrome team at google and the firefox team that they had patched buffer overflow errors. it is quite remarkable. the system we have built is
still fragile. a final note. we are charged with this notion of discussing the rules of the road. the notion of the data highway is one of the worst metaphors we can pick. maybe if this was a quantum universe where every address was next to every other. there are no good and bad in neighborhoods. a better metaphor might be the cyber tahir square. everybody is next to everybody. i come at this as a pessimist.
i would like our panelists to start off with, let's calibrate this. give me some thing to be optimistic about. [laughter] >> give me a sense we are making progress. >> i would start with technology. look at how far we have gone in technology. it is doubling every two years. the amount of unique information we are creating, this year will be more than the last 5000 years. we are going to map the human genome with devices that are $5,000 or less. what they have used watson for an ibm, taking it from a machine that played jeopardy to one which is cutting down the time for cancer research, for people with brain cancer and other
things. we get this question, should we slow down. absolutely not. this will change the way we will live for good. 1969. this is the country that created the internet. i'm very optimistic we can do that. >> let me start thinking the aspen institute for having me back. i want to thank all of you who are in here and serve out there. as we walked up to get miked, i thought that was understandable. but you all came back.
i have to say, i see signs of optimism in people. we have people's attention. never let a good crisis be wasted >>. across the government, we are seeing this at the secretarial levels. secretary johnson in gauges on a regular basis. i see optimism in my interaction with the private sector. i meet with ceos of critical infrastructure. they get it.
it is about your risk management. it is about how your essential functions can be threatened. how client data can be threatened and how cyber can do that. then you do a risk management approach. increasingly the private sector is getting that and we are moving in that direction with the federal government. that is a very important step forward in achieving the kind of security and understanding the role of technology, the role of people and process. >> i appreciate my opportunity to be here. it is my first forum and i hope i will be invited back. i see the opportunity for growth . technology has driven tremendous
growth. intel, one of the companies, one of our founders is famous for moore's law. the growth we have driven in technology. what will be available to us as human beings is incredible when you think about the possibilities for health care. essential functions being transformed by technology. while we have challenges, that are putting pressure on us, the opportunities for growth and what we have seen with technology and are about to see with connected devices. the gentleman who introduced our panel mentioned connected devices. that is going to change even more dramatically than today. >> i wanted to ask you about this process of internet governance. we were transferring what was a u.s. dominated touche institution
into something new. giving up something but gaining something. countries with very little in common. how are we going to find me common ground in the governance process? that is a huge opportunity to deal with this issue. suzanne: this will not be an easy transition. but one of the strands of optimism is we are going to a transition process that recognizes the importance of the private sector. i was struck by the way the panel was introduced. what government gets to decide.
our products and solutions are being used across countries. that is something the last three to five years. it has hit home quite a bit. >> how does this play into military cyber? does the speak to that question? we have hundreds of countries developing military cyber capabilities. keith: what suzanne said is right. they have to be involved and help set it up. we can't afford to have this done -- i'm going to use the word, politicians -- decide the future of the internet. the technology has to drive what is possible. with respect to the military and others this is an area whether
we like it or not i don't think we could unilaterally sate it would he used for military operations. it is too late. that drives us to have you ensure we have a defensible architecture. for countries, sectors, and our nation. we should not be naive enough to say we will not use this in a crisis. >> one of the breathtaking aspects is the social networking application is one of the principal propaganda tool.
how did that happen and what do we do about it? technology changes quickly. how does twitter or facebook fit into your defensive capabilities? suzanne: we have response eod or civilian and defense networks. the protection of dotcom networks. strength and amy security and resilience of the critical infrastructure. that brings us into counterterrorism as well. we see the convergence here between those two missions. we have been very much engaged
looking at the ways in which our adversaries are using it to their advantage. there are a couple of key things. one, we have to recognize one of the ways the internet is used is micro-targeting. that is one of the things the internet and cyberspace helps us to do. we need to bring that to the fight. we need to understand it is not just one audience we are trying to reach. it might be the individual prone to being turned. it might also be their friends. it might be their parents. other members of their community. we need to talk about messages. that is one of the things that
twitter allows you to do. use that. use it to our advantage. >> we have talked about twitter in this conference. it cuts both ways. it is true nobody knows you are a dog internet. i was taught -- it is a big part of intelligence gathering today. >> so i have heard. >> isn't this a gold mine for the u.s.? >> it clearly helps, especially
encountering terrorism. first, how do we ensure the security of communication's and give communities the access a need under court orders? to protect our country and people? you have many countries coming in with many different sets of conditions. then you have how do we protect our networks. the same sets of messaging that can be used for communications can also be used to penetrate networks. you have two sets of issues that have to be looked at and debated. it resonated with me the way he talked about it. i think he is right. we have to have the privat