Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  October 13, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EDT

10:00 am
case involving wells fargo and opening of unauthorized credit card and bank accounts. agenciesone of the that helped uncover this this is a case that resulted in millionas many as 2 unauthorized accounts, firing of over 5000 wells fargo employees who were sort of lower lever people under a lot of pressure to achieve their targets. we had news overnight at the ceo of wells fargo just stepped down. this was the most prominent case cfpb has donee --
10:01 am
and it's been very encouraging for the people that support the cfpb. today"ront page of "usa about former ceo john mack on. eric in hollywood, florida, a democrat, good morning. retireesbout i am one of the that was involved in the scandal of the banking and housing .eltdown i have seen the things about cfpb ripping everybody off, including the taxpayers, anybody they could for their own concerns. they basically told me since i was not involved with the big banks that caused it, half of my retirement was gone and i better die quickly because i was not getting anything back.
10:02 am
host: anything to add? guest: thank you for the question. i need to find out details of your case. only is able to regulate banks with assets over $10 billion. so a lot of the community banks and credit unions are outside of their jurisdiction, so if the cfpb gets complaints about these financial institutions, the only thing they can do is refer the cases to other regulators who have the authority over them. tina is in alabama. go ahead. cfpb -- whodoes the are they accountable to? is accountable to congress, which created it.
10:03 am
ruling, and if it stands, it is going to be accountable to the white house. if the white house wants to fire the head of this agency, now, the president could do that. host: the difference between an otherndent agency and agencies within the executive branch. what makes something an independent agency? this is not something i'm entirely familiar with but the departments, a lot of agencies -- you know what -- host: that is ok.
10:04 am
we have more phone calls for you. michael in new york. i want to say about the consumer financial protection bureau, before the great recession, payday lenders, wall street was running amok with grade and we had lenders preying upon -- up until years ago, the military and poor americans -- on top of00% interest the original principal they were lending on, putting more people into debt. it was not getting them out of poverty but keeping them in poverty. after the great recession, the consumer financial protection bureau was created and they have given back $11 billion to consumers. now the mortgage companies that have created fraud against the american consumer, i have yet to hear anyone from wall street or ayone raise evidence to prove solid evidence that washington,
10:05 am
before there was the consumer financial protection bureau, that the american consumer or main street was better protected. host: i will give you the last 30 seconds. is an the payday industry interesting area to look at. it seems like in your state, in recent years, the activity of payday lenders has been curbed. that is probably because of the regulation in the state, not by the cfpb. cfpb is still in the process of writing the rules to govern this industry. lendersd, you mentioned targeting members of the military. that market has gotten much more oversight as a result of the creation of the cfpb. , theyhe cfpb was created
10:06 am
were asked to pay special attention to certain groups of consumers. ,mong them are seniors borrowers of student loans, and also members of the military. so they have a special office who looks after the interest of the service members and veterans. is a yuka hayashi financial regulation reporter with "the wall street journal." this you for the time morning. that will do it this morning for "washington journal." we now go to the center for strategic and international studies, discussing a just concluded 16-month study on russian economic and political influence in central and eastern europe. that is beginning in a few minutes. we will see you here tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern, 4:00
10:07 am
pacific. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> good morning, everyone pay welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. my name is heather conley,
10:08 am
senior vice president here at cs i.s. which looks after europe, eurasia, and the arctic. we could not be more pleased that you have joined us today. we are going to tell you about a report that we hear at the center have been working on for in last over year and have close cooperation and partnership with the center for the study of democracy in sofia, bulgaria. i jokingly tell my colleagues, it takes an analytical village to produce a 63-page very dense report. before we begin, we will ask you to sort out there with us. we are going to walk you through a little bit of the report, not the full to three pages, i promise. once we finish that conversation about the report, then we will have a conversation about it. before i begin, let me introduce to you the authors of this report. i would like them to stand and
10:09 am
be acknowledged. begin with my colleague, james, former research associate, now with the office of the secretary of defense. i would also like to recognize martin with the center for the study of democracy, another fabulous calling for this report. and let me it knowledge, and you will be hearing from him soon, roselyn stepanov, director of the economics program at the center for democracy. this report could not have been produced without you. we wanted to make this report truly transatlantic, and that is why we were thrilled to partner with the center for the study of democracy. before we tell you about the kremlin lay book, let me welcome the chairman of the center for the study of democracy, who was a a few words of welcome, and then we would get to the report.
10:10 am
[applause] thank you, heather. thank you for coming today. really quite a ride in the last couple of years when we started to focus on the russian economic footprint in europe. let me say briefly, in a to assesswe tried this footprint, which is still .argely unknown and ignored then the analysis through , governmenttics deficits, government gaps, even government failures in the european level and national government level. these deficits and gaps, state centers in
10:11 am
european countries. again thethank once core team of the project led by heather and ruslan for their leadership and persistence, and of course, my colleagues, thank you for coming today. [applause] thank you so much. let's begin and tell you a little bit about the kremlin playbook. first, i want to begin with the inspiration behind what we were studying. we were struck by a letter that by a veryn in 2009 significant group of central and eastern european leaders to the obama administration. it was an open letter.
10:12 am
while the letter had other issues regarding the u.s. relationship with central europe, the relationship with russia, within the letter it had a very interesting observation, i will say. it is describing that russia uses overt and covert means of economic warfare, and what we found that was interesting about that, the use of the word economic warfare, but it was an attempt to challenge the transatlantic orientation of these countries. that is an interesting statement. i wonder if that is true, it we could determine whether that was true. wasral years later, there the hungarian prime minister who gave us some additional food for thought. in a speech he gave in july 2014, he mentioned the wind is blowing from the east, it is possible to construct a new liberal andon
10:13 am
national foundations. we thought perhaps the economic dimension was having an impact on governance standards, on , and inic institution fact, the democratic orientation of these two countries. we thought that would be an interesting study if we could measure, create a methodology, if we could prove, in fact, that there was a correlation between economic influence and a reorientation of democratic institutions. and then, of course, friday happened. then we had a pretty significant statement. i think historians will reflect on this statement. i will reflect on the statement for some time, where secretary of homeland security jeh johnson and general clapper issued an extraordinary statement which, among things, mentioned
10:14 am
attributing particular andvities to russia consistent with the methods and motivations of russia motivated experts, such activity is not new to moscow. the russians have used similar tactics and techniques across europe and eurasia. sometimes in the analytical world we get really good timing. we felt this report perhaps could illuminate what secretary johnson and general clapper were perhaps suggesting. what are the tactics and techniques that perhaps have been used in europe today? that was some of what i would call the inspiration. now let me introduce you to the perspiration of the report. was there a direct correlation, could we make a correlation between russia's economic footprint in a country and a deterioration of their covenant
10:15 am
and roots -- governance standards? you how successful or unsuccessful we were, but what is the impact, what is the amplification, what is the overall impact on the public confidence in democracies, in the institutions themselves? we wanted to get very specific, drill down into five countries to understand how this worked. we can make broad, general trend lines. but to understand, as we will argue, the playbook, you have to understand how it works individually in each country. we selected five countries, hungary,ulgaria, slovakia. the nato and united states have made enormous investment and how they are going to be thinking about their future policy, certainly the health of their
10:16 am
democracies. for serbia, we wanted to see how this playbook would work in a country that aspires to join the european union, yet holds great cultural, historic, economic, linguistic ties with russia. would we see a difference? first, we wanted broad geographic dispersions from the north of latvia, the south in bulgaria, and then to see hungary and slovakia, the countries in between. this is why we will focus a little bit of time on the methodology and measurement. we wanted to be rigorous. we wanted to see if we could quantify economic, the dimension of russia's investment. not an easy tack. theily, the center for study of democracy has taken this up. roselawn can tell you about our methods and methodology.
10:17 am
>> thank you all very much for coming. with is not faced just presenting the simple, economic presence of russia in the region, but also trying to , those the amplifiers instruments that actually allow russia to amplify their economic presence. what we have done here, we have combined four indicators that we think historically display to the largest extent they instruments russia has used to intimidate and influence political decisions within those five countries. them tohave combined show that this is not just pure areomics, by that there usually other instruments to amplify that economic presence.
10:18 am
as you can see, we have ranked these five countries using these combined metrics which includes energy imports, which has been presumably the most often used economic play in the playbook. fbiave put in there the stock. to that thed corporate presence and the corporate networks which has taken us the most time, six months, to uncover the financial owners that are out there and the intricate networks that they have created. last but not least, the other instrument that has been used, the export through russia. countries see, these show different levels of economic footprint, but they all show similar trend. we find a distinct pattern
10:19 am
somewhere between 2007 and 2008, when there was a change from using the economic opportunities toward intentionally trying to steer or use economic presence in terms of influencing political decisions. that is what we see in the patterns in all the countries. let me go to the most widely used economic instrument, and that has been wide knowledge, the energy imports. as you can see, in the case of bunk area and slovakia -- in bulgaria and slovakia, these are the highest levels. all of them at least two of the instruments have provided high vulnerability to russian influence. and slovakia, these are energy and corporate presence. in slovakia and hungary, it is
10:20 am
mostly exports. in the latvia, a combination of mostly corporate presence and exports. these are the different channels. we have uncover that there are ofo different amplifiers patrons that have amplified the impacts of those four core economic variables on the house country. there have been different ways of amplifying that russian influence. we have listed a few of them. these are concentrating on monopolizing sectors like energy, finance, and transportation, like in the case .f let the a -- latvia using old secret service networks that have spanned into the financial sector, and from there, and to all different directions. thisusing large-scale --
10:21 am
was seen particularly in bulgaria and hungary -- large-scale projects to lure local oligarchs, key economic toyers, who can then be used amplify the russian economic footprint in those countries. let me give one example that was seen, but it provides a very good view of how all of these mingle together. that is the gas from case. case.prom as you can see, they usually act through a local corporate network of set theory's that corner in the national incumbents and press them into basically playing along the prom that jazz prom -- gaz wants to use. thatannot help but notice
10:22 am
the highest prices for gas is put on the countries where russia has had the highest economic presence, the highest economic footprint. these are bulgaria and serbia. the more you are captured economically, the more you actually pay in this case to gazprom you could easily make the calculus, this amounts to tens of billions of dollars over the 10 years we are looking at this, 2004-2014. with that, i will turn it back to heather to explain the economic footprint and the political footprint intermingle. thank you. [inaudible]
10:23 am
we have this incredible resource called freedom house. they produce an annual report [inaudible] that annually provides us with an enormous amount of information on the democratic health and standards of countries in central europe. what we did was, using the freedom house's annual analysis, we looked at three specific indicators, perceived levels of corruption, independence of the judiciary, and media independence. in some ways was the health indicator for a democracy. what we found was a little counterintuitive, particularly for those countries that joined nato and the european union at least by 2004, because we made an assumption that those countries would in fact only
10:24 am
increase in democratic health. they were in major institutions, they were developing economically and democratically. yet that is not what we found. in the case of hungary and bulgaria, slovakia, there was actually a decline in government standards. this we see in a trend line from 2004 2 2014. -- to 2014. outlier, stable in the indicators. it is a little counterintuitive example, but serbia, again, was fairly stable. the number that you see on the graph, and in the report we chart country by country, and we chart the democratic standards and economic footprint. it is just a little hard to read when you are looking at it for the first time and you see lots of squiggly lines.
10:25 am
was that the democratic standards were declining as the economic influence was growing. get to the answer to the first study question -- is there a direct correlation between russia's economic presence and its democratic standards? we could not find a direct correlation. in fact, the findings were quite inconclusive. but i think the most important thing about this -- and now i will get to the aha of the observed ae really reser relationship between the economics and the politics. if russia's economic footprint in a country is above 12% of that country's gdp, there is a
10:26 am
pretty strong likelihood but not absolutely that you will see were democratic standards will decline, political influence plays enormous role. here is the catch. if the country has below 12% of gdp are russian influence, so the economics one of the strong part -- and this gets into the case of hungary and others -- it was the political influence that seems more powerful than the economics. somehen finally, we had varied results. this is why we wanted to make to show that our conclusions were not airtight. gdp,a, which has over 12% russian economic influence, they actually had more resistance to russian political influence. some of that has to do, quite
10:27 am
frankly, with their anticorruption efforts, their transparency, and some of the strengths of their institutions. , highen we had serbia economic footprint, but we found political influence to be that much sugar -- stronger. that 12% line was something that we watched with great interest. so here is really the secret of the playbook. definei begin, i want to a little bit when we talk about corruption. i just want to emphasize, for us, corruption has a definition. we do cite examples in the report. we defined corruption for the purposes of the report as the alleged or reported exercise of one's power, position, resources in order to exploit or exert undue influence over businesses,
10:28 am
individuals, state bodies come institutions typically through nontransparent or questionable means. these actions can be unlawful but they may not be so. we cite our observations but these observations do not suggest or accuse any specific individuals of wrongdoing. i just want to make that clear before we begin. corruption is, in fact, the key. let me tell you about the on virtue was circle. this gets back to this flow problem, where russian economic influence can come through the economics, strategic sectors like energy, finance, the media, and it can create through the political influence, in some ways metastasize, if you use that analogy, and can create space within political parties, political influence, and then can start acting as a corrosive
10:29 am
element to democratic standards, reducing media freedoms, purchasing media companies to eliminate independent journalism . it can be financing political parties that want to prevent reservists -- diversification of energy, or to ensure that protected sectors remain particularly protected. the transition mechanism for is, invirtuous circle fact, corruption. it can purchase local affiliates, it can then work its way with businessmen and sometimes parliamentarians. it can become so effective and grow so large that the country is now unable to take .ndependent policy action so decisions that you would think would be in the country's national interest, diversification of key sectors,
10:30 am
encouraging the highest ,tandards, they are eliminated or individuals have been placed in specific positions prevent that from happening. so it becomes a very corrosive element. what we found in the case study countries -- and some of this was brought to us by revelations in the panama papers. investigative journalism can open up researchers eyes as well. we found some of these local affiliates had through their intermediaries some direct connections to some of the most the kremlin inner circle. so we did see this was a very purposeful approach. ,ust some of the key highlights the corruption end of it is a transmission. it can create those dependencies. once that feedback loop becomes
10:31 am
so strong between the economics influences of politics -- sometimes of politics influences the economics -- and it grows that cycle. that is what leads to state capture, meaning it become so overwhelming, independent action is proven difficult. is the point here, why is it working so effectively? i think this is where we come to the point of -- we are getting ha of what wea found in the report. the political influence is really about weakening the internal cohesion of these .ountries and of the societies it is sometimes about obstructing reform, so they cannot improve themselves. thatimes it is making sure the inherent fragility of the systems and democracies -- we have free and fair elections,
10:32 am
that is always a bit of volatility. that this is something that is overemphasized, the dysfunction of democracy. it is utilizing individuals that are going to be a challenge to the democratic system. this is where the use of political party financing can sometimes weigh in. increasingly,is, as the economic and political influence grows, debates about issues very important to the kremlin, sanctions policy, energy diversification policy, those darted to become very difficult for the countries to maintain. you started to hear leaders changing their views, changing their policies. this is where we see some of the broader objectives. there is, in fact, a systemic war on information. as we saw the economic influence
10:33 am
grow, it was entering the media and television sector which reduces independent voices. the other or on information part that is particularly challenging for the united states and europe is the fact that we do not know what fact is. when you have media stations and reports that obscure the truth, or you don't know what the truth you,arious story to tell the people don't know what to believe. we found instances where governments were spending time batting down stories that were patently false, but that is what the media was generating for them to respond to. disorientingremely and paralyze government institutions. again, the media environment is quite restricted. the other part of the unvirtuous circle, there is a real
10:34 am
co-mingling of public and private interests. somebody told me a joke telling me a son ptolemy he wanted to get involved in organized crime. the father said, is that public or private? the co-mingling of public and .rivate is a challenge that allows those private interests to acquire privileged access to the strategic sectors. why energy? it is an arm's sector. why finance and banking? that is where the money is. that is where each country has enormous resources. estate is very powerful, control and interest over those key strategic sectors. if you can influence in them, you can challenge them and transform them.
10:35 am
so what are the overall objectives of the playbook? clearly, it is the money, economics. this is about maximizing economic benefits and enriching inner circle, whether at the local affiliate level, national level, or international level. ruslanthe issues, and will mention this when we talk about the recommendations, it is highly ironic that sometimes european union funds have been used in the furtherance of this cycle. if they are not watch carefully how they are doing. it is a cautionary tale that we may be involved unknowingly in corruption efforts. the second and third bullet for me is the big reason why we all care about this issue. some have reviewed the report and said, what is the big deal,
10:36 am
countries have big economic interests, and that comes with influence. the second bullet is the big deal. ultimately, it is about breaking the transatlantic consensus. it's about challenging our own democracies and the strength of , maintainingcies the international liberal order. why this is so important, it fits into a critical element of new generation warfare, which is stated doctrine, a strategy of influence, not brute forced. its primary goal is breaking the internal coherence of the enemy system. when you so paralyze a democracy, you confuse it, you tarnish it, it is corrupt, it is ripping you off, it cannot respond to you, you don't believe in the whole system. then you are much more available to think about either other approaches or perhaps be willing
10:37 am
accommodate very difficult issues that you would not normally accommodate if you were a healthy, thriving democracy. so that is the playbook. so now what do we do about it? the first part of the recommendations that deal with the u.s. and nato and then ruslan will talk about the european union. step one, understand this is something much larger than what we think it is. europelooked at central over 15, 20 years, we tend to look at the individual issues. there is a political problem here, what a strange economic decision they are making. we don't look at the totality of it, how it works together, recognize the playbook. once you recognize the playbook, you better be prepared to dedicate an enormous amount of policy resources and financial resources to break the transmission mechanism and
10:38 am
develop greater antibodies or resilience against it. we want to focus on the transmission mechanism, and that is corruption, and that is about tracking how this illicit financing flows. this is about us. as much as we are talking about tactics and techniques that russia may offer, this is about how our system acknowledges them and response to them. we better track them, we better have a better understanding at the most senior levels of our government and european government, how this is working. we argue for a much more high-level focused effort at the treasury department to track and prosecute, if in fact, these illicit funds are using the u.s. financial system. we have to encourage our nato members to see this not as a governess challenge but as a national security threat. we have to start tracking these illicit funds and having nato think of this as an element of elected defense and security.
10:39 am
it is not -- obviously, we want to heighten nato's awareness and attention, and new positions new position for intelligence warning can play a role in that. the real toolbox here is with the eu, and thinking through u.s. and eu cooperation, we need to use this much more cooperatively. hopefully, a new administration can look at this holistically and get at stopping our systems from facilitating this influence . as i mentioned, certainly getting back to nato's more holistic focus on this. and this is not a criticism but just a change. u.s. government assistance in this region has gone to nothing, diminished greatly. we understand that.
10:40 am
they are successful members of the european union and nato. our analysis suggests perhaps that needs to be revisited. needs to focus. its efforts and assistance programs on this region, particularly in the western balkans, where we are still active. now we have to prioritize how we break these links, open procurement systems, putting transparency into this as a matter of priority. independence of the judiciary, investigative journalism. that is not in a nice today category. that is critically important to the health of the country as a nato member, member of the european union. we need to take this very seriously. up herell invite ruslan to finish up what the eu need to do and then you can join us in our conversation, thank you. thank you, heather.
10:41 am
indeed, it is simple what we beforedo, but let me -- i flip them over, let me go back to the point of 2008. this is when we think the switch happened from opportunity to intent. this was very widely proclaimed they are noin that longer repaired and they have to actively seek to recapture eastern europe because they are no longer allegedly going to support through energy prices eastern europe at the expense of the european commission. the are pink commission is not able to support these countries and we think, if not, then welcome back. this.itical thing here is there is nothing wrong with a
10:42 am
russian economic footprint in central eastern europe. between 11% and 22%. but what is really worrying, after 2008 in particular, there have been two trends where the kremlin has used corporate presence to advance its political goals. number one. secondly, it may have even overthrown governments, interfered with an internal political decisions, and that is what is worrying. that is why we think the european union should focus on three key issues. using more decisively the antimonopoly competition authorities of the european commission nationstates. not only at the european level but looking at specific geographic markets. in particular, in energy,
10:43 am
banking, and transport. finally, let me go to the bottom line again. revamp,hould also strengthen its anticorruption good governance ascent sensed mechanisms across the union. it seems it is getting there but it is taking more than a decade. we think it needs to happen much faster. with this, let me conclude our and invite you to also find our report at cs heather: [inaudible] we will have the podium move so that we can join in on the conversation. kathy is the assistant secretary of state in the bureau of european and eurasian affairs with responsibilities for policy toward russia and the region.
10:44 am
tired to becoming deputy assistant secretary, she served as the director for russian affairs in the european bureau and prior to that, deputy chief of mission at unesco in paris, deputy coordinator for u.s. assistance to europe and eurasia. you are perfectly placed because you do the policy and the assistance part. this is where these two streams come together. welcome. thank you for being here. we know this is not an easy subject for the government to talk about. at least we found it difficult to get our colleagues to share with us what we need to think about this and what we need to do. first of all, good morning, everyone. thank you for hosting me here. we are really pleased to see this report released as we think it is an important subject. it needs attention. i think one of the more important things -- and you have this in your slide -- is
10:45 am
recognizing what the playbook is, what we are dealing with. we are seeing behaviors and activities that surprise us and unsettle us, but it's important to step back and see the whole and see what may be behind it. i think your report try to do that, and that is a great service to all of us as policymakers. as members of the western alliance. this is a welcome addition to how russia is implementing its foreign-policy, a policy that seems to increasingly reject the post cold war order in europe. russia's aggression in ukraine is the most obvious demonstration that moscow is willing to undermine existing rules. while the action in ukraine is unique, we are seeing coordinated and aggressive actions by russia elsewhere in europe and the united states paid we agree these actions
10:46 am
appear to be designed to weaken core institutions in the west such as nato in the eu and to cast doubt on the integrity of our democratic systems p russia's method is not to advance ideas to compete with hours but to undermine and question narrative and create confusion or divert attention from moscow. that the documented aim of russia's information operations is to use this information cascades to advance the notion that the truth does not matter. for example, by propagating multiple theories of the mh 17 shootdown, russian aims to create confusion and leave the public with the confusion that the truth is unknowable or that nobody can be believed because everyone has an agenda. russia appears to have similar goals and other spheres, politics, civil society, and
10:47 am
fiber. let me mention a few examples. you have touched on a many of these. disinformation in which russia this and propaganda, taking full advantage of the internet and new technologies. we know about the troll farms, we have seen other examples of this behavior. political parties, you have touched on this. there is growing evidence uncovered by journalists about russian connections with anti-establishment populist political parties in germany, hungary, and austria. we have already stores about the national front in france borrowing money from russian banks. civil society, russian government appears to be more willing to infiltrate and try to manipulate civil society out of russia, even creating false flag ngo's.
10:48 am
in april, the swedish security service took extraordinary steps of discussing in public how persons went to russian intelligence were participating in public debates over cooperation with nato on the anti-nato side. and then ciber, which has been in the news, and you made reference to friday's announcement from the department of homeland security, and our , pointsence community to another area of endeavor. and what can we do in the west? i think these are important. one thing i would stress is, as we look at the range of activities, it is really a whole of government effort. days we wereold worried about espionage and military activity. now we are looking at a broader range of activities and the response cannot just focus on one area. it has to be focused --
10:49 am
coordinated and has to look at various lines of efforts. and what we need to do to strengthen our own defenses. for example in ciber, we are seeing a real vulnerability, given the way the internet has been constructed. the other thing is cooperation with local partners and nato ,llies with the eu, nato percival to discuss, share information, and to coordinate and see what we can do together. i want to stress, as we discuss this behavior, our long-term -- remains to have russia as a global responsible player integrated into western institutions. -- iugh russia has shifted think the best outcome for all of us is to have a constructive cooperative partner that agrees
10:50 am
and plays by the roles that we have found to be so helpful to our democracies and our economic .rosperity in the west until that time when russia wants to return and redirect itself in that direction, we need to. until that contract -- confronte problems we are facing and we need a flexible policy that pushes back on russian aggression, helps our partners build resilience and the antibodies to deal with this kind of behavior, continue to corporate with moscow when possible, and maintain our ties to the russian people. so let me stop there and i would be happy to join the conversation. heather: we will have a moment or two to discuss and then we will welcome your thoughts, comments. this is a lot to digest. things as you were talking that struck me, my own personal
10:51 am
reflections here in washington, as well as some of the output of the report. my concern is we do not understand and place a priority and the urgency that this may be taking place. in my view, looking at the u.s. experience, this is incredibly have a generation that is not familiar with the language of active measures. this is not just active measures as we understood them in the cold war. because of 25 years of integration, trying to work with russia to bring them into our institutions and partnerships and relationships, their methodology is happening inside our system, using our system, and i feel like the surprise and the what is going on, in some ways, that is the difference here. the whole of government approach
10:52 am
-- the problem is the whole of government is not focusing on this. i welcome the urgency and the priority, which i think now more than ever, has to be placed. i am looking for it desperately. the second comment i have, and perhaps we slightly disagree. while absolutely russian efforts are designed to undermine and erode the credibility of the west, we posit the view that perhaps it is demonstrating an west.ative model to the this is where i think the behavior of such figures such as the prime minister and others, the figure of the strong man, the one who is reducing independence of media, control , thatey judicial issues is how we -- to use the slogan from the league campaign -- that is how we take control, how we get a handle of this globalization. , this kremlinis
10:53 am
model is now becoming more attractive to the very countries that we thought were permanently attracted to have democratic systems work. tough questions, no good answers, but let's just throw it out there. completely agree on the urgency. i think that is why your report is so important and timely. we need more studies like this. i hope other institutions are looking at this. i know i have worked a lot with allied and partner governments when i travel in europe, this is a frequent conversation. because it is new and because it is all-encompassing, it is going to take a little while i'm sure, because we had to figure out the steps we need to take, what is most at risk. -- strengthening journalism for instances very important, fighting corruption -- all of these things have been important to us but have become even more important now. your point about the resources
10:54 am
is a critical one as we go through our own election and will be welcoming a new administration, that administration needs to figure out what his priorities are. i think this should be front and center as they look at funding and where they want to put their resources. on the other question, certainly , that is another key question, political trends, which i think is probably something i do not want to dive into two deeply as a public servant here on the eve of an election in the united states. , i think it just to come back need to basic values, democratic andes, to remind ourselves of why these democratic systems are so , what the risks are if
10:55 am
you go on an alternative path. these are systems that exist that comes out of world war ii, other experiences that point to what can go wrong if we do not find a stable, democratic system that allows for give and take and for ideas, a balance of interests of what the risks may be. now more than ever on the u of our election, other elections in europe, this is an important message. we see lots of op-ed writers opining on the topic today. absolutely, through our election process, our elections, french presidential elections, german parliamentary, austria, this is a big year. kathleen: i think the playbook
10:56 am
needs to be viewed through that optic. to take someant questions from the audience. unfortunately, we have a shortage of time. ruslan, you work closely with ear. on your issues, what you are hearing from your european counterparts and what is their reaction? we have a few questions here. we will start in the front. introduce yourself, your affiliation. i'm sorry about the time, keep your question brutally short. >> i am laura from the national democratic institute. interested to hear more about the latvia case and what made it more resilient than the other case studies. wonderful, thank you. stephen? stephen blake, american foreign-policy counsel. it sounds like an extraordinary study but unquestioning why don't looked at the russian influence either through organized crime or through
10:57 am
media. we know that many media empires in central and eastern europe are financed by russia or have actual russian ownership. >> jon huntsman, foreign policy magazine. i wanted to ask, kathy, what is the appropriate response to russian hacking on the dnc? some have talked about, on the extreme end, taking out an electrical grid. others have suggested taking out russia's online sensor architecture on the internet. what is the right response? if you cannot talk about specific retaliatory measures, what message do we want the russians to understand by the response we give them, if we do? i will take those questions here and then see if we can squeeze in a second round. on the latvia case, in the interest of time, i would welcome to take -- we do a deep
10:58 am
case study dive into that experience. we found a couple of factors. some of it is there is higher-level recognition within the latvian political culture about acknowledging the potential of the influence that could exist. what we found, one of the key uniques, was latvia's construct of its anticorruption office, its anticorruption office, it's independence, as well as some early investment in judicial reform. this anticorruption office very unusually does not report to parliament. you would think that would be odd because it parliament would have oversight of these things. but it actually removed it. we are finding when parliamentarians were put in oversight,ome of the it was some of these individuals that had been influenced. so when they pushed it out, it was actually quite independent,
10:59 am
at great risk. there were assassination attempts against the deputy director. we are all works in progress in this department. i don't mean to be judgmental in any way, but they were able to assert themselves independently, but there are still an enormous challenges, and latvia recognizes there are still challenges. i encourage you to read the deep dive. there are some good lessons learned from latvia. ruslan, did you want to handle the organized crime? actually --ruslan: actually, it's a great point that we focus on in the report. we did look at the ownership of media, and it actually goes in a really dense network, telecommunications, that are able to spread multiple news stories from seemingly unrelated , besides the very
11:00 am
visible corporate presence. this makes it even more difficult. there were two aspects of that. one is the media, and the other one that is within the state is not judiciary. talking about the european commission, we have done a study on the relationship between corruption and organized crime -- how organized crime is using corruption to access state power , and the difference between what we have in western europe and eastern europe, has been the access organized crime to the judiciary without exception. we're talking about the baltics down to southeast europe. that is what makes it difficult. -- example of lot via ship latvia shows that. if we are able to get financial
11:01 am
intelligence units, organized crime units, regulatory buildings working on , thattration, monopolies is going to reduce the pressure. that is the antidote, in a way. kathleen: i happy to say it is not the state department taking the lead on what the response will be. i think that is a question better directed to the white house intelligence community and the department of homeland security. in terms of response, there needs to be a thoughtful, principled, strong response that sends a clear message, and, you know, assigns responsibility, and makes clear we will not tolerate future intrusions. the other part of it -- i know department of homeland security is working on this, is our own resilience, and defense of our own systems.
11:02 am
i think it is a broader issue on cyber. let me leave it there. heather: one more question. the woman in the green. from booze andn hamilton. on the time of when this started, how much does it relate u.s. -- western influences? heather: we put a timeline on key events -- the georgia-russia conflict, other things. each conflict has different points. getting back to what ruslan said, what we found is what we call opportunity. there were existing networks being explored. therenk in that period was a lot of european investment coming in post-e.u. membership,
11:03 am
that was crowding that out. it was more competitive. 2007-2008 the represented--period a shift. people point out president putin 's historic speech where he was signaling a significant shift in policy, and then, of course, what is hard to separate is was an intention or the global economic recession that created a multitude of things. russia capital fleeing itself to get into safer areas, and in the russia-georgia conflict. as is now becoming a confrontation in the buffer zone, if you will. i hate that term, but if we want to call it that -- we saw the acceleration of the use of the economics and the politics that was starting to then create that vicious circle -- that on virtuous circle -- where it was
11:04 am
growing. today we see it as a challenge to maintain unity of purpose and policy on eu sanctions against russia. with theficult now parties --an, anti- just fill in the blank -- is growing with how democracies view themselves and their way forward with a disruptive society and the russian government is adept at helping us with that disruption. we did see the difference. we think it is a policy. it is why we keep saying looking at these in isolated issues -- individual economic cases of corruption -- it exists in all of our societies. the difference here is in how it is being used and its ultimate objective, and that is the part
11:05 am
we all must recognize and take action. again, it is about us. it is about our societies. that is what we have to focus on -- sometimes it is the hardest part to focus on -- how we are doing. kathleen: if i could take a little bit of exception to the idea that the impact of all of this behavior -- i think it is important to stress that while there are pressures, for example, to roll back -- lift sanctions, or there have been onssures to lift sanctions russia over ukraine, what has been more striking over the last period is the unity we have built over the transatlantic alliance. sanctions have continued. they have been rolled over multiple times. i think when they were first introduced on a transatlantic basis, people were surprised that we achieve that level of unity, that the unity has held as long as it has, and while all of these are challenges, i do
11:06 am
not think we should overstate -- certainly, we should recognize the risk. i do nothing we should overstate the impact we -- i think the fact that some of these behaviors are so blatant, so flagrant, that they create their own antibiotics. when we think about the case in germany, and the shock persistent in insisting that an event that did not happen happened, in light of clear evidence that it did not happen. it created such a shock and recognition, and raise a lot of questions about what russia was trying to do. so, some of the pushback will occur naturally as people see and confront what is happening and reject it, and a lot of that will happen naturally. and through the institutions
11:07 am
that we have. so, i think we are stronger than we recognize. i think we always have to be aware of what we are dealing with. heather: that is the perfect way to end the conversation. we rush through this. you have impatient patient. we explained a long and dense report. thank you so much. please go to the website and down my -- download the report. thank you for attending the premiere of the kremlin playbook. thank you so much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit]
11:08 am
11:09 am
s> so that wraps up this csi event. if you missed any, it will be available online shortly at
11:10 am
join us for live coverage of two more state race debate. at 12:15 p.m., the candidates to represent pennsylvania's eighth district. michael fitzpatrick is retiring. his brother brian is up against state senator steve sent his hero. that is live. later, we had south to north carolina and a u.s. senate race. public and commitment -- republican incumbent richard burr is facing a challenge. what's that live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. more live programming with the look of the economic policies of the presidential candidates hosted by the national association for business economics. that is live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. later, attorney general loretta lynch is appearing at georgetown university and we'll talk about criminal justice reform. some news from the road to the white house today -- nbc is
11:11 am
reporting the donald trump campaign announced in a conference call it is pulling out of virginia, leaving some republican operatives in the state blindsided. the campaign will shift to four battleground states -- pennsylvania, florida, north carolina, and ohio. virginia has been considered a battleground state since president obama won it in 2008 after decades of republican winners there. traileds failed -- has in every poll since august. later, we will air a campaign rally in west palm beach, florida. watch that live at 12:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> watch live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on
11:12 am
wednesday night. the briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8:30 p.m. eastern. the debate is at 9:00 p.m. eastern. stay with us after the debate for viewer reaction. watch the debate live or on-demand using your desktop, phone, or tablet. listen to live coverage on your phone with the c-span radio. -- radio app. >> not to take us to the start of the pennsylvania did it at 12:15 p.m. eastern, a discussion on how to increase millennial voters. discuss efforts to increase millennial turnout the selection. he served as vice president of civic engagement at rock the vote. remind our viewers what rock the vote is. >> it is a nonprofit organization. we are nonpartisan.
11:13 am
our job is what you just said, engage the millennial voters and turned them out. that is everything from building the technology they need to make registering and voting as easy as possible to chasing them down with reminders when it is time to register or vote. host: what are the biggest barriers holding that young voters? guest: young voters get a bad rap a lot of times when people talk about them being apathetic. the reality is if you look at social media, if you look at even our streets, our communities where people are marching in making their voices heard on issues they care about, young people are really passionate. the biggest obstacle our age old like craft nation. aen was the last time you saw 23-year-old sit down to write a term paper three month in advance? it does not happen that often.
11:14 am
does over the last two days, we registered over 200,000 people as the deadlines set it to creep up. that is what our data is showing. young people are tooting and right now. host: if you look at the data on voter turnout, millennials making up 31% of the voting population, but not a reliable voting block. here is millennial turnout from three years compared to gen xers, silent generation, is or anything to indicate that anything will be different this cycle, or will millennials be the lowest turnout? guest: the youngest generation in each election year will be the toughest want to turn out. the reason is not as much to do with engagement is that voting is a habit you have to build over years. as you become older, it becomes more of what you do. your likelihood to vote raises
11:15 am
as you get older. i also say, this is the largest voting block in american history, which is incredible. this is the most diverse voting block. once it starts to flex its muscles, not in the presidential race, but in the local races, they will start to turn out in bigger numbers. host: jesse moore is with rock the vote. if you're 18 to 35 years old, it is 202-748-8001. if you are 36 years old to 60 years old, the number is 202-748-8001. if you are 60 and older, the number is 202-748-8002. you can start calling now. as you are doing these registration drives on campus am about are you hearing 2016 bringing the voters out? guest: there is no getting around it, the presidential race is eye-catching for a lot of voters of all ages, but young
11:16 am
people are just like anybody else, drawn to what is on the news and mr. trump and secretary clinton are drawing a lot of attention. the question, there are a lot of people were supporting child and clinton -- supporting trump and clinton and those eager to vote against both candidates. what is refreshing to me is hearing directly from young voters that they are really interested in finding more about who their local district attorney is, there may or is, their sheriff, policing. justice and criminal reform is drawing the focus for a lot of young people to know, who is running my neighborhood? who was making decisions on my block? frankly, that is where the decisions we care about come from. electionspresidential
11:17 am
are opening interest in other elections? guest: yes, and it is really refreshing and as a country, we should move forward as quickly as we can. it is where we started as a country. politics should be local. not only are those the issues we care about, but that is where our power is. host: rock the vote, is that how you get people in the door i talking about the presidential race? and then once they are in the door, encourage them to vote another elections as well? guest: it is a mix. there are people who show up and say i am interested in making sure the police in my neighborhood are safe and protected. that lets us know we need to let them know about local races. others want to know about the supreme court and other issues. i used to work in government and i can say most americans think
11:18 am
of the presidency when they think of anything, whether it is pothole's in the street or policing our health care. i know from being inside the government, so much of what we change has to be done at the local level. what lessons did you learn that you are taking to rock the vote? guest: one is you have to make millennials where they are. worse, and i just make the cut as a millennial, so i don't want think young callers to talk down -- so i don't want young callers to think i am talking down to you, i am with you.
11:19 am
where theyt places are authentically engaging. we had been doing pop up art galleries were people can express themselves on issues that are important to them. that is what i learned. you have to meet people where they are with voices that they know and are already paying attention to. these candidates have nasa platforms -- is candidates have massive platforms. that is not always were a 19-year-old is going to look for an authentic experience. they will listen to artists and people who they connect with on an emotional level point -- emotional level first. caller: thanks for taking my call. politicians have stolen every bit of the money that millennials will have for the rest of their lives. we all believe that the government is not corrupt.
11:20 am
the government is 100% correct. influencecians try to , especially our college professors. if they know you are republican, they will fail you or they will manipulate your existence in the class so you do not do as well as you could. my question to you is, what do you believe about the influence of those who are in charge of teaching you, and how that should be altered in some kind of way just as the media should be? the elections are bought and paid for. whoever votes for whoever a vote for won't make any difference at all. thanks for taking my call. host: jesse moore? guest: i would say this and i come from a family of educators. freedom of speech has to be
11:21 am
first and foremost. has that in mind encouraging that with their students and building a space that makes it easy for people to talk with each other about their differences. i will also say that it there is anything that is falling off in our democracy, it is a space for civil discourse on difficult ideas. there is no better place to practice it, to get more acquainted with the practice of civil discourse that in our or highclassrooms school classrooms, or elementary classrooms. how do we inspire more people with a mindset like that to get into teaching, to get into education is a good question. i don't have the answer, but the more we can make our schools a the betterdemocracy,
11:22 am
that people are not looking at each other like a different species when they do not agree. host: how do you feel about trigger warnings for topics that come up. ofngs that have gotten a lot attention as these discussions are happening on college campuses? to admit, but sad in a lot of cases, we are a few steps away from where we need to be for these conversations to be really functional. it can feel really volatile to talk about. the highly political, or i should say the highly politicized issues. we have to keep doing it. campuses on college and in communities, it actually feels like people are looking for the tools and space they need to have a cultural conversation and not feel like you are on one side and i am on another and we are opposing each other. it's a fight.
11:23 am
this is what america is, this is what it was built on and we need to create more effective spaces for people to hash these things out. host: on the line between ages 18 to 35 is teresa in tampa, florida. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: you are one of those millennials we are talking about. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i want to comment to jesse, right? guest: right. caller: what you were touching on earlier as far as why you think millennials have not participated, and why you think the older voting groups do participate more. from personal experience, i will i waswith you that i feel a child of the great recession. i lost my parents -- my parents lost is not in 2008. my earliest memories are of the
11:24 am
afghanistan war that we are still in today. votee only been able to for 10 years. i voted for obama twice. this primary, especially, i was inspired by bernie sanders. but my eyes were opened as well to what the political arena is actually like. it was very saddening and frustrating to see how bernie sanders was treated by the democratic party. and and consequently later on, we all found out that it was true, we were not paranoid. now i feel as far as the white males being leaked, -- as far as the wikileaks e-mails being leaked, as the previous caller said, i feel like the government is very corrupt, and the media is helping. i feel like it reports what it
11:25 am
is told to report. i feel like i have to go out of my way to get actual facts that are not tainted by partisanship. it is really difficult. even on channels like cnn and fox and msnbc, you know what you are going to get. if you want to's -- if you want to's hear a positive spin on trump, go to cnn. that is not the way it is supposed to work. going up to the polls is important to me, but i kind of feel like it does not matter. stein,be voting for jill and i take a lot of crap for that, and i really don't understand the lesser evil argument, but i can see how some people are brought into it. i just kind of feel like as a millennial, i have been told for several years that it is my
11:26 am
fault i'm in the position i'm in. people my age are lazy. the truth of the matter is, wages are not going up and they have not for a long time. and i feel like financially that i am held down and it affects my ability to go and participate in rally in protest and to stand up for the things i believe in. things like minimum wage would go up, or if i could make a little bit more money at my job now, i could participate more. it is not that i am a procrastinator, i am not given a choice. thatot given that luxury may be some older, more established people have. host: teresa, thank you for the call from tampa, florida. as you answer, i will show the headline from the wall street journal, the story noting that the e-mails have a potential to revive the anger that sanders
11:27 am
supporters felt when it comes to hillary clinton consolidating. thoughts based0 off of what she said. thank you for your comment and i agree with you on a lot of that. the really coming frustration amongst millennials, including myself, especially the point you made about consuming facts, gathering facts, this is popular foram not talking about in washington, but the news is not always the news. the news is much more partisan than political as it should be. you are absolutely right. in thisickier than ever current phase of our democracy to track down facts that are not slanted. but it is really refreshing to
11:28 am
hear you say that you are hunting for that. i find myself trying to do the same. i also find myself trying to encourage everyone from my to turn down mom the news every once in a while when he gets to frustratingly feel like you are getting biased information. --t i will say is this politicians, for better or worse, respond to who shows up on election day. who shows up to vote. frustratingit is and that is something that is not always what people want to hear, but it is true. who and whoto track doesn't vote. if you are trying to keep your job as a politician, you have to know who is voting and who is not so you can maintain your power. so they are definitely interested on who shows up on election day.
11:29 am
my hope is that we are equally motivated as they are. host: eric is on the line from 36 to 50 years old. you are on the line with jesse moore from rock the vote. caller: good morning and thank you or allowing me to express myself. think this will create more. [indiscernible] the media was in full power in america. the media was to be neutral and to present facts. this election shows what america
11:30 am
is. clinton, ifk about the democratic party really have , we all know that bernie sanders was the candidate. republicanhe selected a candidate that was selected by the people. got your point. jesse moore? guest: it is a very common frustration and it is something where, i think more and more, let me put it this way, my first election was 2000, the 2000 election. that was a moment when they
11:31 am
really came to terms with the fact that just a few votes can change the election. that was right when the money -- our news cycle really when the 24-hour news cycle got going. that is when i decided -- that is when i understood the power of media in the power of voters. florida was decided by a sliver of people who did or did not show up that day. i think you're absolutely right. imperative for this next generation of voters to demand something new, to demand something fresh from the media, and to hold them accountable. his point onakes twitter, it is imperative for one's mental health to take a break now and then. [laughter] nicole is in mechanicsburg, maryland on the line from 18 to 35. caller: thank you for all your
11:32 am
efforts to get people in my generation to vote. i voted in the primaries. i am a democrat and a college student. i'm a policy student. i have a lot of experience in the classroom learning, and seeing how a lot of people in my generation are getting disillusioned, especially with the e-mails coming out. me and my friends will sit down and we will have conversations about policy and about how we are viewing the current political system. sorry, i am a terrible public speaker. taking everything with a grain of salt. you see the bias in all forms of media, and it takes a lot of effort and a lot of people don't have the time to sit down and i just what you are seeing and what you are hearing in making
11:33 am
an informed decision about who to vote for and if it makes a difference or not. thank you so much for reaching out to young people like me. guest: thank you. thank you and your great -- thank you and you are a great public speaker, i think. you are exactly right. one thing i tried very hard to do is after watching a debate, or watching a speech from a candidate, turn the tv off and think about it for a while. i think c-span probably gives you more space than most networks to actually think and reflect. always remember they are an option. the opportunity for us to actually turn to the person we are sitting next to a talk about the moment we care most about, moments we just watch unfold and what they mean for us personally or for the country,
11:34 am
we are out of that have it. moment in our media culture that is very focused on conception, and we are always being simulated -- always be stimulated. i am barely a millennial, but i could barely shave in the morning without having a podcast in my ear. the more we could look for silent moments, the better. host: you mentioned earlier that rock the vote is nonpartisan, but you mentioned a big part of your effort is meeting millennials when they are, going to entertainers that are part of millennials'everyday cultural feed and trying to get them involved. how do you do it with the entertainers who are bias toward one candidate or the other? guest: that is a great question because artists, by definition, are outspoken and they want to say what they want to say.
11:35 am
that we had to be very clear on the front and to let them know for this event, for this event, for this direct camera recorded, we need you to push voting, we ,eed to push civic engagement but you cannot push a candidate or a party. it is tricky and they do not always want to do it. host: have you ever had to say no, or have had a celebrity say no? guest: no. there have been some tough --ents once they are all they are already on stage. when somebody is on the stage, it is tough to give them the hook. host: can you give us an example? guest: every once in a while, want them toe will do a song that is really inspirational or will push people to think, and they will
11:36 am
do that, but they may follow it up with a song that their publicists want them to be selling right now, which is not always on message. that could get fun. host: jacksonville, north carolina. robert is on the line for those 18 to 35. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i have a question about the millennials as far as how many people are voting this year as well as how many people are voting for hillary and how many are voting for trump. thatf there is millennials will run for public office particularly to be president in this country, and how do millennials feel about trump in this election? host: i can give you some data before jesse moore johnson. -- jumps in. who016, millennials
11:37 am
identify themselves are democrats represented 57%. those identified as republican or lean republican, 36%. jesse moore. guest: that sounds exactly right. whichs important is, missed, is to what degree millennials are issue voters. that is really true. it is important not to get too caught up in their party affiliation or how they voted in the past or even how their parents about. millennial-- vote. millennials are allergic to partisanship. you will find every single time young voters drifting towards the candidates at the presidential level but also at the local level that are
11:38 am
speaking to their issues, things like climate, criminal justice reform, gender equality, and issues like that. for: one other stat fro you. weremillion millennials voting age in the united states. a number almost equal to the 69.7 million baby boomers in the nation's electorate. let's go to kalya in williamsburg, ohio. good morning. comment was that we saw a lot of millennials supporting bernie sanders. my question is, where do you see them going now? because hillary appears to be everything that is corrupt and part of the established politics. trump appears to be everything that is hateful, bigoted.
11:39 am
i don't see them supporting either of those two. guest: i think you will see more millennials gravitate toward secretary clinton as the election gets closer despite some of those challenges, which are completely valid. despite those challenges, i think a greater number of millennials, and again, this is just me reading the tea leaves, but it appears they are turned off by the tone and some of the stances on issues of mr. trump. he is having a little bit of trouble. host: what in particular? guest: i think immigration is one. also, gender equality. they are both issue areas that are giving him a little bit of trouble with the millennials who not all enemies, but the numbers tend to skew in a more progressive way.
11:40 am
twitter usingon entertainers is insulting. white is a movie star's opinion count more than mine? they are still acting. guest: that is 100% true. what is interesting is movie stars and artists are the first ones to tell us that. we get to things from artists all caps on -- two things from artists all the time. the first is how can i help? the second is i do not want to pass myself off as an expert. how can i help where i am not putting a position to be a policy expert? that is a really refreshing thing to hear because i assumed to be forgetting to this work that most artists and entertainers were much more arrogant than they appeared were much more arrogant than your average person when in fact, they are trying to look for a way to help that will not make
11:41 am
them pass themselves off as an expert. use yourr to that is, platform, your visibility to raise an issue to shine light on an issue you care about. just like anybody else in america, if they had a platform and had something they care about, raise an issue and urge voting. i am very supportive of that. host: about 15 minutes left with jesse moore of rock the vote. if you want to check them out. anthony has been waiting from sierra vista, arizona, on the line for those 36-60. caller: good morning. please give me about 90 seconds. i am a poetic writer, and i think this sums up what i wrote on october 9 this year, issues and tissues, jeseuus wept. no tissue provided to him.
11:42 am
championship has been sexually active with the best looking girl in the school. they both are about to become parents. who do we cry for? how about the unborn child? issues and tissues. they affect how we see each other. where can we question past actions of a candidate? we switch to issues to mitigate the character flaws. switch to move the poll numbers or redistricting to ensure elected representatives. who has time to cry? yet we cannot bother to look at each other's eyes. afraid we may see our reflections in their eyes. issues and tissues are in short supply. what other issues most voters care about, with states can be
11:43 am
influenced to move the tide and voting the balance of power affecting you and i. issues and tissues until the day we die. host: what do you take from that? guest: power of the arts. i actually enjoyed more people to -- it is another reflective thing to do to channel your thoughts through the arts and not enough people are doing that these days. host: north carolina on the line for those 61 and over. steve, good morning. caller: good morning. i will try to be brief. my main issue is american voters need to understand their president is only one individual supposedly leading this country. our house of representatives and the senate are the ones that actually controls the laws
11:44 am
because they have the right to veto the president. we need to quit talking about the president of the united states and go back to actually affect us, the house and the senate really controls everything that goes on as far as laws and everything the president does. we need to get out of this obama.trump and donald trump has his views. he also has a right to speak. the president always has a right. if we took obama as a person in a seat, we belittle him. we totally disregard his actual power as president, the leader of our country. i am a military veteran.
11:45 am
we were taught that the the -- ofactually is our military. the people listen to the political parties and have actually forgotten who runs this country. host: jesse moore. guest: first, thank you for your service. also, i will be the first to i think if you asked the president, he would be completely honest and let you know when you are in office, in the white house, the first set of lessons is what you do not have power over so i think you are exactly right. having not just the part you want in congress, the house, or the senate, but having onividuals who are focused progress, working together, looking for common ground, having discourse with each other
11:46 am
as human beings, and not looking for the political edge and every turn. that is what you want. part of the answer is with our media not just national but also regional, how do we get more coverage of local elections, congressional elections? how do we get that covered more the regional level? host: another tweet says my home is a meeting place central for becauseals in florida my son and his government are organizers. they moved from bernie to jill. zack from boston, massachusetts, on the line for those between 18 and 35. caller: my thinking is that we should not be encouraging people to vote the sake of voting. i assure rock the vote and other similar organizations that are organizing the so-called millennial vote have a sense of
11:47 am
this, but think it is important to reiterate that encouraging people to vote when they are not informed is a mistake. it is like encouraging people to take advantage of the second amendment just because it is available. i think we can all agree we definitely do not want that. when somebody calls in and says it is so hard to stay informed. it is hard to find unbiased media sources. i just do not buy it. if you can sit around and binge you can find, unbiased sources of information. another thing i want to point out is when you to stop to tending to millennials as the elite voting block. they probably operate the same way young voters did in the 1960's when you have people choosing politicians on the basis of whether or not they support the vietnam war, so let's stop defending the millennials as unique. the only thing they are unique in is that they have this sense
11:48 am
of on-demand expectations from audience. ifi can order a car on uber, i can order a pizza to my house, why can i not get my politics on demand? whether that is policy outcomes or whatever the case may be. we need to stop encouraging people to vote and start encouraging them to ask questions and inform themselves. if you cannot do that, you should not be voting. host: can i ask how old you are? caller: i only seven. -- i am 27. host: have you voted previously? caller: yes, but i also skipped local elections because i did not feel i was informed enough to make choices that are more impactful than my choices at the national level. host: thanks for the call. guest: couple of things. one, you are dead on about the restlessness of our generation, where you are canceling a lyft or uber if it is not there
11:49 am
within the two minutes and was promised. it is hard to cast your vote and not to the policy outcome you were so passionate about come to fruition right away. i think you are dead on. the culture is moving in a very fast way, whereas politics are still a grinding process. government is still a grinding process. there is a friction there. also, to your point about young people getting informed before they vote, also a really important point and something that rock the vote is working very hard to support, the development of new technology that makes it easier for people to get informed. we should get to a place in the , and if you goe to the website or you can be educated on will be on the ballot and go to some links that will help you figure out where they stand on issues you care about, but we should get to a
11:50 am
where you aren able to click on the issues you let the appout th, or website know where you are and it will tell you who is on the ballot and where people stand in a very easy way, but you should start now. go to and get educated. host: would you want people to vote for voting ssake? guest: that is a really tough question. i want people to get in the habit of voting, but also the need to get in the habit of being informed. you do not want people just playing tic-tac-toe down their ballot, but the same time, it is a habit, it is a democratic imperative. even if there is one candidate or one race you care about, you have to show up. ,ome of those candidates especially those down the ballot
11:51 am
when they get really granular in their community with who is voting who is not, they are watching, they are looking to see what age group, what demographic, with neighborhood neighborhoodswhat are voting. host: paul in virginia on the line for those between 36 and 60, go ahead. caller: yes sir, one thing millennials need to realize before it's too late and they get a job and start paying taxes, always the bernie sanders, hillary clinton addresses, which i consider an american because of the policies, all of the stuff the government is going to give you is not free. when you get a job and you start paying taxes, you will pay for that. paychecktake and get a and your check says you made $500 for a week, but your
11:52 am
take-home pay is only $250 and you start whining and crying and wondering, i don't have money for this and that, you need to look in the mirror. is because it is what you wanted. the this government is, the more money they take from you. the government does not create money other than printing it. you are the ones as the taxpayer that pays the money to the government to give money to the other people, especially people undeserving. host: did you want to add anything? guest: what at least we think of is he has a message for millennials that takes me back to i just wish we were in a space where so many like him can talk directly to millennials in their community more often. host: we have millennials still waiting on the line.
11:53 am
lewis is in allen, texas. go ahead. caller: hello. ama millennial -- i am millennial, 22, and i want to s.op in my two cent we choose a favorite more than a side. that is pretty much what is going on. what they stand for, and all of that is secondary. that is all i have to say. host: you are saying millennials but more for the personality than the party or the policies of a party? yes, that and the policies are secondary. guest: to a degree, that may be true for some voters. i think the popularity of bernie sanders, for instance, i don't think he thought of himself as a
11:54 am
theicularly charismatic or type of personality like president obama or others or even bill clinton have had with millennials. not the same kind of connection. i think he would argue that it was his stance on policy issues that got him his popularity. although i like listening to bernie anytime. host: we have had discussions about celebrity presidents and a culture of celebrity and how it seeps into the president and those campaigning. guest: that is true. i think it is partially why the can feel soight now polarizing. they have been in the public eye. they haven't celebrities for 30 years. these are folks's names who you know. they are celebrities and heironalities -- t
11:55 am
celebrities and personalities outpace their issues in the media. host: john in public, maryland, on the line for those 18-35. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. to registerologize it to everyone to vote, but much like a military draft, bringing in too many uninformed untrained endple, it cannot and there. they have three of four the power of the vote, the weapon with which they have been assigned. hopefully your effort will not just end with registering them to vote. allowing spaces for civic discourse, and i think it is important for that to be civil, but i think it is also important that we provide spaces for discourse itself. go to thees tend to side of civility and do not challenge each other on the reviews. it is important that we not only
11:56 am
improve the stability but the discourse itself and make sure people feel safe to challenge each other's views and believes, ask them why did leave that, effective get them to stand for a position and come up with reasons to support it. s ant: informing voters i creating spaces and technology -- and creating spaces and technology is important to rock the vote. you will see rock the vote more head in a direction not just to get people to vote, but it is also something to get them engaged on issues they care about, everything from art galleries that have discussions ted talksech talks -- and inspire them to learn all their own. you are right about civil
11:57 am
discourse. i am very interested in the subject of civil discourse, where civility seems to be on the outskirts of our democracy these days. one thing that to your point that we have to do when we are creating spaces for people to talk about issues is to make sure, and i include myself and utterly my generation, we have to build spaces where we are preaching to more than the choir with what we are thinking, where we are writing for audiences who do not necessarily agree with us, but in that writing or our speech or in the way we are approaching the issue, we are not doing it in a way to defeat our enemies but in a way to persuade them. we are doing it in a way that will catch their attention and say, wow, i have not quite like that. i don't necessarily agree, but that is a new angle. at that moment is when you start to see pockets of agreement show
11:58 am
up and government done well is when those pockets of agreement when you're able to date it and get something done on that issue and try to ignore everything else for just a minute. host: time for one more millennial collar. eric is in massachusetts. go ahead. caller: hi. i am wondering with the comment you made with the previous massachusetts callers saying rock the vote, you wanted to make an app that which of everyone around us. that sentiment would lead to a mob mentality and people voting uninformed doing that. guest: i am not sure i follow, but i think what i mentioned in creatingas mostly technological platforms that allow people to see where people stand on issues. would needeporting
11:59 am
candidates to buy into something like that to say i want anyone using this technology or websites to get informed to get unbiased education on the candidates. i want them to know exactly where i stand on these issues. host: edith in new jersey on the line for those 36-60. go ahead. caller: thank you for this call. i just wanted to talk about african-american millennials and how they feel about injustice in america as far as the shootings protestsng and the they put forth. i feel as though they are not being heard or not taken seriously.
12:00 pm
they want african-americans to vote, but they are basically being ignored in this country. they are saying murder is not murder. they are murdering young black men. ok. the only thing they care about is their vote. i feel as though, why should they vote? what is in it for us? they want our votes, but we cannot get any justice. the case has not even been hurt wouldhis man -- heard this man with a shooting in baton rouge. host: our last two minutes. guest: i hear you. black mannnial myself, i will say that frustration permeates through me every day, but it also inspires me to vote more than it does to make me move away from the election process. i