. i'm pretty sad he's not going to be on air. i thought he was -- can we have him in britain? i thought he was brilliant. >> he's available. red tie. >> good morning, mr. mayor. welcome to washington. my name is ryan clark and dove tailing off mike's question about "daily show," this is going to sound a little silly but i wanted to put to you sir, the question if you could choose a replacement for jon stewart in the united states of america, that's a question we're all dealing with, who would you choose? who would you give us? >> from our country? >> our country, your country? >> i've got a guy for you. he is absolutely brilliant. one of our premier exports to america. we're proud of having him -- >> you're not going to say peers morgan? >> i like peers morgan. >> red sweater. >> otherwise i see a risk he could be re-exported. i feel that's a solution.

i forgot, you asked a question about policing and stuff, i don't want to be seen to be evading questions. we had a great time, but one thing surprised me was the sheer number of geiger counters that are deployed by the nypd. there are thousands, they have thousands and thousands of radioactivity detectors. i didn't know the threat of a dirty bomb was thought to be so substantial. we're taking that back. >> you're going to deploy more geiger counters? >> i've asked us to do a risk assessment. the early indications are that we don't think it's necessary but it was very, very striking here. >> super quick. >> mr. mayor, thank you for joining us. about a month ago, bobby jindal, louisiana governor, was in london and he made some comments about no-go zones around britain.

>> i was very surprised by those statements and you know, with great respect to governor jindal and everybody else who has made this kind of comment, i think they're in need of some sort of gentle education on this point. i would be more than happy personally, to escort governor jindal around any area in london that he thinks is a no-go zone. i will show him what a happy thriving community it is of people jumbled up in is all ort -- in all sorts of way. it isn't true. london is very, very mixed up across it, there are no no-go zones nor will there be. i extend a warm invitation to all governors and american politicians and anybody else who wants to come in and inspect for themselves. >> i'll ask you what your conversation with the fashion editor anna ventura was like. >> brief.

>> did you -- >> i'm told i got more words than most people. i think she said, what did she say? she said i had personality. that was it. she didn't say it to me she said it to bbc. i can't remember what she said to me. it wasn't very -- they was very very kind and she's obviously a landmark of our culture and doing a fantastic job for britain and new york. >> who is chattier, her or the queen? >> i would -- i would be exaggerating if i said i had many conversations with the queen. the one conversation i have had, i've had -- i would say the queen is marginally chattier. >> real quick, super quick. >> good morning, my question actually is more about the politics, i was taken by what you said earlier about how you changed your libertarian views a bit being mayor.

what do you think about the preparation that being a governor or being a mayor brings to -- brings to being a chief executive versus other experiences -- experiences like being in parliament? >> i think it's just the sheer weight of effort and the job the variety and pace of the job, probably is very useful. and you know, it's a -- being mayor of a city like london is a huge, huge job. being mayor of new york is huge. there are differences in the constances we have, new york doesn't do as much in transports as we do in london they do more in education than we do but the work load is prodigious. it makes for a very exciting life. but it's also -- it's a heavy education. >> there's one sport that people in this room can relate to, tennis. >> yes. >> one quick tennis tip. >> one quick tennis tip.

>> while you're thinking -- >> mike talked about the -- >> mike talked about the qualities of leadership, i think it's safe to say you're viewed as a global leader. piggybacking on your book, two questions. first, are you -- which trait do you believe is most lack, which churchillian trait do you believe global leaders have most lost. my second is, can you name the queen's corgis? >> yeah, the -- wait a minute. i had this the other day. they're called like basil -- no. it was holly -- anyway listen. the great thing about the world today is perhaps it doesn't need people quite as churchillian -- quite of churchillian stature. yes, we do face terrible terrible challenges and yes we do need to solve appalling problems humanity faces, but we

don't at the moment in our countries face the life or death exiss ten rble challenge that britain and europe faced in 1940. and the reason we don't is partly thanks to churchill himself. if you see what i mean. i think that there weren't many people like churchill or any people like churchill even in his own epoch. let alone ours. and i think there's been no one like him before or sense. on tennis, one tip. if you're playing with andy murray, as i once was in a charity match, with a wooden racquet, i served, i think, and then tim henman, the other guy he whacked it back. to andy murray. it was doubles. murray was behind me. i turned around to see what andy murray would do with the ball and he hit it so fast with his backhand that it -- the

ball went straight into my open mouth like a sort of medieval banquet or whatever. so my advice is, one tennis tip i give you, don't look around when andy murray is about to do a cross court backhand return. >> corgis, vacuum cleaners hard outs, thank you for the conversation. we thank all of you for catch tissue for watching, for twitter questions, thank you to bank of america for making these conversations available. thank the mayor's staff who made this possible. worked with him over many weeks. we're grateful with them. the amazing politico event staff, all of you out here this morning, and mr. mayor, thank you for a fantastic conversation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

president joe biden swore in the next defense secretary ashton carter, who replaces chuck hagel, who announces his resignation in november.

ashton carter is president obama's fourth chief. >> make a two-for-one. >> hello, everyone. welcome to the roosevelt room. dr. carter, stephanie, william carter, where is william? hey, man. how are you? welcome. daughter ava couldn't be present today, but the deputy secretary who has been running things, it's been a great asset to the department. general marty dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, as well as admiral james would've filled, vice-chairman, and members of the carter transition team.

i said as i walked in, tash, if anyone is made for this job, if there's a job description that that the person, this is the guy that fits the job description. it's kind of fitting that we are here the roosevelt room, a lot of renaissance men, from teddy to franklin. they get sworn in in this room. ash, you are a scholar of strategic military affairs, and nuclear weapons policy. a profoundly capable manager demonstrated time and again with universal respect and affection of the people you work with. reflected in a near unanimous vote in the united states senate. we have to talk more. i tell you what, they used to be the good old days. i'm glad you got us back and harness, got the senate back in harness. a physicist with a genuine

expert on the acquisition and technical capabilities that are going to help guarantee the united states military is second to none in the world. this man has a driving intellectual force behind all that he does, and all this in administration has been doing. strengthening our nations -- nation's cyber security, and deepening defense cooperation with india. even when you were allegedly gone, we never let you go. i don't how many times i was on the phone with you for your advice after you had left. the president didn't like it when you work here, -- when you weren't here, ash. i'm glad you are back. most importantly, you have been a fighter like the men and women in uniform, have been a fighter for the women and men who served in uniform.

our incoming secretary of defense, like his predecessor, understands that while this country has many obligations it only has one truly sacred obligation, many obligations but one truly sacred one. and that's to equip and protect those we sent to war, and care for the families while they are there, and them and their families when they come home. years ago, when we learned that what improvised explosive devices were, it's hard to believe that 15 years ago, people were talking about -- we didn't know what ied's work on it wasn't part of the vocabulary. they are responsible for upwards of 60% of the death and injuries to our troops in iraq and afghanistan. and ash carter was the guy who left into action to honor that sacred obligation -- taking care of our troops. he was then undersecretary of

defense of acquisition technology and logistics. and then as deputy secretary he works like the devil to get our troops mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. they have saved lives and limbs, and countless numbers for american women and men. i can remember, ash, i spoke at the time on the senate with the commandant of the marine corps. we had a universal opposition to spending money at the time it, as you are member. even some division within the defense department on whether we should spend the money. that was $23 billion we were trying to get that year. to begin to build these. it's faced not only bureaucratic opposition, but there was opposition on the floor of the united states senate. i have a great privilege of leading the effort to get this

money put in the budget. and remember before we went in to the debate, going around quoting you, referencing your report. and then in the middle of the debate, why was told by democrats and republicans, leaders in the house -- in the senate armed services committee, this was not a priority for the united states military, i called up then the commandant of the marine corps. i left the floor, i suggested the absence of a quorum, left the floor, and went back into the cloak room. and he referenced your report as well, and said he believed, i'm paraphrasing, his highest moral obligation was to get these bills. and so, guess what? we did. but then the argument became a rebuilding too many -- are we building too many? i member saying is a little like franklin roosevelt saying how we built to many landing

craft? because we are not going to be able to use than after this, we won't need the very much. that was the argument of the time. we shouldn't build as many because we're not going to need them. we're not going to need them why waste the money? in the end, we sent more than 24,000 two iraqi in afghanistan, and your binary work was was saved thousands of lives and limbs. i remember my next trip to afghanistan, after this. two iraq, they were in falluja and the battle had been run. there was a group they wanted to show me. it was a meeting going on. they wanted to show me one that had just been blown up. two young sergeants in an armored humvee got out of their vehicles and showed me how this one was blown up.

i forget how many pounds of explosives, but it blew the entire vehicle up higher than a telephone pole, it brought down wires. but they all survived. they had all of the soldiers there survive because the internal portion of the vehicle was preserved. if you did nothing else in your career, that was a pretty important thing to have done. but that's just one example of the way he cares for the troops. the also led the effort to develop -- this is not a joke, protective undergarments. earned him a pair of signed bulger funderburk, but enduring gratitude from writers whose bodies were broken -- run broken because of what he rushed into the field.

ash and stephanie -- my deceased wife used to say you want a measure of a man or a woman, look at what they do if no one was looking. if no one was looking. almost every saturday, when no one was looking, ash and stephanie were out at walter reed, no cameras, no publicity no advance. they just became regulars. they got to know the families of those women and men, they looked after their children, they saw these warriors heal. and they formed lasting bonds with hundreds upon hundreds of these young women and men. that's what endeared the most to you, ash and stephanie. he didn't just do these things he wrote eloquently about the lessons of his experience of the next time, we could do a lot better. in other words, ash carter is a thinker and a do or.

he gets things done, he's famous for holding meetings while walking briskly in the pentagon with aides struggling to give up. they hope you stay in the bigger office and don't wander as much. and woe to the person who runs -- carter -- runs into ash carter having not finish a project. they're probably staffers over there thinking of the things they told you you would do before you left. where is that memo, did i get it all done? many tough missions as you know as well as any of the men or women in here lie ahead, from the fight against isil, to the asia-pacific rebalance, to maintaining a technological edge, to the continuous efforts to make the most out of every dollar we invest in

defense. as you know now, after your vote, not only to the president and i, and the chiefs, but the united states senate are counting on you to keep holding yourself and all in your charge to the highest possible standards required for our ideals. never stop demanding and delivering the best for the men and women in uniform. and dr. carter, as you take leadership of this greatest military in the history of mankind, that is not hyperbole. that is an absolute fact. in all of human history, there has never been a military as capable as this. you do so with confidence of everyone in your building, confidence in the united states senate, the confidence of president obama and me. and so many other people who admire your work.

so, god bless your mission old buddy, and may god protect our troops. with your permission, i'm going to administer the oath, and you and i are going to have to sign a few documents here to make it official. and then i'm going to turn it over to you. you walk up to her, and he raised her hand. put your left hand on the bible. i, state your name. >> i, ashton carter, do solemnly swear, that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that i will their true faith to legions of the state. but i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of invasion. and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the

office of which i'm about to enter. so help me god. >> secretary, thank you. you and i have to sign this, ash. and then the podium is euros. let me make sure i sign the right place. sign there, and i'll get out of the way. >> well, thank you as vice president. i think you know how much it means to me to have you swear me in today. i thank you. and for me, this is the highest honor, to be the 25th secretary of defense.

i'm grateful to the president, and the vice president for your trust and confidence, and to the u.s. senate as well, for their trust and confidence. i've got a lot of banks to give out here, first and foremost to my perfect wife stephanie. my wonderful sun will, and my daughter ava, already mentioned. a number of folks who were part of my transition team, and helped me get to where i am, without whom i would not be where i am. i won't name each and everyone of you, but i'm looking at you. and i appreciated it. it was a time when i really needed help. and i got help from you all. and to join, my wonderful deputy bob lark, my fantastic chairman, marty dempsey, i've known and worked with you

before. it's wonderful to rejoin the team with you. i have some special friends here, deputy secretary of energy leader sherwood, i'm very grateful that you would come today and take your time to be with me. all the rest of my team to be, eric, ron, thank you all very much for being here. i am honored to rejoin the men and women of the defense department in what is the highest calling, which is the defense of our country. starting today, i want to make three commitments to them, and to the country, and to the president, and to the vice president. and my fellow citizens. the first is to help our president make the best possible decisions about our

security, and the security of the world. and then, to ensure that our department executes those decisions with its long accustomed competence and effectiveness. and while we deal with the challenges to our national security, i also want to make sure that i help our leadership grab hold of the wonderful opportunities that lie before this great country. and to make the world better place for our children, and to create a safer world. my second commitments is to the men and women of the department of defense, whom i will lead to reflect in everything i do, and to honor the commitment and

dedication that brought them into service. to protect their dignity, their safety, their well-being. to make decisions about sending them into harms way with the greatest reflection and care. and third, i have a commitment to the future. to building a force for our future. that involves not only securing the resources we need, but making sure that we make the best use of the taxpayer's dollar. make sure that we embrace change so that years from now, and decades from now, we continue to be a place where america's finest want to serve. a place that the begin to the rest of the world, a place that has the best in the way of technology, and in the way of

caring for our own people, and people around the world. we are entering the fourth quarter of this presidents -- president's tenure. these commitments i think will help me help him come and help the vice president to ensure that those years are productive, and that they leave our country's future in the best possible place, in the best possible hands. so thank you, once again, for this honor and privilege, to lead and serve alongside the members of the finest fighting force the world has ever known. thank you.

>> uju mountain with with ash cartor. the naurtive of violent exroomism that has bo charged through the sbrt. we had a chance to talk about

situations like ue crape. e also hat an opportunity to talk about how we maintain the strongest military in the world and how we keep safe our outstanding men and wum in uniform. i could not be more confident that ash carter will o do a wonderful job. he louisiana hit the ground running. i thranchinge the senate for confirming him almost unanimously and look forward to workinginging with him in the years to come. i think america will be well served by mr. ash cartor. >> immigration issues? >> i duss agree with the ruling and the justice department will appeal. this is not the first time where a lower court judge has blocked something or attempted

to block something that ultimately was shown to be lawful. and i am confident that it is well within my authority and the tradugs of the executive branch's prosecutorial discretion to excute this policy which will help us make our borders safer, will help us go after criminals and those that we don't want in this country, will help people get on the right side of the law and gt out of the shadows. and keep in mind that this is something that we necessarily have to make choices about because we've got 11 million people here who were not all going to deport. many of them are our neighbors, many of them are working in our communities, many of their children are u.s. citizens. and as we saw with the zutive action that i took for dreamers

, people who have come here as young children and are american by any other anymore except for their legal papers, who want to serve this b country oftentimes want to go into the military or start businesses or in other ways contribute, i think the american people overwhelmingly recognize that to pretend like we are going to ship them off is unrealistic and not who we are. so i have also said bipartisan supported of the past for comp hebsive immigration reform. i held off making takinging

these executive actions until we had exhausted all possibilities of gettinging congressional action. with the new congress my hope has been that they now get serious of solving the problem. instead what we had is this series of votes to kick out young people who were brought up here and everybody recognizes are a part of our community and threats to defund the do homeland security which would make it even harder for us to protect our borders and to keep our people safe. so my strong advice right now to congress is if they are seriously concerned about immigration, about our borders, about being able to keep criminals out of this country that what they should be doing is working together and working with the administration for a comprehensive immigration policy that allows us to continue to be both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. and certainly they need to

start funding the department of homeland so that they can go forward with all the fuverageses that the republicans say they want carried out including strong border security functions. but with respect to the ruling, i disagree with it. i think the law is on our side and history is on our side and we are going to appeal it. for those's who are now wondering whether or not they should apply, we are going to refer those questions to the department of homeland security that has already begrun the planning process. and we will be prepared to implement this fully as soon as the legal issues get resolved. >> why not wait until the higher court rules on your program? >> well, keep in mind we're not going to disregard this federal court ruling. the law is the law in this country and we take things a step at a time. so we are not going to be

actually taking applications until this case is settled. but we are doing the prep ratri work because this is a big piece of business and it is important for us to do in order for us to actually secure our borders effectively and allocate limited resources to the most important tasks and functions that the department of homeland security has. we should not be tearing some mom away from her child when the child that's been born here and the mom has been living here for the last ten years minding her own business and being an important part of the community. we should be focusing on stopping people at the borders reinforcing our effectiveness there, going after criminals and felons who are in our midst who we we can deport,

strengthening our systems for legal immigration, both those are all the thing that is we could be doing through a comprehensive immigration reform bill and in fact we know that there has been in the past bipartisan support for that. but as i said before, i am not willing to just stand by and do nothing and engage in a lot of political rhetoric. i'm interested in actually solving problems. i would like to see congress take that same approach. in the meantime, the department of homeland security will continue with the plan because we want to make sure as soon as these legal issues get resolved -- which i anticipate they will in our favor, that we will continue to go.

eric holder, the 82nd attorney general of the united states is one of three original members of president obama's cabinet still in office. he is among the longest-serving attorney generals in history. and he took office in 2009 as the nation's first african-american attorney general, it was a tough time to begin. the nation was debating how to collect intelligence and prevent terrorist attacks without infringing upon civil liberties. states were fighting the federal government over voting rights, marijuana legalization, immigration, and same-sex marriage. under holder, the justice department aggressively fought new voter indication laws that he characterized as both overt and subtle forms of discrimination. the justice department under holder also stopped defending defense of marriage act cases. he addressed the intersection of new technology in u.s. law, such as the use of drones in targeted killings when the u.s. killed a terrorist suspect, an american citizen and top recruiter for al qaeda. critics accused the u.s. of sanctioning

assassinations. holder said that he sought to strike a nation at war and a nation of laws. in his final year as attorney general, the deaths of two unarmed black man, eric garner and michael brown, caused many to question whether all citizens could trust police to protect them. in meetings and speeches, older has sought to confront these issues, convening a series of discussions around the country. holder announced his departure from the office he holds late last year, pending confirmation of his successor. he has begun to reflect on his six years in office. he might have summed it up best with something he said back in 2010. he put it this way.

i quote," one of the things i have learned over the last year is that it is simply not possible as attorney general to make everyone happy." as we would say here, spoken like a true journalist. join me in welcoming mr. eric holder. attorney general holder: thank you president hughes for that kind introduction. i would also like to thank the past president for inviting me to be here. i would like to think your entire board of governors for their critical work and all of the journalists who contribute so much to our national discourse. we don't

always agree but we have good conversations that i think is ultimately good for our democracy. it is a pleasure to stand among so many distinguished members of the board of state and i am humbled to follow in the footsteps of the really remarkable men and women who have addressed this organization since its founding over a century ago. before we open the floor for questions, i have to give you a commercial. i would like to take a few minutes to discuss the latest developments in the justice department's ongoing efforts in the field of criminal justice reform as well as the significant and extremely promising results we are beginning to see, just 18 months after the launch of our smart on crime initiative. when i took office a little over six years ago -- i am the third longest serving attorney general in history -- i saw the american justice system from different angles.

i have had the great honor of serving alongside and learning from countless dedicated lawyers, great men and women in law enforcement, and leading criminal justice experts. i served under administrations led by presidents of both political parties. despite the progress of lowering the crime rate, real and daunting challenges remain before us. i understood that few of these challenges were more pressing than to strengthen the federal justice system and to reduce america's overreliance on incarceration. after all, the u.s. comprises 5% of the worlds population. we incarcerate almost a quarter

of its prisoners. 25% of the worlds prisoners are in american prisons. the entire population has increased by a third since 1980. the federal prison population has grown by 800% over the same period. on the day i took office, as a result of well intentioned policies, nearly half of all federal inmates were serving time for drug-related offenses. as many of you have thoroughly reported, this state of affairs not only had serious financial limitations for our country, it also exacted a human and moral toll that is impossible to calculate. studies show that the policies that impose these costs have not had a significant impact in making our communities measurably safer. the persistence of the status

quo demanded that national criminal justice leaders really closely examine our institutions and re-orient our practices. under president obama's leadership, we began to push for serious change. in 2010, as a result of our efforts and the close partnership of leaders from both parties, both parties, on capitol hill, the president was able to sign the fair sentencing act. over the years we have also worked to strengthen reentry policies, to advance targeted improvements. in early 2013, i took these efforts to a new level by initiating an unprecedented justice department review of the federal criminal justice

system as a whole, to identify obstacles and efficiency and inequities and address ineffective policies. now, this review culminated about 18 months ago with the launch of smart on crime. it was a catchall term for a range of reforms that we implemented simultaneously in the summer of 2013, each one of which was significant in its own right. we made major changes to the departments policies related to non-violent drug offenders. we put sensible limits on when it was appropriate to seek formal sentences based on prior criminal records. we took steps to improve reentry processes to reduce the chances that incarcerated individuals reoffend after they exit prisons. taken together, these reforms reflect the departments age-old commitment to the

criminal justice system that is fair, that deters serious criminal conduct and holds people accountable for their crimes and utilizes incarceration wisely, to punish, deter, and rehabilitate. not merely confine and forget. as my colleagues and i have implemented new crime prevention efforts for effective community policing and promised diversion and reentry strategies, i spoke extensively about the changes we have made and the vision that has driven us forward. i pointed to the favorable results we have seen on the state level, in places like kentucky, texas, ohio, and pennsylvania, where governors and legislatures of both parties have provided models for others to emulate by directing funding away from prison construction and towards programs designed to reduce --

i have put emphasis on two vital reforms at the heart of the initiative. the prioritization of cases and the critical changes in charging processes. the data is preliminary, but it shows that the smart on crime initiative is working exactly as it was intended. it is having a real and measurable impact on the decisions made by federal prosecutors from coast to coast. the changes we have implemented are firmly taking hold. the key reforms appear to be successful by every measure that we have taken and seen so far. the numbers are particularly encouraging in three areas i would like to discuss with you today. first, among the central components is an effort to

reduce unnecessary incarceration by asking federal prosecutors to exercise their discretion and to make smart and targeted decisions about which cases warrant federal prosecution. as i said in a speech to the american bar association in august of 2013, not every drug case should be brought to federal court. accordingly, i directed the u.s. attorneys to develop specific, locally tailored guidelines, consistent with national priorities for determining when federal charges should be filed and when cases should be handled at the state or local level. today, i'm pleased to report that our federal prosecutors are heeding the call and are being more selective in bringing certain drug prosecutions. between 2013 and 2014, the number of defendants charged with drug trafficking offenses declined by nearly 1400 individuals. this is a reduction of more

than 6%. second, i instructed the prosecutors that in the course of weighing which type of drug cases merit federal prosecution, they should focus on the worst offenders and crimes. today, prosecutors are focusing their attention and resources on the most serious cases. in 2013, before smart on crime was incremented, the average guideline minimum for federal drug prosecutions, the average prison term suggested was 96 months. it has dropped. the serious drug offenses are getting the most scrutiny. third, in august of 2013, i

also ordered a modification of the justice department so that people accused of low-level drug offenses face sentences appropriate to their individual conduct, rather than excessive individual mandatory sentences. the change was founded on the belief that by preserving mandatory minimum sentences for the cases where they are warranted -- we are making significant progress towards this goal. in the year before the policy took effect, roughly 64% of federally charged drug trafficking offenses carried a mandatory minimum sentence.

last year, the new policy brought the number down to approximately 51%, a reduction of 20% relative to the prior year. we have gone from seeking a mandatory minimum penalty in two out of every three drug trafficking cases to doing so in one out of two. that is a major reduction. it is historic. these numbers show that federal prosecutors have a lower rate in 2014 than in any other year on record. this figure, perhaps more than any other, shows the significant impact policy reforms are having. all other factors may play a role in the drop we are seeing in the overall number of drug cases, as a kind is pronounced in the rate at which are prosecutors pursued mandatory minimum sentences can only be attributed to the changes announced in 2013. more effectively, by targeting

the serious crimes, and more fairly, by ensuring that those who are convicted of crimes receive sentences that are commensurate with their conduct. now, some have suggested that reducing our reliance on mandatory minimum sentences could impact prosecutors ability to get defendant cooperation. a defendant in a drug case would have substantially less incentive to provide information or testimony about others who might being engaged in criminal enterprise. some worried that prosecutors would be unable to obtain guilty pleas.

i never considered these concerns persuasive. like anyone who is old enough to have served as a prosecutor in the days before the sentencing guidelines existed as mandatory minimums took effect, i knew from experience that defendant cooperation depends on the certainty of swift and fair punishment, not on the disproportionate length of a mandatory minimum sentence. with or without the threat of a mandatory minimum, it will always be in the interest of defendants to cooperate with the government. i'm gratified, but no means surprised, to announce that the smart on crime approach has been vindicated by the data we have gathered. even the mandatory minimums have been charged significantly

less frequently under the new policy, the percentage of cases in which we receive substantial cooperation from defendants has remained exactly the same. it also holds true of the ability of the prosecutors to ensure guilty pleas in these cases. a year later, the percentage stands at 97.5%. the notion that the smart on crime initiative is somehow robbing us of an essential tool is contradicted not only by our history, but by clear and effective empirical facts. we can confront over incarceration at the same time we continue to promote public safety. already in fiscal year 2014, we saw the first reduction in the federal prison population in 32 years.

meanwhile, since president obama has taken office, we have had is a continued decline in the overall crime rate. this marks the first time that any administration has achieved side-by-side reductions of both crime and incarceration in more than 40 years. all of this progress is remarkable and all of it is notable. these concrete results illustrate the tremendous and real promise of the work that smart on crime initiative possible. it signifies a paradigm shift in the way our nation approaches vital questions of fairness and justice. in the preliminary data, criminal justice reform is an idea whose time has finally come. now, the years prior to this administration, federal prosecutors were not only encouraged, they were required to always seek the most severe

prison sentence possible for all drug cases. no matter the relative risk they pose to public safety. now, i've made a break from that philosophy. old habits are hard to break, but these numbers show that a dramatic shift is underway in the minds of prosecutors handling nonviolent drug offenses. i believe we have taken steps to institutionalize the fairer, more practical approach such that it will endure for years to come. i think we can be proud of these efforts. thanks to the work of my

dedicated colleagues, the valor of our brave men and women in law enforcement, and leadership of the u.s. sentencing commission and the partnership of republicans and democrats in congress and in so many state governments, the goals and values of the smart on crime initiative have been codified and put into practice at every stage of the criminal justice process. the work we have done is nothing short of groundbreaking, but this is no time to rest on our laurels. significant challenges remain before us. a great deal of work remains to be done. our prisons are still overcrowded across the country. far too many people remain trapped in cycles of poverty criminality, and incarceration. unwanted disparities are far too common. law enforcement is distrusted in far too many places and cops are not appreciated for the tough job they do. if we hope to build on the record we have established so far and make the smart on crime initiative not only successful but permanent, we must work

together to ensure that all of this is just the beginning. from critical improvements to the juvenile justice system, we must continue to advance promising, bipartisan legislation to make our communities safer and treat individuals more justly and allow more efficient use of law enforcement. we await a strong foundation for a new era of american justice. congress can help us build on the foundation by passing important bipartisan legislation. going forward with measures like this one and the tireless work of our u.s. attorneys and their colleagues, strong leadership of our outstanding new attorney general and new deputy attorney

general, and robust engagement of american people, i believe there is a good reason to be confident of where this work leads us. in the coming weeks, my time with the obama administration will draw to a close. i know that for me, this effort will continue. whatever i do next and wherever my own journey will take me, i will keep seeking new ways to contribute and remain engaged in the effort to improve our institutions and build trust and those who serve them. though i will soon leave the justice department i love, i will never leave the work that is become a mission and the single greatest honor of my professional life. i want to thank you all once again for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon and the work that you do every day to strengthen our democracy and

inform our national dialogue. i look forward to handling your very easy questions. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. we have some questions on the breaking news of the day on the texas judge issuing an injunction to block president obama's executive orders. this questioner wants to know if you'll go to the fifth court of appeals to try to stop the injunction and what is the practical effect of this ruling on the president's immigration order? how much of a setback is it? >> we are still looking at the opinion and trying to decide what steps we might take next.

i think that we have to look at this decision for what it is. it is a decision by one federal district court judge. i expect and have always expected that this is a matter that will be ultimately decided by a higher court. if not the supreme court, then a federal court of appeals. i think it has to be seen in that context. i would view this as an interim step in a process that has more to play out. >> you talked about the sentencing guidelines that have been reformed and a few of the things going forward. what would you prioritize as the next biggest thing that is needed in the sentencing reform? >> as i have said in my prepared remarks, we understand in terms of the numbers we have seen, the proposals that have been made, that congress needs to work together in a way that they have shown an ability to before to

make federal law that is consistent with the steps we have done. i would encourage the states as well to look at what their state counterparts have done and the results we have seen in the smart on crime initiative. more sensible approaches to dealing with the criminal justice system. overreliance on incarceration has proven not to be effective. i was an attorney when washington, d.c. was considered the murder capital of the world. i think in some ways we have earned a peace dividend. we ought to base our policies in the 21st century on the reality we have.

>> there are several questions about marijuana. under the controlled substances act, the administration has the power to reclassify marijuana with no further congressional action needed. do you think that is something the president should consider in the next couple of years? >> i'm not sure that that the underlying premise is necessarily true. i think congress ultimately has to do that. this is a topic that ought to be engaged in by our nation informed by the experiences that we see in colorado, in washington. there is legitimate debate to be had on both sides of that question, where marijuana ought

to be in terms of its scheduling. and take into account all of the empirical evidence that we can garner to see if it is as serious a drug that would warrant class one categorization or should it be some were place. but i think this is something that would be well informed by having congressional hearings and congressional acts informed by a policy determination that i think the administration would ultimately be glad to share. >> last year, president obama directed the justice department to review problems with the death penalties application. what have you found in that review so far? >> all i can say i guess at this point is that review is still underway. we have looked at federal death penalty to think about what processes we have in place, how it is administered, ask questions about whether or not there are inequities inequalities in who receives the penalty. that is a process that still

underway. i don't think it will be completed during my time as attorney general. >> specifically about the oklahoma system, the supreme court has agreed to review to that system of lethal injection. should there be a national moratorium on lethal injection until this case is reviewed? >> now, speaking personally, not as a member of the administration, so somehow separate yourself here. [laughter] i think there are fundamental questions that we need to ask about the death penalty. i have not been shy in saying that i'm a person who is opposed to the use of the death penalty. our system of justice is the best in the world. it is comprised of men and women who do the best they can, get it

right more often than not, substantially more right than wrong. but there's always the possibility that mistakes will be made. mistakes in determinations made by juries, mistakes in terms of the kinds of representation that someone facing a capital offense receives. it's for that reason that i am opposed to the death penalty. it is one thing to put someone in jail for an extended period of time, have a new test you can do to determine that person was, in fact, innocent. there is no ability to correct a mistake when somebody has, in fact, been executed. and that is, from my perspective, the ultimate nightmare. i disagree with justice scalia that that has never happened in our history. i think it's inevitable that we will find an instance where that has occurred. i think fundamental questions about the death penalty need to be asked. among them, the supreme court's

determination as to whether or not lethal injection is consistent with our constitution is one that ought to occur. from our perspective, i think a moratorium until the supreme court made that determination would be appropriate. >> last month you barred local and state police from using federal law to seize private assets, such as cash and cars without warrants or criminal charges. what impact have you seen since the end of the so-called equitable sharing program, and how have police departments who have often depended on the money reacted to this, and what do you hope to achieve by barring this program? >> it's probably too early to decide, to see what the impact has been. i think we need more time together data and see how that has affected both the way in which police departments conduct themselves and also to look at what the monetary impacts are.

the hope would be that we would use that tool in only ways that were appropriate. i was concerned about some of the abuses that i certainly had heard about. i have to say that the "washington post," in its really, i thought very good series, brought to the fore, in addition to the other things that we were looking at, i thought it was an appropriate time given the limited amount of time that we had left to try to make a policy determination about federal adoption. we have also introduced some new rules with regard to how one can consider -- whether one can consider a task force to be a joint one, a federal one or not. so i think all of these steps, plus the ongoing review which sally and loretta will continue to conduct, will ultimately put us in a better place when it comes to what is a very powerful tool, but that ultimately can result in injustices. injustices that people don't fundamentally understand --

where there is no finding of guilt, and yet you lose property for some reason. the potential for abuse is too great not for it to be examined and i think ultimately reformed. >> this questioner says it has been reported that you hope to announce a decision on the civil rights investigation of michael brown's death before you leave office. could you update us on the progress of the ferguson civil rights investigation? >> yeah, it is my intention to announce our determination, the decision we have made both with regard to the individual officer's conduct in the shooting of michael brown as well as the pattern of practice investigation we have done into the ferguson police department. my hope is we will do this before i leave office, i'm confident that we will do that. i guess it's ultimately up to congress as to when i actually leave office.

[laughter] you would think in some ways that loretta's process would be sped up given their desire to see me out of office. be that as it may, logic has not necessarily been a guide up there. in any case, my hope would be as i said to make these determinations before i go. the reviews are underway. i was briefed on both of them just last week. i'm satisfied with the progress we have made and comfortable in saying i think i'm going to be able to make those calls before i leave office. >> critics, including some former law enforcement people in st. louis, say you have unduly influenced the justice department patterns and practices investigation of the ferguson police department. in particular, with an october 29 statement in which you noted the need for wholesale change in the department. was it proper for you to declare a need for this before the doj

actually concluded its probe? >> i have to thank "the washington post" reporter jonathan capehart for asking me that question that elicited that response. i don't think that response was inappropriate. the reality is that i had been briefed all along on this matter. nothing i say in response to a reporter is going to have an impact on the career people who are looking at whether or not, what action we ought to take if any, with regard to the ferguson police department. i think everybody will see when we announce our results that the process that we've engaged in as -- is as i said, the time i went to ferguson, independent thorough, and based only on the facts and the law. and i'm confident that people will be satisfied with the results that we announce.

>> you have called for better tracking of police use of force incidents. why is that, and what do you think the justice department and local police could do with that information? >> this is something i called for a few weeks ago. and that director commey also raised in his remarks just a couple of days ago. in what i think was a gutsy, important speech by a law enforcement official who i've had a great deal of respect for for a number of years. i knew him when he was an assistant u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia and have been able to follow his career. i think that our nation should watch, read, and have a conversation around the issues that jim raised, director comey raised, in that speech. he talked about the need for gathering data, as i talked about a few weeks ago. we have this sense based on these incidents that get huge

amounts of attention, stir the nation, we have a sense that that things are amiss. but we don't have a real good sense of what the nature of the problem is. both with regard to the force that police are using and the kinds of violence that is directed at the police. so i think the gathering that information, in both ways -- how are police using force, what kind of force are police having to deal with, what is being directed against them? that kind of data should be gathered. we can find ways to encourage state and local counterparts to share that data with us and coupling, federal grants that we make, with a requirement that this data should be faired with the federal government. we can have a much better sense of what the problem looks like in our country. and then base policy based on the empirical evidence that we're able to gather.

>> you have publicly questioned the use of militarized tactics by local law enforcement in many situations, including the protests in ferguson. yet the philadelphia police commissioner, charles ramsey head of the administration's 21st century policing task force, defenders the practice of giving surplus military hardware to local law enforcement. what is your take on this -- should local law enforcement have access to combat military equipment that was originally designated for the battlefield? >> it depends on the kinds of equipment you're talking about. certain military equipment i think can be shared with state and local counterparts. then the question is, what kind of training do they have? what kind of training do they have with regard to how it should be deployed, when it should be deployed. i think getting into the

underlying investigation that the deployment of some of that military hardware in ferguson exacerbateed what was a pretty difficult situation. on the other hand, if you are in new york city, and you have to deal with a terrorist incident i think that some of the military equipment that has been made available to state and local authorities in fact can be useful. again, it depends on the kind of equipment. abrams tanks, i don't think should be shared with our state and local counterparts. it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would be useful. but armored carriers and things of that nature, i think can be useful if deployed in appropriate ways. there are even fundamental things about how these things get painted, what did it look like? if it looks like the military is in fact occupying american streets during civil

disturbances, that, i think, is not a good thing for the american people or for the world, necessarily, to see. they're a number of questions that have to be worked through. i wouldn't really disagree with chuck ramsey from philadelphia. i think there is the need for it, we just need to use and deploy this equipment in a way better than we have in the past. >> what concerns do you have about isis-linked foreign fighters who returned to the united states, and the justice department's ability to find and prosecute these people? >> that is the thing as i leave office that i've often said keeps me up at night. the notion of worrying about people who have left the united states to join the fight, and then who try to come back. i think we do a good job of

monitoring those people, stopping them where we can through the use of a variety of techniques, including undercover techniques. to stop them from getting there. and monitoring them with the use of our allies once they are there and trying to stop them when they come back. the ultimate concern is about those people who remain here in the united states. and who, through a variety of means, become radicalized. either they are in prison and become radicalized, as perhaps we've seen in denmark. or they are in their basements and online, listening, watching, isil-related propaganda that's totally inconsistent with the reality that people who go to join the fight face. we have to do a better job of getting that message out, about people who go there and want to leave, because they have been mistreated, they are horrified by the things that they have been called upon to do. it's a real serious problem. we have a countering violent

extremism summit next week at the white house where we'll have experts from around the world held at the ministerial level where we'll be discussing these issues. this whole question of self radicalization, radicalization of people who never leave the country is something that we have to focus on. i'm confident about the abilities of the fbi, dhs working with our joint terrorism task forces to do a good job. we also have to understand that the ultimate solution to this is to make sure that the young men who might be attracted to that siren song have to be dealt with. they have to be made to feel a part of our communities. i think we do a better job perhaps, than other nations, in integrating those people who might be attracted to the isil call. we have to redouble our efforts

given the notoriety and the publicity that these heinous barbaric acts that isil has taken. >> this questioner notes that the muslim community has expressed deep concern about how they are being characterized as the administration begins its summit on violent extremism. i know that on the other side, the administration has been criticized for not calling it religious extremism in some of these cases. it has sort of come on both sides. could you tell us your thought process, and when you talk about this issue of religious extremism, how do you -- do you try to nail that right down the middle so that you are not going too far, but also you want to call it what it is, i imagine? >> whenever you're getting criticized by both sides, it means you are probably getting it right. [laughter] we spend more time, more time talking about what do you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it. you know. i mean really.

if fox didn't talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me. radical islam, islamic extremism, i'm not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. it doesn't have any impact on our military posture, it doesn't have any impact on what we call it. on the policies that we put in place. what we have to do is define it not by the terms that we use but by the facts on the ground. and so i don't worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be. and i think people need to actually think about that and think about, really, are we having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be? this is a difficult problem. it's going to be an ongoing issue. this is something that requires us to think as a nation how we

are going to deal with the domestic issues that i was describing in my previous response, and how are we going to deal with the foreign policy consequences of some very, very serious problems that our allies face, and that we face particularly in a part of the world. the terminology, it seems to me has little or no impact on what ultimately we have to do. >> the obama administration has prosecuted eight alleged whistleblowers under the espionage act, more than all previous presidential administrations combined. what justifies this more aggressive posture toward leakers? >> for the record, the justice department prosecuted seven. eight is right, but seven by the justice department, and we inherited, i think, two of those. what i would say, there has been

great concern by members of the press about these prosecutions. i understand that sensitivity. we had a series of meetings at the justice department over the course of the summer, we talked about changing the way in which the justice department would view these cases. the policies that underlined how we would interact with members of the media. and i think we have come up with some new policies, new procedures that i think have been generally well received. what i have said is we have to continue to look at these policies to make sure that they are kept up to date, and make sure we are meeting the needs that we have in the justice department while being sensitive to the important role members of the press play. i think that, we have more than other administrations. but that leaves us with a total of five or six that this administration has brought over

the course of six years. i don't think, as you look at those cases individually, that there was anything inappropriate about the cases that were brought. i think if you look at the last case involving mr. rison, the way in which that case was handled, after the new policies were put in place, is an example of how the justice department can proceed. when you have people who are disclosing, for instance, the identities of people who work in our intelligence agencies, that's the kind of case that i think we have to bring. but i also think there's a question for you all, for members of the press. as we have asked ourselves when it comes to national surveillance. simply because we have the ability to do certain things should we? members of the press have to ask that question. simply because you have a source -- you have the ability to -- because of a leak or a source of information that you have, you

have the ability to expose that to the public. should you? i'm saying it is for you to decide. it's not for the government to decide. but it is for you to decide. i will use an extreme example, perhaps unfair. in world war ii, if a reporter found out about the existence of the manhattan project, is that something that should have been disclosed? we are not in a time of war, and i'm saying that's an extreme example. but i think there's a question the members of the press should ask, about whether or not the disclosure of the information has a negative impact on the national security of the nation. we have tried to be appropriately sensitive in bringing those cases that warranted prosecution. we have turned away, and i turned away substantially greater numbers of cases that were presented to us, and where prosecution was sought.

>> is there a realistic chance that president obama will be able to close guantanamo before the end of his term? if so, how can we expect this to play out over the coming months? >> i think there is a realistic possibility it could happen. it would require the cooperation of congress to lift some of the restrictions that they have placed on the administration. there is no question that the closing of guantanamo would be a good thing. it is something that costs us an excessive amount of money. if you look at the amount of money we spend to house one person in guantanamo for one year as opposed to what it would take to house that one person in a super max in the united states, the costs are dwarfed. we pay a foreign policy price, it is something that is used as a recruiting tool for those who we are currently engaged with. there are a whole host of reasons why guantanamo should be closed. i think it's possible.

we made a substantial amount of progress in the last year or so. but i think ultimately it will require the cooperation of congress to reduce the level to zero. >> has the administration entered into any discussions at any time with legal representatives of edward snowden about the possibility of a plea deal in his case? >> i will say no comment. [laughter] >> several questions about the wall street aftermath in prosecuting banks, both large and small. one questioner compared it to the s&l, and so many more prosecutions came out of that than they're seeing in the wake of the last one. has the justice department done enough to go after both large and small banks? >> yeah, if you look at the institutions that have played a

part in the financial debacle of 2008, 2009, you are looking at a relatively small universe as opposed to the s&l crisis, where you're dealing with thousands of banks. i think it terms of scale, there are not quite the same. we have extracted record penalties from banks. who we found to have engaged in inappropriate practices as a result of the residential mortgage security task force that the president announced in the state of the union a couple of years ago. i've said -- and i don't know if i'm making news now or not -- i've asked the u.s. attorneys who have amaze those cases and are still involved in those cases, over the next 90 days, to look at those cases and try to develop cases against individuals and report back within 90 days with regards to whether or not they think they will be able to successfully bring criminal cases against those individuals.

that will ultimately be given to loretta to make determinations about whether further action is appropriate. i think that what we've done has been appropriate. as i say, we have this ongoing examination of whether individual cases ought to be brought. but it is to the extent that individuals have not been prosecuted, people should understand it's not for lack of trying. these are the kinds of cases that people come to the justice department to make. young people who want to be assistant u.s. attorneys in the southern district of new york and eastern district of virginia, san francisco, live for these big cases. the inability to make them at least to this point has not been as a result of a lack of effort.

>> before i ask the final question, i just wanted to give a couple important reminders. first, i want to remind you about upcoming speakers. we have fda commissioner margaret hamburg here on march 27, and vince cerf, chief internet evangelist for google will be here on may 4. second, i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug. let me say, of all of the remembrances you will have had from all of your time as attorney general, i doubt there is a better one than this. >> thank you. [applause] >> ok. question. a recent video shows you shooting a perfect jumpshot at the willie mays boys and girls club in san francisco. now that you are leaving, please evaluate your basketball skills

as compared with president obama's. [laughter] >> well, i would first ask everyone, and certainly all those who are within camera range, to go online, go to youtube, and put in eric holder basketball, and really examine that sweet jumper. [laughter] viewed in isolation, it is clear that i still have it. [laughter] i mean, i had on a tie, i had on these shows. it was sweet. and with every telling of the jump shot, it goes back. it is now 24 feet. by tomorrow it will be a three-pointer. i was asked that same question during my confirmation hearing. i'm not sure by which senator.

but i think i will paraphrase that answer. i'm from new york city. the home of basketball players like nate tiny archibald, kareem abdul-jabbar, julius the dr. erving. connie hawkins, chris mullin. the president is from hawaii. [laughter] now, i'm just saying that's his background. he's a good ball player. he's got a real good left hand. he has the ability to drive. he's 10 years younger than i am. he's in better shape, he's still my boss. when i become a civilian, he will still have access to all things about me that you all are worried about, i suppose, and i will be worried about. i'm simply going to say he's a great ballplayer, a great friend and i will leave it at that. [laughter]

[applause] >> thank you, mr. attorney general for coming here, particularly on a snow day when the government is shut down. thank you all for coming today and i have a request that you stay in your seats until the attorney general has left the room will stop so please, stay in your seats until i bring down the gavel. i would like to thank the press club staff including the broadcast center for organizing the event. if you would like a copy of today's program or to learn about the national press club, go to our website that is pre

ss.org. thank you and we are adjourned. >> attorney general holder tendered his resignation last summer. >> on the next washington journal, alan gomez of usa today discusses the decision by a federal judge in texas to temporarily block president obama's legislation on immigration. then more about the blocking of an obama's executive action in the question of the da shutdown. our guest is rebeck of perk of the washington examiner. later, historic black

universities or continues with brian johnson. washington journal is live every morning and you can join with your calls injure comments on facebook and twitter. >> the political landscape has changed with the one hundred 14th congress. there are new republicans and democrats and of new republicans who want a new democrat in the sentence. including the first african-american republican in the house. and the first woman veteran in the senate. the congressional page has voting results and information about each session of congress. on c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> vice president biden tuesday

opened the senate on combating tourism. he took part in a round table discussion. these cities have programs to combat extremism. this is 50 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. first of all, welcome. particularly to our friends from belgium and the netherlands. who have come a long way to be here. we appreciate it a great deal. but thank you all for being here. especially in this, quote, snow emergency. now, those of you from minnesota know this is not much of an emergency. i understand that.

but in washington, when you hear, snow is coming, everything shuts down. but we did have some snow last night and i appreciate you all making the effort. particularly those of from you boston who probably view this as visiting the caribbean. [laughter] so thank you all so very much. look, we're here today because we all understand that in dealing with violent extremism that we need answers that go beyond a military answer. we need answers that go beyond force. countries, all of us, including the united states, need to work this from the ground up. we need to work from the ground up and engage our communities and engage those who might be susceptible to being radicalized. because they are marginalized. societies have to provide an affirmative alternative for immigrant communities, a sense of opportunity, a sense of belonging, and that discredits the terrorists' appeal to fear, isolation, hatred, resentment.

and we also have to -- police have to build partnerships within religious and business and civic communities. but we've also brought along all those folks. we have religious leaders here we have the business community civic leaders, all with one purpose in mind. how do we counter the appeal of radicalization? in september president obama convened the u.n. security council, as some of you might remember, and led in the passage of a resolution committing countries to take on the scourge of foreign fighters, foreign terrorist fighters, but more needs to be done than what has already been done. leader after leader explained that it's not enough to take on these networks of extremists who wish to do us harm. we also have to take on the

ideology that attracts fighters from all around the world to join them. this meeting is a continuation of that effort. over the next three days we'll hear from leaders from government, from civil society from communities in nearly 70 countries around the world in this three-day conference, about how they believe we can make good on the collective commitment to build from the ground up here. and i'd like to thank again those from belgium and the netherlands who are dealing with the most recent manifestations of this challenge. we asked you both to be here today because you've been active and innovative. i just had a chance to meet with the european council and parliament. the topic of discussion in our closed meetings was about what to be done in europe now. they're asking me to discuss some of the things we have done.

both of you have been leading. we're anxious to hear what you have to say. the focus of today's events are on making sure that violent extremism never finds a home in the communities of the united states here. we're going to hear from representatives from los angeles, minneapolis-st. paul, as well as boston. as well as u.s. attorneys from each of those locales, who have been leading in this effort as well. your cities were chosen because of what you've already done. what you've already done. reverend brown and i go back a long way. i wrote the so-called crime bill in the united states, which everybody thinks put 100,000 cops on the street, but it devoted more money to prevention than any program we've ever engaged in the united states of america, so reverend

brown, you've been at this for a long time. i'm not talking about radicalization, i'm talking about communities being left behind. and how to deal with violence. in minneapolis-st. paul, you've been working to build relations with the east african immigrants who have made your city their home. as the same folks have made my city a home on a smaller scale. a very large identifiable somali community. i might add, if you ever come to the train station with me, you'll notice that i have great relationships with them because there's an awful lot of them driving cabs and are friends of mine. for real. i'm not being solicitous. i'm being serious, so starting in 2007, the minneapolis-st. paul, you've trained over 600 officers in the somali language and culture. you're actually stepping out to

try to engage. you've invited hundreds of teens from the community to your police stations for sporting events and swimming and i'm sure you have pal-police athletic associations and the like in your city. and i know you have much more to talk about. we've asked los angeles to be here because you've reached out to the communities. you've reached out, you're building networks to try to connect the needs of your citizens with access to help everything from providing mental health resources to coming up with strategies for other interventions. sitting with us today is the head of the muslim public affairs council who came up with a program called safe spaces initiative. teaching community leaders religious leaders and counselors how to deal with violent extremism in the city of los

angeles. and in boston, you are planning to provide forums and platforms for community leaders in every community. the muslim community, all minority communities, for people to be able to advocate for nonviolence and be able to express themselves online, as well as in person. this is not something new to boston. as i said all the way back in 1992, reverend brown started the 10-point coalition, if i remember correctly, reverend. where a group of ministers worked to change the relationship between kids and police and kids on the street. and i might add, i'm very proud as vice president of the united states, to see how boston responded to the crisis that occurred in the marathon. it did not turn its venom, its anger, its frustration against any community. it resolved to pull the communities together.

i think that was something that, as least i personally could take no credit for it, but i was very proud of -- i had the opportunity to speak on the one-year anniversary and be there for the second marathon. i was proud, i was proud of the way the bostonians stood up and moved on. i want to make it clear, though, i'm not suggesting to the press or any of our guests that i think america has all the answers here. we just have a lot more experience. by that i mean, we are a nation of immigrants. that's who we are. that is not hyperbole. we talk, teach our kids we're a melting pot. the god's truth is, we are a melting pot. it is the ultimate source of our strength, it is the ultimate source of who we are. what we've become. it started all the way back in

the late 1700's. there's been a constant unrelenting stream of immigration. not in little trickles but in large numbers. i had an opportunity to be in singapore with the former president who is now 93 years old and i was talking to him on my way to china, to meet with the president and i said, he's known as sort of the henry kissinger of asia, for real. a very wise man i said to him, i said, what are the chinese doing now? he thought -- because we were talking about how rapidly the man i've come to know relatively well, the president, has consolidated power. and he said to me and speaks perfect english, he said they're in america looking for the buried black box. and i looked at him just like

you're looking at me, like what's he talking about? he said, they're looking for that secret that allows america to constantly be able to remake itself. unlike any other country in the world. i said, i can presume to tell you what's in that black box, mr. president. i'm old enough now. i said, one is that there is -- in america there's an overwhelming skepticism for orthodoxy. from the time a child, whether they're naturalized or they're native-born, they think about it, a child never gets criticized in our education system for challenging orthodoxy. for challenging the status quo. i would argue it's unlike any other large country in the world. there's a second thing in that black box. an unrelenting stream of immigration. nonstop, nonstop. folks like me who are caucasian, of european descent, for the

first time in 2017 we'll be an absolute minority in the united states of america. absolute minority. fewer than 50% of the people in america from then and on will be white european stock. that's not a bad thing. that's a source of our strength. so, we have been -- we haven't always gotten it right. i don't want to suggest we have all the answers. but we have a lot of experience. of integrating communities into the american system, the american dream. a generation from now, as i said, things will change even more. it's not merely that we're a melting pot, but we're proud to be a melting pot. with that we've made a lot of mistakes, but we've also made a lot of progress. we've learned a lot of hard lessons. but the most important lesson we've learned, we don't always practice it, is that inclusion counts. let me say that again.

inclusion counts. inclusion counts. being brought in and made a part of the community, whether as my irish ancestors with signs, no irish need apply, and the anti-catholic movement of the no-nothings in the late 1800's, straight through to how some respond today to the number of folks in the united states of america that are hispanic of background. we've always ultimately overcome it. but it's always been about inclusion. being a part of the whole. we still have problems but i'm proud of the american record on culture and economic integration of not only our muslim communities but african communities, asian communities hispanic communities, and the wave still continues. it's not going to stop. nor should we want it to stop. as a matter of fact, one of the

things i think we can be most proud of. the truth of the matter is, when i say we have to be able to see one another, i'm not talking about surveillance, i'm not talking about cameras. i'm talking about being able to look at one another and see one another. see who we are. understand how similar we are. it's about recognizing the dignity that every person in america is entitled to be afforded. without exception. every person in america. immigration -- excuse me immigrant or native-born. because at the end of the day, it's about treating each other with respect and although we need technology, technology cannot replace contact.

technology can't replace contact. that was the principle behind the notion we had in that bill i wrote a long time ago called community policing. it wasn't about just getting tougher on the street. it was about making sure that the policeman got out of his car and knew who the local shop owner was, knew his name. muhammad, my name is officer shmedlap, here's my card -- no, literally. literally. not figuratively. we did community policing, the police around this table can tell you. violent crime in four years dropped over 19% in the united states of america. it was because the police officers went to the community meetings, they showed up in the church basements. they were engaged. and the guy who said it best is a friend of mine, who occasionally gets criticized

but his name is bill bratton. former commissioner up in boston and los angeles and new york boston, new york, l.a., now back in new york. and he said, joe, when i was out in los angeles, he said, an african-american woman who was an activist in the community came up and said to me something i've never forgotten. she said, there is an african saying by a large african tribe centered just north of south africa. and she said, the phrase is, we see you. we see you. folks, we're not going to make a lot of progress unless we can actually see one another. we see you. bill bratton was correct. it's important when the minority community understands that law

enforcement, faith leaders social workers like my daughter, mental health officials, athletic associations, ymca's, ywca's are all working together. that's where it works, as the communities can tell you. that's where it works. when everybody is in the game. it can't be done without that kind of community building. but the efforts, the initiatives that we hope will arise from this summit are those designed to bring together coalitions to help solve the problems. but mainly so every child and every minority community in america, particularly now in the muslim american community, is able to feel like we see them. we actually see them. who they are. carmen ortiz said it best, he said, our goal is to really

promote public safety and to have a community to be part of our national security. national security flows from a sense of community. it flows from a sense of community. so if you're dealt out, if you're not treated with respect, if you're not understood, if i can't see you, then it won't work. it's not easy. we have some significant experience in the past and i hope we can expand on it. so, let me say to all of you since -- and i apologize for taking as long as i did, but this is the opening salvo of this three-day conference and i want to make sure we're on the same page what have we're trying to do and trying to figure out why all of you leaders have been invited, because that's been your business. you've been trying to see, see. not hide from, see what the problems are. and respond. and it's not going to be easy.

but it's necessary. and i know from my discussions in belgium last week, all of europe is trying to figure this out right now. because again, although there's been a good deal, there's been a significant amount of immigration over the last 40 years, 50 years into europe from all over the world, it is a newer phenomenon. there's a lot we can do together, i think. the brookings institution hosted a discussion today on the civil wars and violence in yemen and libya. later, the cost of any interior and narcotics control minister is in washington dc about -- for a discussion on antiterrorism efforts in his country.

you can see that on c-span-two. the c-span cities tour takes of american history tv on the road, traveling to american cities to learn about their literary life. this week, we partnered to travel to greensboro, north carolina. >> a child's helper was making a walk-through and while he was added he saw an envelope with a green seal on it and walked over into noticed the date, in 18 32 document. he removed a single document from a panel in the upstairs attic room in discovered a trunk stuffed up under the eaves. this was the treasurer of dolly madison's things. we have had this story available to the public.

we have had it different items on display from time-to-time. some of the items currently on display, and ivory calling card case with a card and closed with dolly's signature as well as that of her, anna. some small cut to-glass perfume bottles and a pair of silk slippers that to have tiny little ribbons to tie across the arch of the foot. and two dresses that are reproductions of a silk peach down that to she liked and a red velvet gown that has intrigued that it lasted and is part of this collection and it now has a legend that accompanies it. >> watch all of our coverage on

american history tv on c-span-three. >> washington journal is next on c-span, live with your phone calls. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the history of defense. and then the white house on preventing extremism. at 5:30 the first lady of afghanistan talks about the rise of women in her country. >> coming up in 45 minutes, alan gomez of usa today discusses the decision by a federal judge in texas to temporarily block president obama's bill on immigration and the administration's defense. more about that executive action, the possibility of a das shutdown and the real election.

our guest is rebeck of berg of the washington examiner. then, brian johnson, president of to ski got university. ♪ ♪ host: good morning. at the white house climate data at a white house summit on combating terrorism. president obama made to be as well as jeh johnson. lee will begin to live and it felt at the white house yesterday. ashton carter was sworn in as the secretary. italy these images at the price president --