Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  August 29, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT

12:00 pm
interesting people around me. i would want to have -- you know -- what is the point? -- laurence: what i cannot figure out is, if i had that money, i would want the most interesting people around me. i would want to have -- you know -- what is the point? but it is segregated in terms of its wealth. now i know somebody who has around $400 million. he does not go down there because he is not wealthy enough. ok? and so, you look at me and you do not think how much i'm worth, you do not care how much i were -- what i'm worth. ok? they look at you and know precisely how much you are worth so you are on their level. brian: how do you fit? laurence: i do not fit. i am the odd man out. brian: how do they know that? laurence: thanks to my book. when my book came out, i was driven off the road. the police chief said i should hire security. there is a video on youtube of someone screaming at me about what a bigot i am. all the book is is the truth.
12:01 pm
it was written in kin dof a -- kind of a satirical way. the book is the truth. i was astounded that of all my books, that would be the most controversial. brian: kennedy, rush limbaugh, donald trump -- i'm sure you can name other people that lived in and around palm beach? what is the draw for these folks? what can you say about donald trump now that you have lived there? why does donald trump want to live in that world? laurence: he doesn't want to --look, i wrote a book about arnold schwarzenegger. he was the same way, he did not -- could not stand to be alone. donald's that way, too. he loves to have his people around.\ and he is a wonderful host. i mean, he likes to go to uncle ho's chinese buffet in upstate new york. mr. trump is it a better host. he would be there at the entrance greeting people. he just likes people in that way, no way around it. brian: what kind of a president would he be based on what you
12:02 pm
know of his activities in palm beach? laurence: i do not know. i have been writing a novel called "victor's way." it is the story of a flamboyant new york businessman becoming president of the united states. brian: when did you start it? laurence: a few months ago. i finished it. my editor said it is a terrific novel, terrific, that we do not know if people are going to want to read it next spring. we think when our national nightmare is over, nobody is going to read about this kind of character. well, it is not a track. you can read this book either way. it is about the rise of this man. i'm not sure where i'm going to do, whether to send it to publishers. i might just self publish it next month, i'm debating what to do. it is not just about him, it is -- arnold schwarzenegger is in there. unique characters.
12:03 pm
teddy kennedy is in this book. brian: the arnold schwarzenegger book was 2005? was that before or after he left his wife? laurence: before. i did not know about that. i knew about his womanizing but not that. brian: how much time did you spend on the schwarzenegger book? laurence: two years. brian: and you did not know he had a child by the woman who worked in the house? laurence: nobody did. believe me, if i had known it, it would have been in there. brian: what was your reaction when you first heard it? laurence: i was stunned. but then people would say about other things. i mean, i remember his closest friend telling me this story. when he ran, into the week before there was a scandal peas -- piece in "the l.a. times" about all these women and how he liked to touch their breasts.
12:04 pm
he was denying this. maria went on television and said you can either believe me or "the l.a. times." the california people believed him. his close friend said arnold had called him and said, well -- they say that i like to touch these women's breasts, it is not true. if they said i liked to touch their butts, i would not have a problem, but they did not say that. that is what he liked to do and that is why he liked this woman. brian: why do you think people are drawn to this sort of character? laurence: that comes with it. brian: it doesn't seem to ever hurt them, though, does it? laurence: it does. i think bill clinton would be going down in history is a great president if not for monica lewinsky. i mean, it hurt him dramatically. brian: how political are you?
12:05 pm
laurence: i try not to be that political. brian: i saw you on c-span when you announced that you were a liberal democrat. laurence: yes. but i try not to -- this novel i have written is not a liberal democrat's book. and i try to keep it -- look, the kind of journalism that you and i represent is pretty much gone. the kind of who, what, where. when i went to columbia journalism school graduating in 1969, the way we are taught to write. objective and fair. my old professor john kornberg was of that school. if he saw "the new york times," he would die. if he saw the front page of the new york times or the washington post he would not believe it. when i read the newspapers, i am editing. you cannot say that, you should not say that. let the reader decide. but that is gone. brian: why do you think it's gone? laurence: if you want to be a journalist, successful, you have to have an edge.
12:06 pm
if you want to go on television, you want to go on these cable networks, you better have an edge one way or the other. or forget it. try to be fair and in the middle, forget it. they are not going to want you. brian: have you developed an edge? laurence: not enough. a few years ago, it was ted kennedy's birthday and i got a call from bill o'reilly's producer asking me, could i come on that evening to talk about ted kennedy. and i said, sure, that would be great. they said we want you to talk negatively about him. and i said, why do have to speak negatively? they said, because we have got someone speaking positively at about him. i said, i'm not going to do this. get one of your usual right-wing hacks. and i hung up. i usually don't drink that much, but i had a few drinks that evening. i usually do not have drinks, but i did that evening. then the phone rang and it was the producer and they said the person who was supposed to speak positively could not do it. could i speak positively about
12:07 pm
him on the phone? no time to get me to the studio. i said, ok. i am on with this guy from the national review. he is playing anti-kennedy. i said you live in an intellectual prison that you cannot escape. i just destroyed the sky. i was unbelievably good, i just shattered him. i walked out saying come i'm so good at this. i'm back in washington, would you come on this evening? i said this is great, they wanted to talk about teddy again. they bring me down to the studio. i am sitting there waiting and then i realized that number one, the picture of o'reilly, number one, his head it is about twice as big as mine. the sound is louder. and they say, we're talking about ted kennedy and the sexual molestation of the priests in boston and ted kennedy -- what are you going to say? i said, i think we should really start talking about the history
12:08 pm
of the catholic church -- i don't want to hear your pathetic look at history, i want to know how this sleazebag -- has allowed this sexual predator to get away with it. he just totally destroyed me. i went out of there limp, devastated. i never wanted to go on television again after that. brian: you know it is enormously successful, very successful and profitable. why? laurence: he figured out -- roger ailes, he is so despicable. i would like to see fox do a story about their guy. in this air of objectivity. the reality of his life. these other women have come forth. there is a culture they are that -- there that is just disgusting and degrading. i wish more and more people would come forward and talk
12:09 pm
about it. brian: what about the culture in terms of palm beach? laurence: the world of palm beach is the country club world all across america. that story of palm beach is everywhere. what money does and what people do with their money. brian: who ran you off the road? why did they want to? laurence: i don't know. the french television crew was taking me around and somebody tried to run me off the road. i thought they would use that footage but they did not. brian: at this stage in your life, what do you think of the united states? laurence: i fear the best days are behind us, in so many ways. brian: why? laurence: i just think we have such a marvelous thing going and the greatness of the country and i just do not think we are not dealing seriously with the problems. i do not think either candidate is. my brother is a candidate for vice president with his professor at boston university who is running for president. my brother gets three votes and he is the vice presidential
12:10 pm
candidate. i do not know if the ticket is called, but they are out there trying to get publicity. he just did this essay about how he thinks every bill -- there should be a rule -- how will it affect the future? how is it going to affect the next generation? i mean, the infrastructure of this country -- you cannot believe this is the united states. you go to europe, you get on the roads, their trains -- this is the richest country in the world. in terms of the poor people, the democrats ignore them, then they moved to the republicans, the republicans largely ignore them. now they have come to trump. i feel that trump, if he becomes president, will not do good for them anyway. but they deserve to be treated better than they are being treated and have opportunities they do not have. brian: of everyone you have written about, who is the most interesting in your opinion?
12:11 pm
laurence: mrs. shriver is pretty darn interesting. the mountain climber who climbed mount everest in 1963 and was the director of the peace corps who died, he was fascinating. morris, in my new book, the cofounder of the southern poverty law center, he is fascinating. there is no end to fascinating. the thing is there are so many fascinating people, you could write books endlessly. so many interesting people. brian: let's talk about the new book. it is called "the lynching -- the epic courtroom battle that brought down the klan." in order to get started on this, you mentioned morris. tell us who he is. whoence: he is an alabaman made a lot of money, poor boy, made a lot of money in the direct-mail business. thenmillard fuller,
12:12 pm
founded habitat for humanity. in 1971, he founded the southern poverty law center. a civil rights law firm. brian: let's look at morris. is he still active? 79-years-old. laurence: yes. brian: here he is. [begin video clip] >> the judge is beginning to tell the jury what their role was in the case when all of a sudden he leaped to his feet. he had been brought there from prison and they jumped up because they thought he was trying to escape. he turned to the judge and said, your honor, can i say something to the jury? he cleared his throat. he said, ms. donald, can you forgive me for what i did to michael? she kind of reared back in her chair and looked at him in front of the jury and i will never forget what she said -- i would live to be 100.
12:13 pm
she said son, i have already forgiven you. [end video clip] brian: that was 1999. that video right there. talking about michael donald and his mother. who are they? break all this down for you. laurence: michael donald was lynched in 1981 in mobile, alabama. his mother -- that is the lynching. the two young men, the klansmen were convicted. one was executed and one spent 25 years in prison. and now believe it or not, is a kosher chef. morris thought this was not just these two young men who did this, they had been led to do this by a violent philosophy promoted by the united klans of america. so morris dees filed a civil lawsuit against the united klans of america. robert sheldon, the head of the
12:14 pm
klan. it was such a controversial thing that the five lawyers of the southern poverty law center quixotict was a very case that would be thrown out. they do not like the fact that when morris going after the klan come the officers had been firebombed, there had been death threats against morris, people showing up at his ranch with assault weapons. they had been driven off. they did not like this. there was some security at the offices. morris was going to head this no matter what. the five lawyers all quit. they brought a new team of lawyers. morris continued and fought this lawsuit. brian: here's some video of robert sheldon. before we show it, is he still alive? laurence: no. brian: what was his job at the time? laurence: he was the head of the united klans of america. the imperial wizard. brian: what did he do as a living? before the klan? laurence: he was a prelaw student.
12:15 pm
he was a smart guy. at the university of alabama. dropped out and went to the army. he saw the black soldiers dating the german women and that is what made him realize he should join the klan. he rose quickly in the klan. with the dues, he was able to make a living of it. brian: here's the voice of charlie. this is the voice of 1965. robert sheldon. [video clip] >> imperial wizards and grand dragons no longer avoid the press. klan leaders sport crew cuts, button-down collars and well tailored suits. the most publicized and best organized klan leader is in imperial wizard robert shelton of united klans nights of the kkk. he spent much of his time in his tuscaloosa, alabama office constantly listening to tape recordings of martin luther king jr. while he examines pictures of civil rights demonstrators. those he can identify are circled and filed.
12:16 pm
shelton explains why. >> we have a division called the kbi, klan bureau of investigation, and i might add to this that it is effective. we uncover a lot of evidence that other departments might miss. [end video clip] brian: klan bureau of investigation? what was it about? does it still exist? laurence: not anymore. thanks to the success of the lawsuit, it does not exist anymore. they have used the lawsuit against other large white supremacist organizations. there are not too many of them now. the book points out that robert shelton was close to george wallace, the governor of alabama. brian: what got you interested in the story? laurence: in 1967, i was a graduate student at the university of oregon. in international affairs and i was bored to death. i took a course in magazine writing. i talked my way, with a grant from the wallace foundation, i talked my way into george
12:17 pm
wallace's plane. brian: which wallace? laurence: the readers digest wallace. i should've made that clear. i talked my way into the plane. i spent four days with him. i submitted an article to the "new republic" about wallace which a state publisher i got a student magazine, they sent to alabama to interview wallace in his office a couple months later. then i got a fellowship to come to the university of journalism but had no background in journalism. but i think because of those two things. that november, they sent me back to alabama on election night. so i go back a long way with george wallace. brian: what was he like up close? laurence: feisty guy. he loved to spit his tobacco. he would spit into this spitoon. you hoped it would not end up on
12:18 pm
your shoe. he was a good spitter. so he did not do that. brian: we have some video of him. this is george wallace. [begin video clip] >> i would like to point out to all the people of the state that segregation is in the best interest of our constituents. i see nothing immoral about a system based upon what we believe in our hearts to be in the best interest of all concerned. [end video clip] brian: did he really believe that? laurence: he did not believe that. he is a smart guy. he knew that segregation was going to end. he knew it, but he thought -- but what the clerk was to south -- but what de clerk was to south africa who worked with nelson mandela to end apartheid, he could have done that or could have tried to do that. he thought, i can rise to power if i'm the most militant supporter of segregation even though he knew it was going to end. in that way, that is the
12:19 pm
parallel to me with donald trump. i mean, donald trump needed a device to rise into power. i think when donald trump talks about tthrowing 11 million people out of the country and theletting muslims into united states, i think he knew he needed something to get attention. that is what it was. brian: back to the story, morris dees worked for george wallace? laurence: he started out as a segregationist. he would say that everyone is a segregationist and so was he. he was a student at the university of alabama. in 1958, he took office semester from school to be wallace's student campaign manager for the state. three years later, as a young lawyer, he defended the klan leader who led the beating up of freedom riders in montgomery. he defended him. on the last day of the trial, he came out and one of the freedom riders said, how can you do
12:20 pm
this? how can you defend the freedom -- these people? then he had an epiphany and knew it was wrong. three years later, when the 53 baptist church was bombed by the united klansmen of america, killing four black girls, he was a baptist and folk minister, he got up and said, folks, we have some fellow baptists in trouble. they said, tell us, morris, tell us. this baptist church in birmingham, these poor little black girls were killed. they said, we don't want to hear about this, morris. this is not our business. he said, we must help them. we are christians. folks, let us pray. he bowed his head and prayed. when he raised his head and looked up, there was nobody left in the church. that is how divided things were in alabama at that point. that was the risk he was taking to stand up. brian: morris dees married five times?
12:21 pm
laurence: five times. now he is with a lawyer that he adores. now he may be married a sixth time. brian: what kind of guy is he -- he? laurence: he is one of the great guys of all time. he wants to be atticus finch. the hero in "to kill a mockingbird." atticus finch has probably destroyed more lawyers man anyone else. if you can't be atticus finch, you don't want to be him. he is more like schindler. narcissistic, saved businessman, who thousands of jews. morris dees is real. he used to drive his motorcycle 100 miles per hour. on weekends he would go into rodeos. this is the same time he is doing all of this.
12:22 pm
he is just an unbelievable character who has done so much good in the world. he's very controversial. if you look up his name, you will find very positive and very negative things. but he has done all this good in the world. he deserves some the top awards that any american gets of his generation. he has not gotten them because this controversy about them. -- about him. brian: let's watch a little bit more of morris dees from the same speech. [begin video clip] >> i have family members i love in spite of them. we all know about families. and you know the reason i love some of my family members, i had a couple of uncles who were members of the kkk. they ran a little country store. because i knew them personally and i knew the good things about them. i knew them as individuals. and i am not talking about that kind of love you have for your girlfriend or boyfriend or the members of your church or the people you work with, i'm talking about that love for people who are different than
12:23 pm
you are. [end video clip] brian: you say in the book he is 6'8"? laurence: he is tall. but not that tall. just over 6'. brian: back to the original story. you have the picture of michael donald hanging from the tree. but they did not hang him from the tree? laurence: there was a klan meeting three days before the lynching. there was a black bank robber who shot and killed a police officer. to have a fairer trial, they brought him down to mobile. the klansmen that night decided that if this guy got off or there was a hung jury, they would find a black man and hang him, lynch them as retribution. there had not been a hanging in america since 1955. they did that. friday evening, they go out, and
12:24 pm
michael is a teenager and is trained to be a bricklayer. he is the youngest of seven children. he is home with his mom in the house. his aunt wants him to go out and get her a pack of cigarettes. she gives him a dollar. he goes out and an old buick pulls of behind him. tiger noses him in the buick and pulls out his gun and orders him into the car. he knows when he gets in the car what is going to happen. a black man in alabama, you know. they drive him down the countryside, he gets out. he's not a fighter. he is a timid young man. he fights heroically for his life against these people. three times he is knocked down and he keeps fighting. finally they hold him down, pull ropeing out the lynching out of the trunk, strangling him to death. then they slit his throat.
12:25 pm
leave him in the woods. they want to make an example. they drive him back to mobile, alabama, and hang him in the tree. why that? they want to set an example. from about 1870-1955, there was an average of one racial lynching a week in the south. it was a brilliant psychological device to hold down a race. if you were black, you were afraid this would happen. how do you raise your son if you are black mother? up or to dust off his hat? brian: back to the original clip, talking about tiger knowles in the courtroom with michael donald's mother in the courtroom. what was the circumstance after all the trial? when was it held? laurence: 1987. brian: who prosecuted it? laurence: morris dees was, it was a civil trial.
12:26 pm
brian: how long did the trial go on? laurence: four days. where? laurence: it was in mobile. brian: how did you verify the story about tiger knowles? who else was with him when they put the noose around his neck? michael donald's neck. laurence: the other killer that was executed. henry hayes. brian: they went to this whole trial, how did you find out about the story and verify it? laurence: i had all the court documents. the southern poverty law center was great. they gave me a all the documents i needed. i also went out on my own. i knocked on a lot of doors on the countryside to find the klansmen, which was interesting. i interviewed tiger knowles. i interviewed one of the killers. he is a kosher chef now after 25
12:27 pm
years in prison. brian: what was he like? laurence: he was only 17 years old when this happened. it was as if he was talking about somebody who is not him. it was not him anymore. i think after 25 years, he got out and would not be any more trouble to anybody. brian: what was the reason they wanted to kill him? where did the hate come from? laurence: that was so interesting. hate was the ocean they lived in. they weren't living with hate. it was time to go and kill a black man. what the klan would do, they had missionary activity. the favorite missionary activity was to beat up a black person. when you left them there bleeding, you say, go to the police. we have klansman all over the place and we will kill you. those are the kinds of things that did not reach the newspapers. just like mrs. donald.
12:28 pm
the mother of the victim. she wanted her son to be remembered because she was old enough to know that black people would just disappear. they were just gone. nobody knew, the police, did not care. they just were gone. that was the south. that is why we have to remember. just the way we remember the holocaust as part of our lives. we have to make it part of our memory of our country. thanks to all of these wonderful historians now that are beginning to look at slavery and this era, we are beginning to do that. we desperately need to do that as a people and country. brian: is mrs. donald still alive? laurence: she died shortly after the verdict. she did not care about the money. brian: how much did she get? laurence: it was a $7 million verdict, but the klansmen only gave $50,000. it was enough to bankrupt them. for her to get a nice little house, but that is all it was. brian: the photographs we see, how did you get your hands on those photographs and why do people want them published?
12:29 pm
laurence: the photograph of the lynching? i debated that. whether i should put it in the book. but why hide it? this is a horrendous thing. that was happening in the south in 1884, i believe, it was a lynching in texas and there were 12,000 people there to see it. it was a family event. you would bring your family to see it. the church, you go to the church and then you go down to the lynching. that is why the cost of this, the cost of racism is not just to african-americans, it is the white race also. what it is like to be in a culture where you do this? what is the cost of that to you? brian: this book took you how long to write? laurence: two years. brian: how much time did you spend in alabama? laurence: a lot. brian: what did you find in alabama about race today? laurence: it is still a troubling scenario. brian: what did you see?
12:30 pm
laurence: i saw that the restaurants are integrated but you will not see too many african-americans in the restaurants. the schools. there are three target schools in montgomery. they are excellent schools. they are a mixture of african americans, whites, and asians. there are two big korean auto plants right near town. excellent education. i would send my daughter there in a minute. but the black schools are terrible. they don't educate very well. the races -- it is funny, i asked morris. i can speak candidly to him. i said morris, where the not -- why are there no african-americans at your parties? you get these big parties. he said, they don't want to be here. they've got their world. they do not want to be a token at my party. brian: how does the southern poverty law center make its money?
12:31 pm
laurence: it raises money. it is a phenomenal -- you know, that is one of the criticisms of it. they have an endowment of over $200 million. that is because morris is such a brilliant fundraiser. people criticize him. say, why don't you spend that money -- but he wants to make it so solid that the mother what -- that no matter what happens to the economy or anything else, it will go on and on and on. and with that kind of money, it certainly should. brian: how big of an organization is it? laurence: about 50 lawyers. it is still in montgomery. one thing i admire about morris is that he loves alabama. ok? it would have been easy to move it to washington or atlanta, but he loves that place. he loved it when he was totally ostracized and people turned their back on him. now, it is a pain going to dinner with this guy and -- in montgomery. you walk into a restaurant and every table, somebody stands up and says hello to him.
12:32 pm
it has kind of turned around. down there, people admire what he did and does. brian: how many african-americans did you talk to that might have been around back in 81? in that timeframe? laurence: when morris was growing up, he had mainly black friends. which was very unusual. now with segregation, it would -- they would not come into the house for dinner but his father was known as somebody who is -- was fair to black people. that meant he had a cotton gin and that meant the black people who brought the cotton would get the same price as a white person would get. that was not that usual then. morris still has these friends. i talked to a lot of african-americans in montgomery about those times. civil rights leaders and others. brian: why were his friends mostly african-american? because he was a segregationist himself.
12:33 pm
laurence: those were his buddies. they're still his buddies. brian: have you given much thought to another book? laurence: i'm desperately looking for a subject. i am driving my wife crazy. i wrote this novel because i was wondering. well, i am going to do this. but, yeah,, i am always looking for a subject. brian: where did you grow up? laurence: i was born in chicago. my father is a professor at the university of chicago. then i moved to new york. my father went to harper college, i went to a three-room schoolhouse. brian: you have lived all over the world? where have you lived? what was the reason you were there? laurence: i went to antioch college. antioch college had a year abroad study. i worked in a factory in france. they made the engines for french trains. that is how i learned french, working in a factory. brian: why were you doing that?
12:34 pm
laurence: antioch had a work-study program. which is great for a writer. you work all these jobs. i worked in the factory, i studied, then i went to the peace corps to nepal. it was the most fabulous place. i was a two day's walk from the road, way up in mountains. i was there for two years. brian: what did you get from all that? peace corps. laurence: the best group of people i've ever been with. i'm still close to many of them. we still have our reunions, everything from people that went to community colleges, people that went to harvard. just a mix of people. one of these guys i still play tennis with occasionally. occasionally. afterwards went in and was a marine officer in vietnam and says it was more difficult in
12:35 pm
the peace corps than the military. it was tough. it was not easy to do this. and people at a lot of health problems. some of them still do. living in those conditions for two years. but it was a great experience. brian: what do you think of the peace corps today? laurence: i took three months off when obama was elected to work to push him to keep his promise that he made many times during the campaign to double the size of the peace corps. he unfortunately has not done that. and i also worked at bringing a new leader to the peace corps to really revitalize it. my best candidate was tim shriver, who is the head of the special olympics international. not because the name and his father was the founder of the peace corps, but because he would have done a great job. but he did not get it and we have not doubled the size of the peace corps. brian: what did you do during the three months when you are trying to get him to double the size of the peace corps? laurence: we lobbied. that was one of the great things. we could get in to see
12:36 pm
everybody. we could lobby all the senators and congresspeople. brian: were you with tim shriver all the time? laurence: no, tim shriver had nothing to do with it. just a volunteer and i knocking on doors, we petitioned. we did an event near the white house. we marched on the white house, asking them. we did all these things. we worked hard. it was inspiring. it was said we couldn't get -- we had some luck raising the amount. you could just do this as an american. the essence of democracy. the citizens do not do as much as they should. actually, i have another friend. because i covered the war in bangladesh. my friend worked with a group of bengalis to change american foreign-policy. we tilted towards pakistan with henry kissinger at the time. they had nothing. they had knocked on doors. this little group without power or money changed american foreign-policy. david, a couple years ago, he retired as one of the top
12:37 pm
bankers at the chase manhattan. he won an award for what he did. from the bengalis. so again, it is what you can do. it shows what you can do in a democracy if you take advantage of it. brian: you are in a classroom with writers and asked this question, mr. leamer, can you make a living off of writing books? laurence: i hit the wave. i hit it. i would be ashamed to tell you how big several of my advances were, ok? they were enormous, ok? i will tell you, i am 74-years-old, ok? i got a million-dollar advance for the kennedy women. three times i got a million-dollar advance. now i get 10% of that sometimes. ok? that is what is happening to publishing. it is hard to make it living. people are discovering new ways. that is why i am thinking of self-publishing. just last week i was thinking about that. maybe we can do this.
12:38 pm
new ways to do this. that is the greatness of the -- entrepreneurial greatness of america. we're constantly reinventing ourselves. brian: did the publisher get their million dollars back? laurence: they sure as hell did. and i got a lot more out of that one. brian: besides the advance, you got more money? laurence: when i started writing, nobody would ever talk about money. i'm embarrassed i even said that. sit around a group of writers, no. now, people talk about it all the time. even if they are writing books that will not make it. there used to be mid-list writers who would never have a bestseller. but you were respected and honored and a decent human being. made a decent living. that is not true anymore. brian: under the current circumstances, what is the
12:39 pm
chance you would live this life again? laurence: i am persistent. i think if you really want to do something, you can find some way to do it. i think i'd find some way to do it. i feel so passionately about it. brian: what is the biggest mistake people make writing books? laurence: not being persistent enough or rewriting enough. brian: how often do you rewrite? laurence: you know, it is funny. with the computer now, he don't even know how many times. you can do it again and again and again. brian: do you spend more time in washington, d.c., florida? laurence: are you with the irs? [laughter] about half and half. brian: there is no state tax in florida. that is why so many people retire down there. the name of the book is "the lynching."
12:40 pm
the epic courtroom battle that brought down the klan. there are 14 other books. our guest has been lawrence leamer. a new york times best-selling author. thank you very much. laurence: take care. thank you. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] announcer: for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q& q&a programs are also available as c-span podcasts. at preventing
12:41 pm
terrorism inside europe and the state of information sharing between the eu and the united states. we will be joining the center for strategic and international studies life for that discussion in about 20 minutes here on c-span. and a look at members of congress from louisiana and some of the work they are doing back in their home districts during the congressional work break. senator bill cassidy sharing a picture of one will serve -- of the one millionth meal served to victims of flood relief. congressman garret graves, who pes thisaton rouge, ho sparks a broader discussion over discussed a response -- over disaster response. congressman also released a video today about the current flooding. as a look. -- here's a look. >> the epic in louisiana expected to get worse today. >> their homes are flooded.
12:42 pm
there is still a lot of water in that area. >> historic flooding. it devastated our homes and businesses and tears in our eyes, but it also brought us together. neighbors helping neighbors, like a cajun navy. law enforcement, firefighters, teachers, churches, and countless others. many with flooded homes themselves have been working around the clock to help, entire together.eams working because in louisiana, there is no stranger when one of us is in need. , and that'sonate the key to our recovery. i'm congressman garret graves. i know you're tired and worried, but i've seen your determination and hard work. i know, standing shoulder to shoulder, we will rebuild. when telling our story to our
12:43 pm
nation's leaders in washington and everything working to get the resources needed to recover, no stone will be left unturned to fix the problems and make sure this never happens again. we will recover because our spirit is unbroken. >> congressman graves' district including baton rouge, while in the first district of louisiana, this one from congressman steve scalise, remembering hurricane katrina on its 11th anniversary. perseverance,e, an unbreakable sense of community is as present today as it was following katrina's tragic landfall." its summeraking break, the senate voted for a second time to block funding to combat and event zika virus -- and prevent the zika virus.
12:44 pm
>> just last may when our democratic colleagues asked us urgency,d act with but today they turned down the very money that they argued for last-minute and they decided to gamble with the lives of , instead ofe this protecting them. as i said, they ignored their own calls to get this done quickly and they've refused to pass urgent measures that would protect our country from a public health crisis. as i said when i started, mr. president, this is a test today to see whether our democratic colleagues cared more about babies like this or special interest groups, and they failed the test. it's as simple as that. ,> under the bill we got back planned parenthood, an
12:45 pm
organization where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of women go for their care -- now, do you think they are going to have a little rush of business now? women in america today want to make sure they have the ability to not get pregnant. why? because mosquitoes ravage pregnant women. under the logic of my friends, they don't need to go to planned parenthood. they can go to their doctor someplace in las vegas or chicago or lexington, kentucky. they can go to an emergency room and say, i'm sorry, i didn't get birth control, can you help me. that's not what emergency rooms are for. that's what planned parenthood is for. the vast majority of women who need help, that's where they go, planned parenthood.
12:46 pm
under the legislation we got back from house, there is no money to be provided for that. >> this thursday, a preview of four major issues congress will debate when they return from recess -- zika funding, defense policy, gun violence, and the impeachment of the irs director. we will keep you up-to-date. that is thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, a look at polling and millennial voters before taking your life for the conversation on -- taking you live for the conversation on preventing terrorism in europe. host: we will talk about it with kristen soltis anderson. she is also the author of "the selfie vote: where millennials are leading america (and how republicans can keep up)."
12:47 pm
i want to begin with polling and how people should read polls. from two polls last week of likely voters, one from "the l.a. times" taken august 18 through 24th, it showed the clinton-trump race in a statistical tie, and the quinnipiac poll had hillary clinton plus 10 in their polling. how are we supposed to read all these polling numbers? are just anu average viewer, you probably think something is wrong. how can these both be correct? if you dig a little further into the information about how a poll is conducted, you begin to see a little more about why it is done correctly can come up with something totally different. the way the l.a. times poll is conducted is really interesting methodology.
12:48 pm
they keep going back to the same pool of people over and over again to ask for their questions. quinnipiac is calling a random set of photos across the country and seeing who picks up and who they can get to talk to them. everybody who is a consumer of polls things they have the right to decide which type of polls sounds more accurate. host: you are a pollster. what's the best way to get the best results? guest: it depends a lot on who you are trying to talk to. for instance, my firm did a poll where you use a technology called interactive voice response, collectively known -- colloquially known as a robocop -- robocall. the reason we are comfortable using that as we also call phone numbers of known registered voters.
12:49 pm
we know a whole host of demographic factors about them. that allows us to do a poll that is very accurate. if i was trying to study younger voters, i would never want to use that kind of technology. younger voters had to have cell phones. they tend not to pick up. for younger users, i use online surveys. there are a bunch of great panels that have really rigorous results they can get you. it all depends on the audience you're trying to reach and the numbers you have available. host: what are the numbers people can trust most from polling? ratings.m, what's the most accurate prediction? guest: i like polls that have registered and likely voters specify. sometimes, it will be a poll of adults nationwide. that's great if you are doing a little poll where you want to understand the mood of the people broadly.
12:50 pm
if you look at registered voters, that's a little bit better of the universe. it is the pool of people who could possibly vote. votersu look at likely will see a lot of likely voter polls. deciding whole they think is a likely voter. maybe they are basing it on both history and the past. they are lots of different -- there are lots of ways i can decide what -- who will voter is. that's an art. just know there is a pollster adding a subjective judgment on top of an objective level of analysis, which would be registered voters. kristen so turns anderson -- kristen soltis anderson.
12:51 pm
our guest for the next 45 minutes. republicans, (202)748-8001. democrats, (202)748-8000. voters, (202)748-8003 . you will get to calls in just a second. when it comes to what people read about in the news when it comes to polling, is there some gatekeeping that goes on in the media, that the media is more likely to show up hold that -- a are goingsays things away they are going? guest: the biggest bias is tow ard big, splashy headlines and stories. if i come out with a poll that is the same as last week,
12:52 pm
hillary clinton is ahead by a few points, donald trump is struggling in some swing states, we already know that. if i come out with a whole next week that says donald trump is ahead or hillary clinton is ahead by double digits, that makes news. sometimes the polls that get the most coverage on necessarily representative -- the most coverage aren't necessarily reflect -- representative. there's this concept of "herding." the british election is the most recent example. pollsters will sometimes be afraid to release polls if their numbers are widely different than whatever everyone else gets. their fear of being the only one out on a limb means they sit on the numbers that don't release them. on one hand, the media loves to cover the outlier polls. if you are a pollster and your poll is an outlier, there is an incentive to sit on it. host: let's bring in the callers.
12:53 pm
amelia is our first. she is in color -- california on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. at 4:00ia, it is dark in the morning, but i will get up and watch you guys because you are worth it. host: appreciate that. caller: when is there the fine line of invasion of privacy and how exactly do you get these phone numbers to call? pages just pull the white and start calling people? how do you access these phone numbers? how do you know people want you to call them? you are taking their numbers. you know what i mean? when is there the fine line of invasion of so much personal information, just to take a couple hundred or maybe -- and how many people do you actually poll? i don't really trust the polls.
12:54 pm
it's not that you don't call millions of people. that might persuade a person, oh, well, the poll says this or that. i'd like to really just watch c-span or read what c-span has, because the majority of the established media is either going to favor hillary clinton or favor donald trump. they didn't give bernie sanders an opportunity that he should have gotten. i'm really disappointed in both of the people who are running for president. host: let me give her an opportunity to answer a few of your questions. guest: sure. d is the just raise large ethical burden that falls on posters when we are doing our work -- pollsters when we are doing our work. are -- releasing
12:55 pm
a poll that has a certain result, there are certain countries where it is prohibited. you can't even release poll findings in a certain window before their election, because it could influence the results in some negative way. there's a big ethical burden on both pieces of that. to your question about how we conduct the polls, there are a number of ways you can get those phone numbers. the way things have been done for the most part for the last decade or two is called random digit dialing. basically,e got -- they goes through randomly and uses the number until someone is willing to take a survey. it's not because they have any other product or private information -- public or private information. your number just randomly gets generated. when it comes to things like the do not call list, there are exceptions for things like legitimate academic research. even if you have it opted into
12:56 pm
, ando not call list legally, you still can be contacted for legitimate research studies, which sometimes confuses people. usually the way that would happen would be through that random dialing of numbers. the second major way we would get these numbers is from the voter file. if you register to vote, that information is public record. anyone can go in and see whether you voted, when you voted, how often you voted. host: they can't find out how you voted. guest: they can't find out how you voted. they can find out if you are registered with a particular party. your vote is still secret. -- reason campaigns campaigns uses information is to go through and say we know this person votes all the time. they vote in primary elections. we want to call them as part of our samples understand this election were not a lot of people are going to vote. whereas if somebody never votes, maybe they don't wind up in the same poll or their response is
12:57 pm
not counted as much because they are statistically less likely to participate. host: the science behind polling. happy to have a pollster here to decide -- discussed it. elroy, good morning. caller: i want to ask how come every decade when the presidency comes around that there are different ways they campaign, people campaigning for president actually execute their style of getting people to vote. they have people going after young people. they have others going out to the older generation. me how theyamaze get them interested in voting and the way they talk to them about the things that concern .hem about the nation
12:58 pm
every time i talk to other campaign leaders campaigning for the same job they are campaigning for. host: voter targeting and voter turnout. talk through some of those issues. guest: voter targeting has become a very sophisticated science. a couple decades ago, if you were running for office, you may knew how to have a message that we reach men or women or you would go on a particular tv program because you saw men or women were likely to be watching it. nowadays, because of some of that information that we can glean about voters from everything -- their voting history to in some cases consumer behavior -- a lot of times, people don't realize when you send out the card for the warranty for the computer, that puts a flag on a file that says you might be interested in technology. those little bits and pieces of
12:59 pm
data can wind up in the hands of political parties and can help them make judgments about what sorts of thing you might want to hear about most. we also have the ability to target people online. the internet has really changed the game for how you can target individual voters with a message to try to encourage them to get out and vote. if you think about television, the airwaves are very broad strategy. you are reaching thousands if not millions of people all at once. whereas if i choose to put a specific ad on facebook or target a small group of people on youtube, there are ways to do that with incredible precision. it is really the technology issue. as technology changes, campaigns try to adapt to keep up or to leverage that met -- new technology as best they can. host: a lot of skepticism out there from some people watching and tweeting about the program. one said "polls are ranked. it depends on how you ask the question."
1:00 pm
onother said, "polls are to easily manipulated to get the desired result. they are intended to persuade, not inform." millennials are leading america and how republicans can keep up. james is calling in on the line for millennials. richmond, virginia. >> thank you for all the help you did in making this possible. let me point out the emergency exits. there is the main staircase the goes down to the first floor behind the elevators to the right. there's another set of stairs as well. look for me or caleb johnson over here, and for my other team members here if there is an emergency. been inproject has existence from story five years, and has completed fieldwork in some 70 countries.
1:01 pm
this widespread fieldwork delivers to our audiences the most important information that goes to policymakers and the intelligence community, to war fighters, to congress, the white house, private sector, and most important lay, to the general public. we are nearing the end of two projects on foreign fighters and militancy across the african region. stay tuned for the fall, we are launching two new exciting projects in north africa and in russia and central asia. we're happy to welcome these remarkable general testament. general frank taylor, his past work on a number of working groups advisory committees. general taylor serves as undersecretary of intelligence at the governmental insecurity. in this capacity, general taylor provides the senior leadership
1:02 pm
with homeland security intelligence and information that they need to keep the country safe. he has been part of liaison to the national intelligence community. prior to becoming undersecretary, general taylor served as vice president and chief security officer of the general electric company and held additional senior government positions, including assistant secretary of state for diplomat and security. and for nader for counterterrorism. he also -- and coordinator for counterterrorism. its great to have you back here. joining us today from the netherlands on my right is a national court nader for terrorism, mr. dick schoof. a number of important positions, serving as director general for public safety and security for the mystery interior -- ministry of
1:03 pm
interior, director general of police at the ministry of security and justice, and in his current position as the national counterterrorism coordinator, where he is responsible for cyber security, counterterrorism, and crisis management. united states and the netherlands have a long history of cooperation in the security field. we are grateful for having your troops and analysts and police officers, your case officers, and others standing alongside us as we confront these threats. buto not say to enough, thank you for being there with us. today's discussion focuses on information and intelligence sharing across the european union, and also between partners like the netherlands and the united states. we've all watched in horror as a series of terror attacks hit europe over the past 18 to 20 months, beginning with charlie hebdo. paris,tax hit brussels, -- attacks in brussels, paris,
1:04 pm
nice, and other areas. what emerged from the post-attack investigations was the revelation that information on the perpetrators was not adequately shared within nations and among them. a combination of factors including your credit tangles and rivalries, failures to harmonize technology across borders, national laws regarding privacy and insufficient human and financial resources, counterterrorism fatigue, and of tryingdifficulty to prevent attacks from clandestine agencies that hide within plain sight and within communities. this is very difficult to challenge that. in an effort to remove those impediments, the dutch government, walled in the presidency of the european union, took the initiative to develop a roadmap for improving information sharing. mr.
1:05 pm
following 15 minutes of comments, general taylor will talk about the great relationship we have with the netherlands and some other issues that the general like to bring up. then we open it up to all of you. to those of you joining us online or washing us on c-span, question to us a the twitter account. that, thank you for joining us and for your hard work on initiating this program. mr. schoof: thank you. it is an honor for me to be invited to stand here in front of you and talk about the information has changed in the crucial fight against terrorism. i'm happy to sit here with general taylor. we are close together, it's terrific to work together today.
1:06 pm
with all the recent developments in europe, i can imagine that you are interested in hearing doing int what we are regards to information sharing. i will try to give you an idea of what we do, starting with my own country, the netherlands. the terrorist threat in the netherlands is going to be substantial. this means the chance of an attack in the netherlands israel, but there is no specific indications that an actual real, but there is no specific indications that an actual attack is planned. there are no specific information that terrorist networks are planning attacks in our country. were increasing links to the netherlands. 2016, the number of syria wascifically to
1:07 pm
declining. 264 and dutch terrorist fighters reached approximately 180 are still present in that region. threat, in to this 2016 through 2020, key elements are the threat-based approach, which means priorities are based on the current threat situation. a comprehensive approach, which means if we take defensive and aggressive measures, in cases using interdisciplinary measures. the copperheads of approach -- takesmprehensive approach the form of community engagement. network andion of individual approaches means we identify networks and attempts to undermine them. as we apply a specific approach, particular attention is given to loan actors, individuals who
1:08 pm
have a potential for violence. we do this in respect to the rule of law. then on to europe. and has been directing coordinating and preparing attacks in europe since 2013. the recent attacks in brussels and paris have made this painfully clear. --se are most likely still there are most likely various isis cells present in europe who may attempt to carry out attacks in the near future. broad scale attacks in europe qaedachyna also -- by al also continue to exist. one actors pose a threat. in france,attacks belgium, and germany. the current efforts by the have seen anlition increase in people traveling to
1:09 pm
syria. we have increased attention for people returning from syria back to the netherlands and also back to europe. they are questioned upon returning to the netherlands, and if there's a suspicion of terrorist activities, he or she will be put into custody. we monitor every returnee closely. so-calledn influx of rootsy are using refugee to get into europe. we know their isis operatives active in europe. they took advantage of this refugee crisis to travel from syria to europe and back. sometimes for a short while. at the eu borders are monitored , entrance into the netherlands has somewhat diminished. it still requires our full
1:10 pm
attention and monitoring capacities. the nature of the threat is crucial to improve international information. recent terrorist attacks underlying that terrorists do not respect international borders. the and attack may be preceded in a greatory acts number of countries. it is crucial that all relevant information in the field of counterterrorism is shared between authorities of different countries. we must take all necessary steps to ensure that the right people have the right information at the right time. so they can intervene by checking people and cargo at the border. by investigating actual threats and arresting someone and prosecuting him or her. we have seen positive developments in europe over the past two years in this regard. the amount of law enforcement information that is shared through organizations is
1:11 pm
increasing significantly. arope poll has set up forterterrorism center crosschecks within the law-enforcement community regarding terrorism. been new instruments have and continue to be developed. an important development is the to counterterrorism and serious crime. with the new eu directors, all states are required to set up departments examination of the data. they are exploring technology tot allows member states examine information in a real-time in an anonymous way. without breaching privacy or revealing modus operandi. an informal group has been established.
1:12 pm
in the field of security services, big steps have been taken european corporation with the counter terrorism group. informal working group structure of intelligent services in the eu member states as well as norway and switzerland. over the last few months, a platform and database have --ome operational, or which through which services share information on succession for an suspected -- terrorist fighters. i cannot go into details, but suffice to say, this is yielding operations. still, we feel more needs to be done. this is why the improvement of international corporations is one of the priorities during the dutch eu presidency. we have taken the ambitious initiative to set up a roadmap for the field of law
1:13 pm
enforcement, counterterrorism, and border integration. his roadmap includes necessary access to improve information management and a cross-border exchange of information, including the interoperability of systems. the purpose is to support operational investigations, specifically, in counterterrorism. realizing there is a close connection between terrorism and crime, and to swiftly provide frontline assistance to police officers and border cops and custom officers. comprehensive, topical, and high-quality information. a single service interface forces the effectiveness of operational investigations. the basic tenet of this roadmap is that all relevant information should be shared, unless there are strong operational or legal reasons not to do so. it includes a uniform
1:14 pm
-- and uniform messaging format. access to key systems to share information, the visa information system, and the fingerprints. silent finger print database is there. and consistently -- each asylum print database is there. the implementation of the actions is an ongoing process, most changes are for seen for this year and next year. of this roadmap, europe has shown strong political commitment to feed and use information systems to the maximum extent. for achieving an effective sharing of information, which will enhance trust between operational actors. strong commitment to
1:15 pm
the change of information operation in the fight against terrorism. values sacrificing core within the european union, such as privacy and data protection. , the roadmapmen will enable us better to prevent the unnoticed crossing of borders by suspected or known terrorist fighters, and deferred terrorist attacks. -- deter terrorist attacks. we also have a confidence with united states. the importance of informational exchange at an international level is clear. it is in our common security interest to keep improving our cooperation in this respect. only together we will be able to ,ight this threat effectively and keep our society as safe as possible. thank you for your attention. [applause] mr. sanderson: thank you. general taylor, over to you. general taylor: it's a pleasure
1:16 pm
, certainly to see my good friend tom sanderson , and to be on the same stage with my close colleague, dick oof, in this fight that we have against terrorism. is one of dhs's closest partners in europe and internationally. thatber of the programs dhs is of limited internationally originally did gush originated as pilot programs in the netherlands. we are faced the issue of foreign terrorist fighters for a long time, and i have been to the netherlands several times to see their impressive work firsthand. most recently, the deputy secretary and i were in amsterdam. the ministerial focused on cooperation in a broad range of
1:17 pm
justice and security issues, including migration, ct, money laundering, data protection, criminal law cooperation, child sexual explication, and organized crime. discussions during the ministerial in besides need for improved information exchange, particularly the dutch roadmap of the information sharing among european services. we are now working with the current eu presidency in slovakia, on implementation of this very, very important initiative. nearly 15 years after the 9/11 attacks, it is still a dangerous world. san bernardino, orlando, egypt, nice, brussels, paris, and other attacks are terrible reminders of the threat we face. we have moved from a world of terrorist directed attacks to a
1:18 pm
world that includes the threat of terrorist inspired attacks. attacks by those who are living radicalized, self and are inspired by terrorist propaganda on the internet. by the nature of the terrorist their nature, terrorist inspired attacks are often difficult to detect by intelligence and law enforcement communities. or noan occur with little notice, and in general, make for a more complex homeland security challenge. this threat environment has required a whole new type of response that goes beyond traditional ct and law enforcement approaches to address the threat of homegrown violent extremists. we are enhancing our comprehensive efforts aimed at addressing the root causes to prevent the next generation of recruiters. with a like to disclose view from homeland security --
1:19 pm
the threat vectors we believe we face. first, in aviation security. that al qaeda and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and isis continue to see an attack on aviation as an important part of their strategy. this year, we have seen three ,irliners attacked in the sinai and twice in somalia. we have clear indications that our enemies are trying to perfect ways of introducing explosives and other devices onto aircraft, for the purposes of destroying them in mid flight. , both in therity united states and across the globe, remain a high priority. as we look at the vast borders of our country, we want to into --hose borders across the world. as the secretary mentions, to
1:20 pm
play offense or defense on the one yard line of the enemy, as opposed to playing defense on our one yard line, and strengthening border security. critical to that is the information exchange between our partners across the globe, to better understand who these individuals are that are transiting our borders for nefarious purposes. the fourth threat -- the third threat is cyber security. and the protection of our cyber domains. we been designated as the point of contact for the protection, and more portly, for the sharing of threat information for the private sector. it's an area of increased concern with all the reports of hacking and things that are going on across the world. and finally, preventing homegrown violent extremists.
1:21 pm
as i mentioned, we are in a new environment today of -- where the enemy isn't necessarily sending operatives. they are getting on social media and recruiting folks who are u.s. citizens or citizens of our colleagues across the world to commit terrorist attacks within their homeland. they do not have to travel to they can't, from the comfort of their home, read the propaganda and radicalized themselves. a big part oft our mission in homeland security to theage to -- outreach american muslim community, who, by the way, are the targets of this propaganda within our own country. to help those communities build strategies to defend against this propaganda -- the social media propaganda that are causing young men and women to take up the isil banner.
1:22 pm
tom, without, i will stop and look forward to questions from her audience. mr. sanderson: thank you, frank and dick. we have one question that come in on the twitter account. on e-mail or context. -- or in text. levitt, whorom matt you all know at the washington institute. he is one of the top counterterrorism specialists in the u.s., and one of the top hezbollah experts. just prior to-- the brussels bombing, a gore nader issued a report saying several electronics -- several states had no electronic connection data poll. information sharing to still not reflect the threat. european databases record only for four and --
1:23 pm
interpreters, despite estimates that 5000 syrian people have traveled. --y percent of the reports 90% of the reports say members came from five states. have we made tangible process -- progress? mr. schoof: yes. [laughter] mr. sanderson: moving on. mr. schoof: let me elaborate. the european counterterrorism corridor was quite right in mentioning what he said. what he said was true. council, thea meeting of the ministers for different member states of the european union, we had this informal report. it was noted there as well. the statistics on paper. in general, and for each country itself.
1:24 pm
and we have seen a tremendous --gress in the statistics sort of after the paris attacks. a lot of information is being shared. the interval database is now in most countries and is connected. the sharing information system is much better felt by the five countries mentioned, but everyone really entering that information in these databases. we made a lot of progress. a little bit more than just a guess. i wouldtaylor: certainly agree that we have made great progress. i think the work within your opol has been spectacular. of lawperation enforcement and the sharing of ct information. within theltilateral eu and the u.s. has been
1:25 pm
strengthened. agreements --d dick was just here to sign the agreement to strengthen the .xchange of that information i'm pleased that the intelligence services in europe have come together in sharing more information among themselves. but you are never satisfied. this is a business where you can't rest on your laurels. we live in a very dynamic information environments. one piece of information not shared could be the basis of a very successful terrorist attack. what we have made progress, there is still a town of work to that sharing, both between the eu and the u.s.. but also within the eu and the eu partnership. mr. sanderson: my former
1:26 pm
colleagues act is in the room, and we went to the syria/turkey border to interview a trafficker at the border. thingst in all sorts of that he moved over the border. people, weapons, etc. one of his specialties was passports. he would buy passports from europeans coming in who were joining the islamic state, no longer believed they were citizens of the european country from which they came. he would resell them and repurpose them. he had access to everything. it was really remarkable. we interviewed him on two occasions. resents --ts -- presents a terrible problem. can you give us a look at the important program that brings women and men back in cross borders. thousandse time, it
1:27 pm
of individuals who come from europe on european passports to fight and can return and then travel to the united states. general taylor: that's for me. let's start with the fact that the visa waiver program is not a waiver of a visa program. that a security program individuals have to apply for and have to provide certain data our is screened against holdings with regards to central threats that they present. one of the most important parts of that is their identity, who they actually are. that's a part of that validation occurs. there's concern certainly for anyone coming out of syria with a fake passport. we believe that the strength of the visa waiver program that we vett those -- to
1:28 pm
individuals, is very strong. there are additional data elements that are required under the program for folks to apply. i think it is a threat that we are most concerned with. in theleagues immigration customs enforcement area are working very closely with european partners and others on fake documentation and passports. we are getting better and better at understanding what that risk is. and how that risk may manifest itself within the visa waiver program going forward. mr. sanderson: any comments? mr. schoof: not directly in relation to the visa waiver program. you would agree
1:29 pm
that every known traveler is being signaled on this passport is being put in the shared information system, being put into the document said it so we at least know that there is regard for these documents. it, at least we know. that's very important. i think in that respect, we've come a long way. 2016 certainly looks different than 2014. mr. sanderson: let's open it up to the audience. please wait for the microphone, since we have folks listening online. >> thanks. my question applies to all three. tom, if you want to answer this. in the watches of night, i seem to think sometimes we exaggerate danger of terrorism. 140 years ago,
1:30 pm
historically, the danger was certainly as great or much greater. kings, queens, czars, presidents were being routinely assassinated. alfred nobel was wrote with the greatest contributor to terrorism by inventing dynamite. 1919, 1820, there were 24 letter bombs that were mailed throughout the country that induced a huge panic, tens of thousands were summarily arrested and deported, etc., etc., etc. do we learn anything from that time? maybe it was more than just world war i and the depression, but that bout of terrorism that went on for 30 or 40 or 50 years seemed to dissipate. is there anything to be learned from that particular history? if you go back and reason newspapers and the press at the time, terrorism was probably seen as a much greater danger that it was today. what do we have to learn? is it possible to terrorism may be rather like the little -- a
1:31 pm
the hulaad -- like -hoop, a passing fad? mr. sanderson: things do have their faces, they come and go. the concern now is that terrorists have social media and potential access to wmd biomaterials. i'm sure they did have access to biomaterials, but the social media multiplier is unbelievable. isis puts out 90,000 messages a day, or they didn't the height of their activity. certainly, we can learn from looking back and saying the sky is not falling, we can have these terrorism incidents and we need to have resilience, major part of what the department of homeland security focus is on. we do need to remember and look to other countries that have dealt with this -- israel, for example. the u.k. for many years, and understand there is a way forward without trampling on
1:32 pm
, without causing divides within cultures and communities. what we have today is quite serious. i know everyone typically says it has never been this bad as it is today. but the reality is technology is such a force multiplier for these folks. i didn't need to be concerned that a significant level. i don't think you are suggesting we should not be. but in terms of lessons from the past, you move on and eventually things change. but right now, we are in the midst of it. the worst of it, i think. i would just,: that i'm in my 48th year of service, both in public and private sector. turkey back inin 1972. which was also a time of very heightened threats, in turkey, not so much from the pkk, but from the dh k pc.
1:33 pm
we have seen groups, go over time it. that -- twothing perspectives. first, the world is coming apart because of terrorism. we are much safer today from the terrorist threat that we have ever been. why our national terrorism advisory system tells americans the nature of the threat we are facing, which is the homegrown bombings extremist notn attack out of the blue an attack al qaeda 9/11 style, an attack that we have worked very hard to stem that type of attack. in the future is how many young people are being taught hate in failed states across the country. -- when ined going
1:34 pm
was corridor for counterterrorism in 2001, with the state department, one of our initiatives -- you could see the roots of potential failed states , of this philosophy moving into those areas. in many ways, it has in the course of the last 15 years. i don't think it's a chicken little sky is falling situation. but if we continue to see failed states and we continue to see this terrorist philosophy promulgated across this failed states, i think it does create a longer-term problem than we have had in the past. mr. schoof: it is an interesting question. that every politician or operational guide working through the counterterrorism
1:35 pm
operation asks themselves that question. i think the world has changed tremendously. this is the world of masked medication, a global world, mass panic maybe even. and terrorists are certainly the currency of this movements, and they're are operating in a totally different world, where xenophobia can combine with religious threats and etc. etc. the potential danger of undermining our open democratic society is much bigger than it would have been 100 years ago. my perspective, most of the work i do, it's really important that the government official to always look very carefully at the way you communicate. the government should community -- can indicate very transparently and openly about threats. and not create its own fear by reacting.
1:36 pm
that's the most important thing we can learn. at the same time, don't underestimate the danger of the current terrorist threat. mr. sanderson: the fourth row here. and please identify yourself. >> i am ali mohammed from afghanistan. former director of counterterrorism and intelligence in afghanistan. , how muchn is policys we have made on labels with the countries that embrace terrorism within their religious and educational pakistan and like saudi arabia and this is a direct factor of radicalism and extremism in the west.
1:37 pm
we just discussed technicalities of counterterrorism, how much progress that we made on the policy level to convince our methodsot to use those for radicalizing their society against the west? thank you. i'm happy to take a crack at it, since i am sitting between two sitting government officials. let me just say from all the work the mike rawlings i have done, including hundreds of interviews with government officials from some of the countries you mentioned, and many others, it depends on the country. but those that are primary violentountries of extremists and terrorists in the ideology, not a lot is being done. that ideology, those acting with
1:38 pm
it or is the vanguard at the global jihadi movements are doing the bidding of some folks in those governments. for local needs, for regional needs, for global needs and goals they are trying to obtain. there is also the question of whether they kenexa control the ideology and control the clerics and stop extreme hard-line clerics, whether they control the dog on that leash. that they have used to harass particular parts of their country, different ethnic groups , different neighbors that they have disputes with. as long as those militant groups serve as a tool for those governments, which they continue to do, we will not see a significant reduction in the incidence of radicalization of the ideology, the attacks. to the point where we look at many of these countries and we really wonder whether we should call them allies or major non-nato allies, or nato allies
1:39 pm
themselves. i'm speaking specifically about turkey, which now is in a different position than it was. if you years ago, the door was acrossen and people came into syria. we have a lot of partners out there who are good partners in some areas, and turkey is. pakistan can be. saudi arabia as well. every good partners. in other areas, they are not as good as they could be. and that's my opinion. general taylor: billy thing i inld say to that is that each of the cases, we do have partners in saudi arabia and pakistan who are working mutually with us and other parts of the world against these threats. as tom mentioned, sometimes these forces are hard to leash once they have been unleashed. challenges -- the challenge
1:40 pm
is continuing to work with our partners. i have gone to the reeducation schools and saudi arabia. they are very effective from a -- reeducation is probably not the right term. radicalization d places. i think that both governments and other governments around the world are trying to work with that problem. but each of those countries has also been the target of terrorist activities. to tom's earlier point, once you deal with -- once these forces are within a country, it's very difficult to control. working very closely with our partners, we try to help them to get at solving the problems in their country and how the problems being manifested elsewhere. mr. schoof: the currency of the threat is not only to the rest of the world.
1:41 pm
they are attacking a stumble and saudi arabia. they are attacking anywhere. everybody is the enemy except their own small group. feelingwe have the same -- i would like to mention the global force. the united states code -- cochaired. the netherlands are cochairing. we are creating excellent partnerships because the threat is against all of us. mr. sanderson: right here in the aisle. >> my name is jacqueline sutherland with the chertoff group. over the past nine months, we've really seen an increase in soft targets being attacked by terrorist actors in brussels, then, nice, is simple, but i know that just last week, interpol cannot with a report saying they are checking to see
1:42 pm
many more paris style spectacular attacks as more isis fighters come back to europe. really see as the more urgent threat at the moment, having many more soft target terrorist attacks, or these coordinated tax -- attacks like paris? mr. schoof: that is a very difficult question. both are true. i think the current situation of the islamic state is getting even smaller geographic territory. it probably puts a lot of terror -- pressure on the current foreign fighters to return to their countries. they are more violent than ever. they are more radicalized, there certainly -- isis -- they want to attack. they can connect with the local radical groups, and i can be a very toxic development -- and
1:43 pm
that can be a very toxic development that can lead to either more attacks on soft targets, inspired, as the general said, organized and directed. both are possible. you might say everything is possible under that situation. certainly short-term is not going to be better. general taylor: i was a you have to play the entire field. can't play off one against the other and mention the aviation threat. that doesn't go away civilly because isil is attacking in paris. that threat continues. you need a multitiered effort to do it. you have to engage the owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as we do in this country every day, to get them to better understand the risk landscape and methodologies for protecting commercial facilities , theaters, all the other places
1:44 pm
we've seen attacks in. i think you also have to look at the intelligence these of this, as these foreign fighters return area in many cases, we know who they are. given the amount of intelligence we had and the effect of law enforcement and intelligence operations to determine what they are up to, continued investigation. the fbi has announced that it has investigations in all 50 states. effective investigations with state and local partners. all contribute to the defense, if you will, against these kind of threats and risks that we face both in europe and in the homeland. you can't prevent them all. to the extento that you have information and knowledge that you can apply to try to mitigate those risks, that you apply that in a consistent fashion, both from a law-enforcement security,
1:45 pm
intelligence, and most important like, from owner operator perspective in terms of empowering owner operators to understand how to mitigate risk in an open society. mr. sanderson: the question coming in from an advisor to the tnt program, former associate deputy director of operations at the cia. he asks will brexit negatively impact the improvements made in eu counterterrorism efforts? mr. schoof: u.k. was a strong supporter of everything we did. i am sure even with greg they will still be a strong supporter. but when they are not a member state anymore, we have to make other legal arrangements to make sure it's going to work. it will be more work, but the intention will still be the same. we work around it. mr. sanderson: does it, take things for dhs -- complicate things for dhs? general taylor: it does not.
1:46 pm
we have strong bilateral partnerships with the u.k. we think that will continue. we think it will be a strong partner in europe, if not in the eu, information sharing and best practices. go, wewill come and our security cooperation will continue to be very strong. mr. sanderson: second row in the black outfit. thank you. >> hello. i am the newest addition to the saudi embassy. i have a two-part question as well a comment, the first question is firstly, how effective is the d radicalization programs happening -- how effective have
1:47 pm
they been in terms of in the eu as well as the united states. as well as how effective have the -- i don't know if you do have them, the fighting against the xenophobia. anti-semitism -- by anti-semitism, i mean anti-arab, anti-muslim, as well as anti-jewish. detangling the complications that all that is creating. let's go with the questions, because those require responses. let's start with the deeper acrosstion programs europe. we know there are a variety of programs. we exchange a lot of
1:48 pm
information on how to work on them. i think the most important is to radicalized -- de-radicalized. authorities play fairly important role in getting their signals in the right place. community policing is fairly important. the local caseworkers are important. in the netherlands, we are progressing in those communities where radicalization is a real jihadist orer it's right wing, whatever. to cut their signals and offer de-radicalization programs. we look at with the germans did in this regard. there is a lot going on. were difficult to
1:49 pm
prove you were on the right half, but doing nothing is not an option. mr. sanderson: in the u.s.? general taylor: we have been very clear that the key for countering violent extremism is outreach to the communities that are being targeted with this propaganda. to many, many communities across this country. we revamped our countering violent extremism program to try to empower communities to understand the threat and the voicesnd to become against this kind of radical ideology. de-radicalization, but helping communities understand what is radicalization and what the tools are. -- anyg you mentioned
1:50 pm
xenophobia about a group of people or race or religion is not helpful in the integration process. the wonderful thing about america is we are a country of immigrants. we have learned how to integrate immigrants behind this whole notion of what it is to be american. the things that stand in the way of that kind of process doesn't help at community and a great. and when communities don't integrate and communities feel ourated, those ideas that enemies would try to foment in those communities become easier to accept. it's very important from an american perspective that we integrate these communities, and that these communities be truly that we welcome
1:51 pm
them to america, they are part of the american fabric, they're are going to be an important part of who we are as a country going forward. dick, anyrson: comments on anti-semitism, hatred towards models -- muslims and jews and arabs? mr. schoof: it's high on the agenda. governments do want to have integration. with europe and also in the netherlands, we've seen strong clinical parties who are clearly anti-islam. and we have to deal with those political parties as well. let me offer an mobilizationthe de- comments. we were in northeast nigeria in january and there is no offerings in nigeria for militants in boko haram.
1:52 pm
many of whom were kidnapped or brought in against their will otherwise in to the group. there is no way for them to get out of that program it into a de-mobilization unit. no one wants them in their backyard. there are good programs out there, saudi arabia is well regarded. norway is well regarded. there are good models out there for de-mobilization. hope leta will be information sharing and best practices on that. in the back. blue shirt. >> sean carberry, federal computer week. at the center of information sharing is the infrastructure. a the united states, you have variety of defense and intelligence agencies that are coming to terms with cyber technology and cyber security. their own internal networks, how they are connecting and sharing with other federal agencies. you add in the same dimension in
1:53 pm
europe. we are things currently, in terms of the integration of systems to share data? how much is going to cloud with shared access? what are the barriers, and how is this affecting the sharing of information? in addition, what are the concerns about cyber threats to this information sharing itself? mr. sanderson: excellent question. mr. schoof: let me start with the last one. the cyber threat in itself is real. as we all know. we do the cyber threat assessment every year. view,e terrorist point of they are getting more interest in cyber. ,hey certainly have interest but they do not yet have the right capabilities. to ourly get
1:54 pm
infrastructure or our information systems. but maybe somehow, they connect inpeople who can or reasonable time they can develop those capabilities to get to it. , we put a lotands of pressure on private and public organizations to have their cyber security in place. we talked about real issues of cyber security and real vulnerabilities. think we tried i to get information exchange within europe and to get it in a more operational way that we can very quickly exchange information. and that'slso cured a very interesting topic to discuss further. it takes a lot of time before we really can do so. but we have secure lines and
1:55 pm
secure for structure. on we can rely heavily what's being developed in defense. general taylor: the technology is moving, as you know, very quickly. and the security threats continue to mount. so effective cyber security in the exchange regimens is going to be critical. is aast thing you want backdoor in one of these systems of information sharing that allows our enemies to know what we know. it's a balancing act. personally that we are moving into an era where it used to be i will tell you what i think you need to know something, into an era between our partners with our partners need to know everything we know. , soto do so in a secure way when they need information, it's
1:56 pm
not mother may i, it's there. we have the own challenge in our country, when we need the information -- when frank taylor present himself at the border, we need to know whether frank taylor's a threat or not. that can't be because we ask our partners an hour ago whether frank taylor's a threat trade we need to know that when it happens. instantaneous information is what we're trying to build ,owards doing so with security to protect that information, but the information in the system and the way in which that information is being exchanged. it's an incredibly important as we build these systems moving forward. mr. sanderson: please keep the questions brief. unaffiliated, but a former software developer doing a lot of work in data. is, to what extent are you focusing on unstructured and informal data, as opposed to
1:57 pm
all the formal stuff when there's an id number you can look up in a database. notes on local investigations or -- it or suspicions hasn't raised to the level of you have a confidence in it. i think like the boston bomber, they had some information, but it wasn't enough. are you going to be sharing a lot of that? are reallylor: you getting into an area that is at the essence of what is information sharing. and what information gets shared and with the protocols are for sharing that information. -- i'm areally techno-peasant, so get me started talking about technology. structured versus unstructured data, tagging data, i leave that to my data science friends to figure out how to do that. the important thing is the integration of information that we have to build new knowledge.
1:58 pm
9/11 wasord after connecting the dots. we are not only connecting dots anymore, we are connecting the needles and haystacks under needles and haystacks. to needles and haystacks trying get answers. moving data, is protecting civil rights and civil liberties, not making false allegations and trying to do all that in real time. if you got an idea, let us know when we will try to answer it. challenge, butg i would tell you that the u.s. government's and our partners across the globe have taken on that challenge in ways that we never thought we could do, in protecting the information, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, and also sharing that information in near real-time. much better than 15 years ago after 9/11.
1:59 pm
about theed a lot political security and social aspects of countering terrorism. no one on the panel has spoken about terrorist financing, which is also a huge fuel to the fire along with propaganda, the political and social -- and security side of it. i'm wondering on both sides of the spectrum, whether it be in the eu or the united states, what are we doing in both governments to stop terrorist financing? how does intel plans it on, and what are the actions taken afterwards? good question again. i think it is one of the most difficult topics we are trying to get a grip on. judicial, political, practical. seen a bigve
2:00 pm
in this,in the efforts but it's all very copied cases which we have to -- before the decision is being made, there has to be a lot of proof that it alluded to finance and finance errors. to same is true in regards institutions, for example. if an organization is not lifted, you cannot -- i think it is a very difficult process in itself. if an organization changed into another organization, we get in the process