's to make sure that if some did not work out, i would get a check from the government. fundamentally, i get it, but answer this question real quickly. they intended the program to be budget-neutral. is that correct? that question, specifically. dr. cohen: i would have to get back to you. senator because that is what it says on my paper. senator: i understand that you did not make these decisions. programs aree based on the drug program and medicare. in a new market, there is uncertainty. we have been hearing about that earlier today. again, we wanted to make sure that sick people were not

somehow not covered by the insurance. we want those folks to be covered. the insurance program was to cover the cost in the early years. we know there may have been pent up demand. day, it isnd of the just to capitalize the business. dr. cohen: i think it is to keep premiums stable for consumers. >> you thought earlier in the year that you would be able to move payments and you found out in october that you could not. what is the reason for that? dr. cohen: it is the math formula. it is the way the data came in from the issuers. that is the way the math worked out. 12%,re able to pay at which is the dollars coming in, dollars going out. that is the way we are moving forward for this program. we said that we would take from

last year's collections and pay back. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. yarmouth. >> thank you very much. -- outelp the doctor off a little bit on the background of the co-ops. one of the things we faced when drafting legislation was that, in certain states, the availability of private insurance was limited. in alabama, there was blue cross blue shield. in many states, that situation was not that high. the idea was to create competition. the only way you could do it was to create a new entity. the idea was that you could create the kind of price competition that was meaningful. we knew when the co-op was

and i talked with many times as they were getting started, they had no idea what kind of insured population they would have. they did not know what the age was going to be. they had no data to predict that. many had never had any health care. once they became insured, they would have a rush of care. they would try to get tests to treat things they had never been able to treat before. they had people who had medical care, but just lost their insurance. the unpredictability of it was the rationale for that. i am proud of the experience in kentucky. we let the country in the reduction of uninsured, more than 50% of previous uninsured are now covered. more than 520,000 people in a state of 4.4 million. in my district alone, we have reduced the uninsured rate by 81%. that is an astounding

accomplishment the -- accomplishment. every day, i am hearing from people who now have insurance and have a family member or neighbor or friend whose life has been saved because they had insurance that they otherwise would not have had. i could talk about that for a long time. the focus on this hearing is on the co-ops. i want to set the record straight with what happened in kentucky. unlike most of the co-ops reviewed by your office, is it your understanding that the kentucky health cool had far higher enrollment than expected op at far higher enrollment then expected? ms. jarmon: we actually have a chart in the report and for kentucky, yes, it was like 183%. that was one of the few. and is it your

understanding that they were much sicker and utilize much more care and were more expensive to ensure than the general information -- general public? ms. jarmon: i do not have that information. rep. yarmuth: that is why it is so important and that is what happened to kentucky's co-op. it lost $50 million in its first year. of 2015, itd half slowed down to a rate of $4 million. they were on track to make a profit in 2016. unfortunately, when the program was cut by 87%, they were unable to continue. is it your understanding that had congress not capped payment that the kentucky health cooperative would still be open for business? dr. cohen: i think a number of factors contributed. that was one of the last.

certainly, we have heard it was an important factor for them. you have to know that there are many factors, as we have been talking about all along. as i mentioned before, that having been said, is it your understanding that, even without the co-op, kentucky residents will still have more health insurers to choose from than they had in prior years? dr. cohen: yes. very exciting. i can talk about the success of the affordable care act in kentucky. we are a much healthier state because of it. someone threw around a figure that maybe the approval rating was down. in kentucky, it is well over 50%. dr. cohen: there is a new reduction in the uninsured rate to 9%. historic. i appreciate your leadership on that. >> can i take a moment of personal privilege? this is not one of the members

of congress. this is a dear friend of mine and chairman upton. max has been helping us with our 21st century cares bill. last night, he was honored to receive an award at the every life foundation for rare diseases. upton and i also received awards, but max is the one -- he is why we are doing this. upton: thank you. we all welcome max. i look back at the unanimous vote on 21st century cares and i can tell you max whipped more than one vote. >> he is our secret weapon. upton: we might be looking at a future majority with. -- whip.

representative: i am sorry mr. yarmuth left. tencare, asee had lot of residents were coming interstate and the co-opted close. the kentucky approval rating of the obamacare buttocks in the marketplace is really quite low. as was evidenced in that state. this week. ms. cohen, i want to come to you. were you in the room for the first panel estimate -- for the first panel? dr. cohen: i was. what happened with the -- happenedative: what with the loans and the solvency grants? we all should be concerned about that. that is not your money to give away. it is taxpayer money.

this is just money down the hole. this did not work. and here from the co-ops that they now have these loan conversion options, start up loans, classified as assets debt, i do death -- not see how you get there. doesn't that type of loan conversion really give a false picture of what is going on in that co-op? is that not a falsehood? dr. cohen: when talking about those conversions, we evaluated each of those on an individual basis. that --ard it mentioned i think you heard it mentioned that, in that case, it was not -- right step forward and

step forward. rep. blackburn: who suggested that? is that not giving an inappropriate picture of the financial stability of that co-op? dr. cohen: we did evaluate whether or not that was the right -- rep. blackburn: you looked at whether or not debt could because an asset. in the private business world, if you did that, you would be accused of fraud. if you started re-characterizing your debts as assets and started pulling them -- putting them on your balance sheet as assets. i have never heard of someone saying that the federal government would approve such a process. how do you all view that? ms. jarmon: i believe it came out in guidance in july of this year. we're going to be looking at if you rep. blackburn: you are going to review that? ms. jarmon: we will look at it as part of our follow-up. neverlackburn: i have

seen this type of characterization viewed as being a standard operating procedure. ms. jarmon: it appears unusual. rep. blackburn: it does appear unusual. if thereus to wonder are other unusual business practices that are surrounding the stability of the co-ops or the lack of stability of the co-ops and the entire lack of stability of the affordable care act program. this is highly unusual. hills co-op. $33 million in federal loans have been awarded to the vermont health co-op. how much, if any, of the money will be returned to the federal treasury? aggressively work if we are winding down any co-op to return funds to the

taxpayers. rep. blackburn: how much? dr. cohen: i do not have that number. rep. blackburn: would you get that money -- that number for us? when money is awarded and you do not get the license, every penny on to be coming back to the federal treasury and i think you know that. dr. cohen: we work aggressively to recover the loan funds. rep. blackburn: i can imagine what the irs would say if people would say, well, you know, we are going to work to get that money back to you. we are really working on it. see that that comes think it is i inconceivable that the taxpayers are going to be held responsible for this. when should we expect that money? what is your timeline for getting that money back in? dr. cohen: we are working through that process right now. rep. blackburn: you have all that money out there -- listen to yourself. you have all this money out here. it is being wasted.

half of your co-ops are insolvent. you have got this recharacterization process going to take your debts and make them appear to be assets. that is highly unusual. and you want to sit here and say, well, we are looking at it. ?hen are you doing it are you continuing to meet on it every week? do you have a timeline for coming up with hitting this money back -- getting this money back? is it a top priority? yes, please read the note that has been passed to you. dr. cohen: we got all the money back from vermont. the rest of the co-ops we have been working with over the last several months are still in business. they continue to provide coverage for consumers until the end of the year we will work through the process at that point in accordance with the loan agreement to recover funds for the taxpayer.

so there isrn: something in progress. thank you. continue to provide that information for us. that is what we need to know, the specifics. it does not help us in doing our due diligence. it does not help us if you come into a hearing and you cannot ,ay, this is where we are exactly where we are and what we are going to do. it is helpful when ms. jarmon after our happened july review and we are going to come back and look at this practice and have a recommendation for you. that is the kind of thing that is helpful. i yield back. we will ask a few more questions today down a little bit deeper. again, i would like to kind of set the stage. all of us agree we need to be good stewards of taxpayer money.

that is the purpose of this hearing. learning from what has happened , losses haveyears occurred. it sounds like a few co-ops are doing ok. .alf of them fail there are lessons to be learned here. the purpose of this hearing and our request for more information will be, how can we take all of that and hopefully not continue to lose taxpayer money? there is a question for oig. the loan agreements between cms and the co-ops do have enforcement provisions in them. i just wondered, could you explain what some of those and then, toght be the best of your knowledge, have we taken any of these enforcement measures against any co-ops? the loan agreements

do allow -- there is an option to terminate the loan agreements which would require the co-op to forfeit the unused loan funds. within the loan agreement, and the funding opportunity, there is the issue of enhanced corrective action plans, which cms says put several of the plans.under enhanced those are part of the loan agreement. has cms terminated any loan agreements? ms. jarmon: i am not aware. dr. cohen: we have terminated the loan agreements for the 12 co-ops that are shutting down. rep. collins: did we get any money back? vermont, we did get the vast majority of the money. there was some funding that was used in start up funds that was not recovered. basis, we ared

making sure that consumers have coverage through the end of the year. the identities will be operating through the end of the year. at that time, we will do a run out of claims and understand the financial health of the organization and use all of our ability with the terms of the loan agreement to recover funds. rep. collins: that is not the case in new york. which lostn new york $250 million and is shutting down in two weeks time -- that does not line up with your testimony. dr. cohen: that is why we are doing so much of the hard work right now before the open enrollment period to make sure we understood the financial health of any one of these co-ops and because we want consumers to be confident that there would not be a midyear rozier at any one of these co-ops. in the case of new york, we went to wind them down and terminate their loan agreement in the september timeframe when we said -- sent in our audit team.

we found out that their financial situation was even more dire than we understood it to be and that is why we are in this unfortunate situation. the folks in new york, the governor's office, the department of insurance has jumped on this problem and is working on it very aggressively to make sure consumers have a smooth transition. this is exactly why we are doing all of this tough work right now, so it does not happen in other places. rep. collins: i purchased a lot of distressed companies in my private sector career. inank that then loans money asset-based lending agreements, there is literally daily and weekly reports. if you are under the magnifying glass, until that bank who has money at risk is confident that they are going to be able to be paid back, it sounds as though

cms has accepted a lot of information at face value and has not dug very deeply into those details to say, ok, two months later, we are totally shocked the finances are so much worse. if someone was really watching a $250 million loan, i do not think you would wake up two months later and found out. he would have found out two months earlier and maybe you would have lost $200 million instead of $250 million. there are lessons learned. when you are good stewards of taxpayer money, the taxpayers expect the level of scrutiny consistent with what big banks do when they make loans. you could argue it could even be more than that. the last thing is not a question. i know that there will be outstanding claims. pays -- i assuming there is no money. who pays those claims? dr. cohen: they continue to wind

down over the course of the year and they do have funding. rep. collins: take new york. do they have money? dr. cohen: new york is a different circumstance. they need to run down by november 30 and -- rep. collins: they will be able to pay all of those? dr. cohen: we make sure that they go into receivership and they will have better control over their finances -- rep. collins: do you feel there will be enough money to pay out? if there is not, is the government going to make -- how do they get paid? dr. cohen: you said it is a day by day situation. we are watching closely to make sure -- rep. collins: could there be more taxpayer money having to go in? dr. cohen: our first goal is to protect the consumer and the taxpayer. we are going to do everything possible to make sure that we can have a smooth transition. that is a partnership between ourselves and the new york state department of insurance.

we are working collaboratively in that process to make sure -- rep. collins: it would occur to you to continue to do that. inc. you for your testimony. -- thank you for your testimony. representative: i want to go back to something mr. morris said in the previous penalty -- panel. we set up the co-ops to help give people who were sick or aor or have less of a choice choice of an insurance plan. as we know quite clearly, the co-ops do not have a lot of the same benefits as private insurance companies. have the kind of capitalization from other products and so on. would that be a fair statement? dr. cohen: yes. they face a number of those challenges. rep. degette: when you are just starting up as a co-op, it is

not like you are a private company saying, ok, let's offer this product. if it takes us a few years, we can do that. i really think that the comparison of the co-ops to private business is a little unfair. that is why i think we set up s, to help the co-ops get established. the concept was that they would become self-sufficient and be able to sustain their business model. is that right? those programs were set up to help the entire market transition. rep. degette: ok. so i guess i was a little concerned when i heard you say earlier that you were reviewing all of these situations on an individual basis. here is why. , being in from my end

thinks,, where my state in july, that the money is going to be sufficient risk order patients. thatthey hear in october that is not going to happen and there is a real degree of uncertainty with how cms is howing that state co-op, they are viewing their capitalization and liability. they do not know, day to day, whether they will be able to offer product in the open and roman that starts on november 1. that startsllment on november 1. the concern is that you do not have a bright line rule. the uncertainty is those stays are contributing to instability in the whole insurance market. i assume you understand those points i am making. dr. cohen: absolutely. rep. degette: i am hoping you and your staff would continue to

meet on the committee staff on both sides of the aisle to help us figure out how we can help you get some certainty so that we do not have situations where states like new york and colorado are suddenly going out of business just a few weeks before the open enrollment peri od. the other providers are scrambling to try to figure out how to sort this. the 83,000 people of colorado, i do not know how many in new york, but this is affecting real lives it would be helpful if we could get more clear standards going forward. thank you.s: it was 155,000 in new york. if we conclude this hearing, i en if we couldcoh get an analysis of the additional funds awarded at the end of 2014.

and if you could commit that cms would provide us any co-op corrective action plans that may exist. could you forward those to the committee? dr. cohen: i will have to look and see. some of those are market sensitive, but we will do our best to get what we can to the committee. rep. collins: i would like to enter into the record a "wall street journal" article that has a quote from cms that risk corridors were intended to be budget neutral. so moved. hearing, iude our want to say that we would ask unanimous consent that members' written opening statements be introduced into the record. without objection, they will be introduced to the record. i would like to thank our two witnesses for your comments as we want to work together to be

good stewards of taxpayer money. i would like to remind members to submit questions for the record and the witnesses all toee to respond promptly those questions. with that, this meeting is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> veterans affairs secretary

robert mcdonald will give an update on v.a. health services and take questions. his remarks light at the national press club tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span3, health officials will discuss possible ways to improve the health care system and reduce costs. next on c-span, vermont senator patrick leahy and utah senator mike lee discuss possible areas of cooperation between their two parties. the a conversation on syrian refugees coming into europe. >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are admonished to give their attention. we boldly opposed the forced

internment of japanese americans during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. >> this week on c-span's landmark cases, we discussed the atsuoric case of korem versus the united states. after the attack on pearl harbor , president roosevelt sent 100,000 people of japanese origin to internment camps throughout the u.s. >> this is a re-creation of one of the barracks. they were 20 feet wide and 120 feet long and they were divided into six different rooms. they did not have ceilings. they did not have the masonite on the floor. it would have been freezing even in the daytime. the only heating would have been a potbelly stove. this would not have been able to

heat the entire room in a comfortable way. >> challenging the of actual and -- the evacuation order, korematsu was arrested and his case went to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled with our guest, author of "justice and more -- and war" and karen korematsu, daughter of the plaintiff. we will explore the mood of america and the u.s. government policies during world war ii and we will follow mr. korematsu's life before, during, and after the court decision. that is coming up live monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the companion book. it is available for eight: -- $9

8.95 plus shipping. >> next, democratic senator patrick leahy of vermont and republican senator mike lee of utah talk about bipartisanship in washington, d.c. they sit on the judiciary committee. the edward kennedy institute posted the discussion. it is moderated by susan glasser of politico. [applause] susan: good morning, everyone. thank you so much. thank you, louisa. thank you very much, mrs. kennedy. it is an honor to be here this morning. this is a perfect representation of what the new kennedy institute is aiming for. our conversation here this morning. i can tell you that there is

such a thing as bipartisan legislating. i have seen it in action backstage in our union station greenroom here. ,eople thought that it was dead but i can tell you that it is not a dinosaur. i actually heard these two senators from different parties discussing legislative tactics right here and who they should call from across the aisle to lobby this morning on their bill. that is a perfect starting point for our conversation this morning. these two have teamed up on perhaps the most interesting project. which is criminal justice reform. it has brought together a very unlikely coalition of advocates. you have the koch brothers sponsoring the big event today on criminal justice reform. president obama, earlier this and, having his own big very interesting role with sentencing reform actions.

and here on capitol hill, we have senator leahy and senator lee teaming up on this measure. i want to jump on into this question. everyone here wants to know -- there is lots of conversation around this bill. how are we going to actually move it forward? what are the biggest pressure points in each of your view? where can this coalition break apart? number two, what is the stumbling block you are most worried about? is it your colleagues in the house? is it just election-year timing? sen. leahy: first, thank you for having this. i was listening to mrs. kennedy talk before we came out. of course, her late husband, senator kennedy, was wonderful. he used emphasize to me and both democrats

and republicans, it has a chance of passing. it is something we have worked on now for three years. both senator lee and i are former prosecutors. we do not need somebody to say, we have got to be tough on crime. we were tough on crime. but it is also being sensible to -- sensible. having a quarter to a third of the budget going to the bureau of prisons because of people who are sentenced for nonviolent crimes makes no sense. besides, societal problems. let us concentrate on real crimes. having someone whose life is ruined because of a drug addiction or a mistake, that makes no sense. mandatory minimums, the ,entences that come from them

why don't we trust our judges to do a good job with them? it takes democrats and republicans to work together. mike and i are enjoying the fact , it, when we announced this went across the political spectrum. that is the only way, these days, you are going to get something passed. susan: what is the challenge in getting this bill passed? sen. leahy: we have got to bring it up. the electronic communications we can get it passed if it gets on the floor and we have a real debate. thinking, you are going to lock everybody up. the american people got beyond

that and the same with the electronic communications. americans want to know that their communications are safe and the government is not crying on them. -- prying on them. these are things that can bring liberals, conservatives, everybody together. , which ise congress not the most highly-rated organization in this country these days, i think the american people saw us actually debating on these real things and voting on them. susan: senator lee, do you need to persuade senator mcconnell and new speaker ryan to get this measure to the floor and then it will pass? sen. lee: it will be important for us to convince both of them

that this needs to go to the floor. the good news is, i think we are headed in that direction. we had a vote a couple of weeks ago on the senate judiciary committee, on which we both serve, and we ended up passing this bill on committee with a super majority vote of 15-5. that is really good news. it is a good omen for getting it to the floor, as is the fact that chairman grassley is supportive of it. i think we have a good chance of getting it passed. it is one of those issues that is needed. it is simply an american ideal. to who we are. fairness is a core principle and they understand that our current sentencing system has real problems. susan: is there a bill that the house can support as well? what is your exide he about keeping your republican colleagues supportive of this measure? sen. lee: as senator leahy was saying, the biggest challenge we

those, and they are more prevalent in my party, who are inclined to say, i do not support this bill because i am tough on crime. i think those people have not read the bill yet or do not understand the bill yet. just as importantly, they do not understand the human stories behind it. story -- one of the things that got me interested in this, ironically, 12 or 13 years ago, when i was a federal prosecutor, there was a young man in my mid-20's. -- in his mid-20's. he was prosecuted for selling marijuana in relatively small periments over a 72-hour od. athad a gun on his person the time. the way the case was charged resulted in amendment mandatory

sentence of 55 years. this young man has two young children, sentenced in his mid-20's to 55 years in prison. if he serves the whole sentence, he will be a most 80 by the time he gets out. i have never met a single person , republicans, democrats, anyone, who believed that sentence was just. sentencing judge issued an opinion saying, i think this is horrible. this is a miscarriage of justice. but i have no choice. my hands are tied. only congress can fix this problem. this --ered that all all these years and when i got here, i decided it was a problem i wanted to address. susan: do you know what happened? sen. lee: he is still in prison. i always have them and him in my mind as we are working on this bill. sen. leahy: i think what senator raises the point that we

have to understand, everybody wants to go to war, but they never served in the military people -- military. have never served in law enforcement. office, the plaque and my badge from when i was a prosecutor. when you have these mandatory one-size-fits-all. anyone who has been a prosecutor, judge, in law enforcement, knows that one size does not fit all. if wee a horrible mistake try to do that. we have got to change this. you know, california did the year -- their three strikes and you are out and people were

getting locked up for life at $50,000 a year for stealing a poster or something in the store, shoplifting. come on. it makes no sense. they were lost bankrupted by it. bankruptede almost by it. i think we can get back. there are so many things. we worked together on the usa freedom and trying to change the way the nsa and others could listen in on us. we got together, republicans and democrats, and we got it done. i strongly believe, if we are going to have congress relevant, we have got to come to some of these issues -- i mean, we will have things where we disagree, but there are so many things where both parties can come together.

let's start working on it. frankly, the bill that we talked about, the president has told me, if we passed that, he will sign it in a minute. back: i want to dial it one second. everyone wants to understand what lessons you have learned in some of your previous workings together. know, how did to this odd couple come together? you guys are kind of an unlikely duo. but seriously, there are 100 members of the senate. tell us, what is your story here? sen. leahy: tell them what your wife said. sen. lee: i have mentioned this to senator leahy before. a few months ago, when he and i were working on the usa freedom act, which dealt with a collection of metadata under section 215 of the patriot act

and got rid of the domestic metadatan of this bulk under the patriot act, i was calling pat leahy so much that my wife said to me, you talk to senator leahy more than you talk to me. togetherarted working fairly soon after i got to the senate. 4.5 years ago. i recognized early on that he and i shared a lot of things in common. we are both former federal prosecutors who understand that the power of government needs to be restrained. individual liberty is paramount to who we are as a society. the power of government need to be restrained to protect liberty more than in , ourase of, for example private conversations over the telephone, over e-mail.

especially in the case of long-term incarceration. those all involved heavy intrusions by government into individual liberty. that is what has brought us together on projects like the usa freedom act, which we passed into law in june. the electronic communications privacy act amendments, which we hope to get passed by the end of this august, and criminal justice for, which passed two weeks ago. it not a global problem for you back in utah? you have a liberal democrat from vermont as your partner. i am just assuming that you will always be reelected, senator lee. sen. lee: no. not a problem in the least. the american people expect us to work together and find areas where we can achieve common ground. we have found some of those areas. i do not intend to stop finding

common areas. there are lots of them. i am the only democrat vermont has ever elected senator. senator sanders was elected independent. senatorr senator was robert stafford, who is also a close friend of senator kennedy's. he took me under his wing and he said, i will give you one bit of advice. he said, work across the aisle. you and i will work together on things, which we did. work across the aisle. you form those coalitions and actually get something done. i have never forgotten that. mike has experience on these things. we talk about privacy and all. it does not make a difference whether you are republican or democrat. in my state, you really have a sense of roxy. i will tell you

very quickly a story. the only thing i kept on my wall is a sidebar. i live on a dirt road and old farmhouse since i was a teenager. neighboring farmer told me since i was in grade school, the whole story goes like this -- a reporter sees an apartment and says, does senator leahy live up this road? are you a friend of his? no. is he expecting you? no. never heard of him. we like our privacy in vermont. susan: i am glad the intrepid reporter found you anyways. sen. leahy: he did. good reporter. he then found out my home phone number and he has never called me again. susan: in your collaboration on

the usa patriot act, on the issues that started off this collaboration, could you give us some of your learnings and your takeaway on what does not work anymore? many people are struck by the waning of the old schools of power in the senate and the house. leadership is not as strong anymore. individual entrepreneurs like you can get stuff done. how do you make things happen? what works now or does not work now that used to work when you first came into the senate? sen. leahy: i keep asking myself that question. there is not enough ability of leaders to work things out. you ares not mean always going to agree with the leader of your own party, but that are certain things

you could work out. you would do a lot of things by consent. ,ow you have one or two people we can disrupt that and get on the local news or the evening news by doing it. we do not spend enough time here , developing personal relationships. when i first came here, campaigns do not cost what they do today. people were not out fundraising all the time. you learned to develop relationships across the aisle. your children would know each other. you would know each other. that made a big difference. personalrivate, meeting. i am fortunate to have a nice

office in the capital because of my seniority. but i have had meetings with mike, just sitting down and talk without having every word recorded and talked about. you have got to go back to those personal relationships. here, when i first came leaders of both parties would encourage you to take trips together. we have got to find a time to come back to doing that. askedmber harry reid once caucuscain to come to a of everybody to just talk about his expresses. experiencesr -- his as a prisoner of war. most people had not heard the whole story. you could have heard a pin drop in that room. there was a sense, when we we ought tomaybe

start treating each other as individuals and not just adversaries. can you think that the power of committee has waned? does that make your job easier or harder? sen. leahy: of course, the committee chairman has the power to bring up a bill. that is very important. , asmost important thing committee chairman -- i have chaired a couple of major committees. i know how to get a piece of legislation so that it does not pass the partyline vote. usually, a chairman can pass a partyline vote, but it will not go anywhere. -- as mightwork just mentioned, the bill on sentencing reform, that was a lot of work to get into the coalition.

those are the only bills that really do pass. the usa freedom act we were able to get through even though the majority leader had a different idea of what should be done because an enormous coalition came together in the house and we had an enormous coalition in the senate. and we dramatically improved the laws that affect how americans are listen to or watched. chairmaen -- chairmen determine when a bill comes up, but you have got to have a coalition. susan: senator lee, there is a sense that some of your colleagues who have came in with tea party support, the burn it down attitude towards the own -- , do youinstitutions

think that anger is finally burning itself out? what do you think about the new budget deal that was bipartisan? is that a sign that the institution may be getting back some of its established order and that the fire -- or are the fires still burning? sen. lee: i explained my view of congress in an op-ed that i wrote a few weeks ago. i talked about change coming to congress. the american people are experiencing some of the benefits of decentralization of power with things like uber and airbnb. the information economy is making it so the old centers of power within the economy are no longer enjoying the longevity that they once enjoyed. i think they are starting to expect this demand -- similar things will happen in congress. similar things will happen in washington. not every decision has to be made in washington.

within washington, we will have more people who serve in both houses of congress, both political parties, who will participate in the spirit of legislative entrepreneurship. they are expecting and demanding that power be pulled more and more to their rank-and-file member level. but there is not a lot of agreement. the budget deal. i have some real concerns with it. but i think we should embrace this change that is coming. i think we're going to see a lot more members, a lot more young ventures like me who are eager and willing to work across the aisle because we recognize that the only way we are going to get anything done. it is also consistent with this model that power needs to be decentralized in congress. susan: with the rise of entrepreneurs like senator cruz,

are we going to see more government shutdowns, extreme tactics? sen. lee: i don't know any member of the senate who sets out and says, i want to see the government not funded. i do not see that as the goal. the way we have been spending where we putress, everything together as part of a package and you have a binary choice at the end of the year, at the end of the funding period, that involves funding everything at current levels or nothing, that is something that needs to come to an end. we need to get back to a process that involves passing a dozen or more separate appropriations bills so there is not a single binary choice at the end of the year. sen. leahy: i would agree with that. i and the seniormost member of the appropriations committee. more and more, we wish we could

just go and do each one of the bills. , tot be a wise way to do it have a two-year budget cycle instead of every year. agencies could plan what is going to be spent more. but vote on each one. vote on the interior bill, the defense bill, the foreign operations bill. have, if you are going to have amendments, have them relevant to what you are talking about. riders that are there for a special interest group on the right or the left. the government would run better. and congress should be exerting his power. the way it is done now,

basically, we are saying, whether we like the president or we are giving the power to the executive branch. we are not being very specific. i think it should be a shared power. work, but if you are running for the house or the senate because you expect a vacation, you made a mistake. most members want to do the work and get it done. to have a quick news round before we bring in questions from the audience. you two are working on another shared project, which is patent reform. if anything, it is as controversial as some of your others. my colleagues earlier was here to ask you a question about that. ask why you think

this is the right session for patent reform when it failed last year and has not moved yet this year despite moving in committee. overall, patent reform took years to get there. when we passed the smith bill,ille -- that was the biggest upgrade of patent law in 50 years. now you are talking about the so-called patent troll bill. we have again a coalition. we want to get it through. we are trying to get across to everybody that no group is going to get everything they want. , a lobbys anyone group group or anyone else, thinks they are going to have everything they want, nobody

gets anything they want. to get it determined through. billnk that, if we have a with a coalition, democrats, republicans, i think we will bring it up and it will pass. sen. lee: the best part of the bill is that the portion taken from the leahy-lee bill. sen. leahy: that is right. but we will call it the lee -leahy bill. [laughter] sen. lee: americans are demanding they want the customer state provision. sen. leahy: we hear it in coffee shops in vermont. montpelier, where i ,as born, a town of middlesex they have one coffee shop,

established place, where everybody needs. they have wi-fi and they are , iftantly worried about people buy things off the shelf, people will come in and sue them because they are infringing some esoteric patent. they are the linchpin of the community. they should not have to fear that. to put you toing on the spot and then open it up to questions. which of these two babies has a better chance of passage in this congress, the criminal justice reform or the patent measure? i think the smart money would be on the criminal justice reform bill. i think the momentum is therefore that bill. do not get me wrong. they are both very important. i think the patent litigation reform bill is important, there is a smaller audience that

knows, cares about, and understands that issue than there is about the criminal justice reform measure. ,ith criminal justice reform now more than any other point in american history, there are more people who know someone who is imprisoned, someone who is perhaps in federal prison, than ever before. as a result, people are more aware of this issue than they have been in the past. that has given us a boost. i want to thank the president for his efforts to draw attention to the need for this reform. he has been a real avid cheerleader for it, as he has been on past litigation reform as well. this is where i feel we have the most support for these measures. sen. leahy: i would agree with that. i would like to see both of them pass, of course. i will make efforts of it. the overall, what is

going to affect our society the most is the criminal reform bill. moveld urge that we could sooner than because the closer you get into the presidential election cycle next year, it's a year from now, but also, the whole house is up, one third of the senate is up. it's going to be hard to get attention to it, and i hope we can do something by spring. i think that it's going to be important. reform has toce be taken on a politics in the usual partisan sense. the patent bill is important, that theee with mike

fact that people know what criminal justice reform means is going to make a difference. susan: lets getsusan: some questions from the audience. if you can let us know your name, who you are with. any takers? you, sir. thank you. my name is joe mccarthy. that really is my name. sen. leahy you are taller than the other one. >> i hope i'm different in other ways. >>, retired administrator from the harvard kennedy school. thank you for your bipartisan efforts in the senate. i wonder if you would comment on the role of staff in bipartisanship. the kennedy school student talked about how senator moynahan always urged his staff to go out and meet with the staff from across the aisle,

have a beer, get to know them, and build relationships. think it's absolutely important. staff is anstaff, extension of the principle, the senator. act and usa freedom with the criminal justice reform bill, just as there has been a lot of bipartisan interaction on side that has been an essential condition to any of it happening, there's been an enormous amount of interaction on a staff level, as well. yeah, i completely agree with your assessment that it's important on the staff level. sen. leahy: i often say that members of the congress are merely constitutional impediments to the staff.

fortunate to have superb staff. i am in there so many times that i will get a call from mike saying, senator so-and-so has asked if we can come together on .3 or point four, and we work it out. there are so many things moving. we couldn't possibly keep track of it all. senators in my experience -- a few senators tried to keep it so isolated, so close to the vest. they've been very ineffective. , hisember pat moynahan office was right down the hall from mine, and he was absolutely right when he and bob dole came

together to save social security. stream ofa steady staff going down to senator moynahan's office, and vice versa. that is how it had to be done. susan: more questions? >> ex-emk staffer. not a patent lawyer, but i think mts is a copyrighted name of professor roger fisher's book. it should have an asterisk. susan: we are paying him royalties for this eventsusan:. night a portion of senator kennedy's book where one of his first net wasan activities,

drawing with a young first-term senator to defeat a house built trying to undo one man, one vote. his teammate in that was howard baker. howard baker's legislative assistant, my opposite number, who hasr alexander, done very well in his own right. onre is so much good history this subject, that i think it's worth going back and looking at some of those. this is the 50th anniversary of the president's crime commission of 1965, which led to a huge piece of legislation in 1968, the safe streets and crime control act, which covered many

these issues. i haven't seen any reference to it in the past year. it seems like it might help you. i believe everybody from senator mcclellan to senator kennedy voted for that piece of legislation. susan: i'm not sure there is a question, but one question is, how many senators are left who remember the historic bills of the 1960's? is that a useful frame of reference in lobbying your colleagues? sen. leahy: i wasn't a senator at that time. i was a prosecutor. talk about the electronic privacy acts, and talk about writing the first one. i was remember -- reminded by senator lee, i was in grade school at that time. [laughter] sen. lee: you've got the millennial lobbying. sen. lee: that's right. susan: i'm going to exercise my

moderators prerogative. we've got to ask you about the presidential election. anator leahy pointed out it's whole year away, though it seems like it's tomorrow if you look on tv. senator lee, you are a much coveted endorsement in the republican field because you haven't picked which one of your colleagues or other candidate you are going to go for. are you ready to jump out there today and say who you are supporting? sen. leahy: aren't we out of time? [laughter] sen. lee: i told my family, i never thought i would live to say this, but one of the weirdest things that can never happen to a guy is to have three of his favorite coworkers all running for president at the same time. i'm good friends with marco and rand, have been since the three of us ran for senate in 2010. while we werethem candidates, long before we got to the senate, and ted is also a good friend, and for that

matter, lindsey graham is also a friend. not inclined to get into it at that point -- this point. we work with these people. they are good friends. i think that process is going to play itself out, however long or arduous the process is. you are not endorsing president to be donald trump? you speechless. i made a senator speechless. sen. lee: it happens once in a while. susan: if only i could call my hair that way -- comb my hair that way. susan: you have endorsed hillary clinton. sen. leahy: i told secretary clinton, almost three years ago back on are coming trip to haiti where i worked on restoration after the earthquake, and she had her

husband had been very active. we went down there and looked at some of the programs. we had a long talk. i urge her to run for president, told her i would support her. this was long before my senate , senator sanders, announced. to say anything against senator sanders, who i .dmire i have that vermont attribute. i keep my word. susan: you can tell us who is going to win the republican nomination. sen. leahy: i used to be able to pick these things up, but this has been a little bit different. [laughter] it would be exciting to have beforehings undecided the convention. -- i't remember a time

guess there were long before i was in the senate -- when had somens actually question. i guess the last one was president kennedy in san francisco. susan: it is a political junkie's dream. brokered convention, or who is going to win? sen. lee: that's a unicorn. i don't think we are going to see a brokered convention now or in the foreseeable future. it is interesting though. it would be fun. [laughter] it's interesting though that it starts so early. i hope i've got this right. i was told recently that john f. kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency in what is now the kennedy caucus room in january of 1960. that is when he launched his presidential campaign.

it seems like a refreshing idea. sen. leahy: we border canada, and i saw new prime minister trudeau. weeks, it's a matter of weeks, and he gets elected, the first new prime minister in a decade. a lot of us wish we could have times like that. susan: what a great note to end it on. prime minister trudeau has the first 50% women's cabinet in canada. maybe we will see that in washington. [applause] i want to thank both senators. this has been a terrific conversation, and we will come back and see how you did and unpack your successes after the passage of the criminal justice reform. we will look at what worked and how long it took you to get there. thank you to the kennedy institute and the misses kennedy and to all of you for joining us. what a terrific conversation. thank you.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> two former inmates will take part in a discussion on prison reform. jeff smith is the author of the book "mr. smith goes to prison." posted by the american enterprise institute, we will have live coverage tomorrow at c-span two. on

on c-span, veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonnell will give an update on v.a. health services and take questions live at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend on c-span's cities tour, along with our comcast cable's partners, we will explore the history and literary life of sacramento. to book tv, author kyo san shares the story of her japanese-american families survival of oppression and their experience at internment camps. we will meet with author chris entz to discuss her book "none wounded, none missing, all dead."

>> elizabeth was the first to come to george's defense and say, that is not what happened. i know the character of my george, and he wouldn't have done that. andstood up for him championed his actions. it was a elizabeth's voice that rose to the top of all of this not only because she was a woman and people were paying attention to what she had to say but because she outlived all of them. untileth doesn't die 1933. she is the 50th anniversary of the battle of little big horn. history,ere for all of so she can help shape what is being said about her husband, so it doesn't go so far to the

other end. >> on american history tv, we will tour the mansion owned by california governor leland stanford. as a prounion civil war governor and railroad executive, stanford negotiated deals at the mention that helped complete the transcontinental railroad. last. stanford was our two-year-term governor. he elected and served all of 1862 and all of 1863, and he was part of a group of men who were merchants. they were politically active and had similar ideas, and stanford was the first candidate that was successfully elected as governor. he was our eighth governor, and he was the first republican governor of california. >> then we will visit the japanese-american archival collection at sacramento state, which includes letters, photographs, diaries, and artwork from japanese-american communities following the attack

on pearl harbor. shares artifacts related to the 1849 gold rush, which brought 300,000 to california. >> today, we are in the for history.nter we hope the original records for the city and county and go from the beginnings of the city in 1850 all the way to present time. when you talk about the experience of coming to california to search for gold, you are going to need your supplies. you would've had your portrait taken in order to document yourself before your journey. one of the important things you would have acquired is a map to figure out where you needed to go. this is a great map of the gold fields. this map would have folded up so they could fit it into their pockets. everything was lightweight, compact. this would've been an essential tool, and this dates from 1849 to show miners were to go. you can see how quickly the business of mining and producing

these things, and quickly people were making money off the people looking for gold. >> this weekend, watched c-span's cities to her in sacramento beginning saturday at noon eastern on the tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. the sea spent cities to work, working with our cable abilities -- affiliates and working with cities across the country. next >>, a discussion about refugees coming into the country from syria. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> let me first of all welcome you to the wilson center. my name is james hollifield, and i am a public policy fellow at

the wilson center. i don't know how familiar you guys are with the center. texas whereb is in i'm a professor of political science at smu in dallas. it's really nirvana for scholars like me to be able to come and spend quality time at the wilson center. this is my sabbatical year, and i'm delighted to be here. i would like it if everyone could take a moment to silence your phone's, so we can avoid phone interruptions if possible. let me welcome you to the wilson center and point out that the wilson center was chartered by congress as the official memorial to president woodrow wilson. it is the nation's key nonpartisan policy form for tackling global issues through independent research and

dialogue to inform actionable ideas for congress, the administration, and the broader policy community. today, we are going to look at , aope's refugee challenge response to an international crisis, and i should point out that the program today is cohosted by several different programs at the wilson center in addition to the global europe program, which is the primary sponsor. it is also sponsored by the middle east program. this crisis has its origins in the middle east, and also by the global sustainability and resilience programs. this is, as i'm sure all of you are aware, and incredibly difficult moment in time. the conflicts and violence that the "arc raging across

of instability" running roughly from west africa all the way to south asia and the asian subcontinent. i have said that this is a multilevel crisis. it is, first and foremost, a humanitarian crisis, some would say a humanitarian disaster. you've got in many countries in people a day of at the border. we are looking at roughly one million refugees coming this year, maybe more, with no end in sight. the question is, how do you cope with this? what are the moral and legal commitments that we have in the west to deal with this kind of exodus? tremendousthis is a political and policy challenge. it's also a crisis, i would argue, of governance for europe

and the world community. we are very lucky today to have a distinguished panel of experts. i'm going to just briefly introduce them. i know a lot of you have their bios in front of you. for those of you watching online or watching this broadcast, i want to say a few words about them, and we are going to go straight to the panel. i'm going to introduce them. each of them will make brief remarks, and i will have a couple rounds of questions with them, little dialogue with the panel, and then i'm going to open it up for your questions. i want to introduce philip ackerman, someone i have gotten to know quite well in the brief time he's been in the united states. left sitting just to the

of kathleen newland who i will introduce. philip is the minister and deputy chief of mission at the embassy of the federal republic of germany in washington, d.c., basically the number two german diplomat in the united states. you may be surprised to find out he's a high-level diplomat who has a phd in art history from bonn university, which is great training, i suspect, to be a diplomat. the other things i want to he headedabout him, the german task force for afghanistan and pakistan. he has deepened -- deep involvement in asia. we know afghanistan is one of the prime sources for refugees coming to europe. philip worked as the speechwriter for two foreign ministers. he oversaw the political embassynt of the german in new delhi, india. secondly, i want to introduce the gentleman sitting to his .eft, charles gotti

he is a senior research professor of european and eurasian studies at johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. he has worked on the policy planning staff for the u.s. department of state, published many books, including "failed ."lusions also, "hungary and the soviet bloc." since hungary has been at the center of this crisis, he will have something to say about the hungarian position and hungarian role. i will conclude my introduction of him by pointing out he's got a new book that came out called "the strategy and statecraft of ski."and sitting to his left is captain brian lisko who is the senior u.s. coast guard liaison to the department of state where he serves in the maritime security

division of the bureau of political and military affairs. , ais a career aviator decorated flyer, and among other things, he has served with the ,ixth fleet in naples, italy and a liaison to the european border control agency affront tax. he has a lot of front-line experience looking at what is going on in north and west africa, the middle east, the mediterranean, and many of the states.e finally, i want to introduce to kathleen newland, someone i've known many careers, but we've .ever met until today she is a senior fellow at the

migration policy institute. she sits on the board of overseers of the international rescue committee. many of you in this room probably know the irc. she is on the board of directors .f unhcr she is on the foundation for the a crisis of refugees. worked for the un's secretary-general. she cofounded an organization ita with lord david owen in london. she is the author of many books. i'm not going to list them all. we're going to start with dr. newland. i just want to ask her if she could help us understand the nature and the origins of this crisis and give us some historical perspective. let's start with you. kathleen: thank you very much. thank you for coming.

i'm looking forward to this discussion. i want to start where jim started, and that is with the multidimensional nature of this crisis. as you started your comments, i thought, there goes my introduction. since you were so brief, i think i can elaborate a little. reiterating this is a humanitarian crisis. crisis,legal and policy especially for european states. it's a political crisis both for individual countries and at the makes it ahich solidarity crisis, but also not at the eu level but in the region and globally. i suspect that is something we .ill get into on the humanitarian crisis, i think, more even than the numbers, which are extremely high, surpassing -- the number

changes daily, but more than 750,000 people have arrived in europe by see so far this year. the october total of people arriving was higher than the total for all of last year. the problem is not just the number, but the pace. that is what is overwhelming the capacity and european countries to receive people in a humane way. so far, we are approaching 3500 deaths at sea, which will come out probably at the same total as last year, but on a much larger base of people moving. the death rates have gone down, and i think that is a tribute to the rescue at sea effort that the european countries and others, including the u.s., have mounted.

i know brian is going to talk more about that. the other problem in addition to the pace is that there is no end in sight. this is inducing an existential panic in the humanitarian response system. not only is there no end in sight, but there is every reason to believe the pace will e with ther accelerato advent of russian bombing and the destabilization of front lines around aleppo. more people are fleeing into turkey. there's every reason to expect they will try to move on. i had a long conversation yesterday with the head of unhcr operations in jordan, and he said people are leaving up because they are starving, not because of cuts in food allocations, although that is a

factor, but because they are in despair, and they demand of themselves that they try to find a prospect for their families and for their futures. they don't see that prospect in jordan or lebanon, or turkey were work opportunities are restricted. that is the humanitarian crisis. the legal and policy crisis in thise is in the face of pace and these numbers, how do these countries meet their legal obligations under the 1951 refugee convention? how do they do it in the face of ?hese numbers sweden is expecting twice the number of asylum-seekers this year than it had last your, which is twice the number they had before. there has been exponential growth.

a real policy crisis around how to deal with this number. let's not forget everyone is a syrian. is an important point. about three quarters of the arrivals to greece are syrians. the next largest number, from afghanistan. , somalia, iraq. the sea arrivals to italy, which is out of the headlines now, are much more from sub-saharan .frica how do you deal with this yet good that is the legal and policy crisis. the political crisis, you are aware of the rise of the right in individual countries, but even within the countries who have been most generous, both sweden and germany have

toughened up their asylum policies and practices in recent weeks. think, thets, i solidarity crisis within the eu where a two track eu is emerging with britain, denmark and central european countries being extremely resistant to any form of burden sharing with other countries, and the burden falling most heavily on sweden, germany, austria, and a few others. . multilevel crisis let me leave you with a question? do we need new institutions, new processes, new laws, new agreements? i don't think we need new laws, , i would sayhers

absolutely yes. what we had in place now is not working satisfactorily. it is mostly aimed at a short-term response, emergency response, maintenance of refugees, and we need to think about this long-term. we need to look at the potential contributions of these people, ,ot just the immediate burden laborg at demographics, mobility, and so on. these are the kinds of big, long-term ideas we need to be thinking about. james: thank you, kathleen. i want to segue to our german representative here and ask him to talk a little bit about the german and european response. labor philip: thanks, jim, and thank you for having us here today. thanks for introducing me so

kindly. cv thatfrom my weird i'm not an expert on immigration, but i'm happy to talk about the german experience right now. let me make six short points. the first one is, numbers are very difficult right now. -- have rough estimate a rough estimate. we have heard so far 710,000 people have asked for protection in germany. aboutear, 2015, we have 7000 to 10,000 a day coming into germany every day. 80% of them are syrians, afghans, and iraqis. we have pakistanis. we also have nigerians coming. 80% are from these countries. it's not stopping.

winterhow hoped that the would slow down the inflow, but the fact is it's not happening, there areause unfortunate human traffickers. that's the situation as we see it right now. betweent this year 800,000 to one million refugees in germany alone. that would be like if 5 million people for mexico would come to the united states in a years time. we have to admit our administration is not ready to cope with this flow. the german administration is very solid, but it's also very

effective all. all our institutions are stretched. i think it's fair to say that without the help of civil society, the institutionalized , and individuals, it's amazing to see that somehow it works. individuals to many . i heard 50% of germans somehow are involved in this refugee .risis the population is really taking -- contributing to that. the third point, a point we hear very often in america, what do we think about security echo frankly, this is not our first priority. we don't have the privilege to vet the people who come, unlike

you. they are there. we feel the danger of isiltration by terrorists not the biggest problem. we are pretty sure there are a couple bad guys amongst them, unfortunately, we have about 750 foreign fighters of german origin who moved to syria to fight there. this is something we have experience with. problem is to teach those people to live or abide by our society, rules of our how to learn that boys and girls are co-educating in germany, how to make sure they understand that alcohol is part of our

culture, how to understand that freedom of religion is a fundamental right of every person and homosexuals are proud in our society. this is a security problem, othere it leads to intentions. it's a much harder problem to cope with then the terrorism idea. , we have toint is observe very clearly the mood. how is the population reacting? theaw during the summer signs at stations where people diapers, stuff. this certainly is not as strong as it used to be. we still have a helpful civil society, but more and more people ask questions.

polls are dropping. people feel threatened. not that they have experienced bad things. the crime rate has not gone up in the last month, but they are threatened in their lifestyles because there's a famous village in northern germany, which had 100 inhabitants. refugees,udden, 750 there is an empty building next door come and they can fill it with refugees. these people are exposed to 750 syrians, afghans, iraqis. they feel uneasy. this is something we have to observe closely and deal with. timee to say at the same that unlike other european countries, germany so far has -- had the big populace

populist movement. we have a small party with 8%, 9%, which is anti-immigration. the have demonstrations in some parts of the country every monday were a thousand people take to the streets, getting a ,ot of attention, but overall that's fairly normal. i'm surprised it's not more controversial. i have to say, something which i found quite remarkable, i came from breakfast with the ceo of rcedes-benz, a big car thisny, and he said refugee influx to germany is a huge opportunity. he said, this might cause the second economic miracle. he says very openly that they -- they are ups --

supportive. they're asking if they have welders or technicians. they integrate them from the beginning in their procedures. he says they have vacated buildings in order to shelter refugees. german business is very optimistic. unlike the public mood, business mood is better. my last point is, and this is the question, the big elephant in the room -- what are we going to do? it can't go on like this for another year. we will not be able to handle that. we have to find a solution. we have a couple tools here, and i think europe and the federal working on that. we have been speaking to turkey, and there are little signs of hope when it comes to syria on the diplomatic level. we have tried to set up hotspots for registration.

all of this is a start, and it will not change the influx. we feel at the end of the day we .eed more european solidarity you mentioned austria and sweden. mention themhould both. per capita, they take more than germany. .thers have been less generous at a certain moment, we have to find ways to get to a solution. james: on that note, talking about european solidarity, there has been tremendous resistance in eastern europe, hungarians leading the way. i would like for charles got to to talk about what is going on in eastern europe, and why are

these european so reluctant to pitch in and help? thank you very much. i can't help but note, after the last presentation, that whatever one's view used to be of germany, during and after world war ii, and for that matter, before world war ii, this is not truly over. germany has emerged as the most humane country in europe, and i have nothing but admiration for chancellor merkel and those who support her. i think you should be proud of your country, sir. the second point i would like to to note, to recall --

[no audio] i was sponsored by the international rescue committee. i would like to add i have repaid the cost of transportation many times. [laughter] i'm certainly very relieved you are there doing the work you are sayinget me start off by i had a student visiting with me the other day,, complaining about the bad relationship between europe and the united states, including america's seemingly lack of interest in the refugee crisis. we were talking about transatlantic relations, not about the eu.

him, this is hardly new. i looked on my bookshelves, and there was a book, a little book called "atlantic crisis" published in 1966. nothing is new under the sun. rise asnew is germany's a humane country and as a humane .ociety otherwise, the differences, on .orry to say, are not new as for the european union, i ,hink it's important to state it's a miracle it has lasted as long as it has and that it continues to work. not as well as some of us would like. the crises are every year. we just had greece, externally problems -- extraordinary

before admitting all these countries offered good cooperation, but once they became members, they could not be influenced, as we see in the case of hungry, estonia, poland, romania. is, why question here is the european union constantly facing such major crises. i would like to call to your attention very briefly four points. resistance.nalist this is not only in eastern europe. this is everywhere. most people identify themselves by their national identity rather than europeans. this has not changed very much. in other words, the culture andows institution building

follows very slowly. the european union has always been an elite project. if you put up even 25 years ago or 30 fighters ago, if you had a ine about the european union many of the member states, the votes, depending on how the question is phrased, probably would've been negative. the business elites, havelectual elites overcome the wars of the past. it's important to recall that prior to the end of world war ii, more have overcome the wars of the past. wars had been fought between france and germany than any other two countries in the world. look at them now, how well they get along. it's an amazing story, but it's an elite story. it's not very much else. the third point i would say is there is the basic structural

, the size in the eu of the member states, their history, their culture. it's very difficult to integrate them and bring them together. fourth, you can add to that the problem of the new member states, which, as i mentioned before, our new members. to assimilate them into the of the european union is extremely difficult. what about these eastern members? what about these eastern members? the institutional adjustment has been made. they attend the meetings. they adjusted their institutions. there are problems constantly. i think hungary has received 200, 300 suggestions from various european institutions to

make this adjustment in the judicial system or that, and the countries are pretty much the same way. don't pick only on hungary in this respect, although it may well be a difficult pick. is the culture. it's the political minds that have not changed. polls would say hungry for the hungarians, slovakia, only christians in europe. the former estonian foreign minister went further. he's one of the better new members of the european union, , only whites should be there. much of society jumped on them for sure countries are pretty mh , but it was still said to come and it is a commonly held view, not only in estonia.

in other words, watch what is in their heads, not so much the institutions they build. against this background, the hungarians got the most criticism. the fence had to be billed, some had to external control be built. the problem is not so much it has been built but how it was built, what kind of fence it wereand how the refugees treated. i'm sure many of you saw the pictures of these refugees at the eastern railway station in budapest where i believe purposefully they were kicked outside. it looked like a whole are the, which is what i believe the government wanted it to look , but it was stilllike so they o -- it is aing party right-wing government, but there is a far right party challenging

, as in poland, and so therefore, the issue was a domestic political game in order to get the support of far right supporters. i believe this is what is happening in a smaller way in -- inia in croatia slovakia, in croatia, and the czech republic, which we thought would be the best candidate for a truly democratic society. i know my time is up. i just wanted to mention the conspiracy theories that are coming up -- this has not been written up in english much -- the conspiracy theories that are rampant across central and just read upe, i on this, and some of them say are sent tougees europe by americans, particularly george soros who

has the disadvantage of being american, rich, and jewish. as a target of conspiracy theory, he's fantastic. he's a wonderful target for these mindless people. america is seen, i'm sorry to say, as being behind this crisis by those who would like to keep their nationstates. -- nationstates pure. the difference is, these people are in the majority in central and eastern europe, while much of western europe, even in germany, they are in a minority. that is dangerous for the european union. james: thank you, charles. i want to pick up on something you said about border control and border issues. the border-free europe, if it's

going to survive, requires some external border, some external control. i wanted to ask captain brian lisko if he could reflect on his .xperiences what do you think of the border issue, the mediterranean, and looking beyond some of the root causes in africa, north africa, and the middle east? i would like to think the wilson center for inviting me. what i will be giving you is an operator's perspective, and what i would like to say for stock is that the coast guard is western-hemisphere-focused, but we are globally engaged. have a handful of coast guard men and women who are over mediterranean,he one even in africa, trying to make a difference by working

with our allies and partners to improve maritime security. i will come to the border patrolling issue. i would like to try to frame this summit americans respect -- from an -- frame this american perspective. what we saw was 100,000 cubans who fled to the united states. overwhelminglutely to our first responders, our government, the state of florida, but we did cope with it. in the early 1990's, some of you may remember there was a large haitian and cuban mass migration . those migrations were large. and 30,000, but on one day, the record number of migrants interdicted at sea in the caribbean was 3200. as has been stated earlier, last

week coming into greece, migrants were coming in 10,000 a day. that is epic proportions. too, takei would say, a look at what that means to smaller countries, someone like malta on the front lines. whenrtionally speaking, you look at the populations, one migrant landing in malta is the equivalent of 750 landing in south florida. when a boat, a smaller rubber raft that is grossly overloaded with 100 migrants, and it's only , that's thet dinghy equivalent of 75,000 migrants landing in the u.s. you have concerns. how are we going to accommodate these folks, make sure they are ok medically, that they have food, water, shelter?

that can strap some of these countries quickly. depending on the migrants and if they stay in that country, you can see there's a chance to change some of the culture and fabric of the country. i speak to malta, because i was posted as the coast guard advisor at our embassy there, thealso, i would say migrants, it's a humanitarian crisis, and the european partners and north africans, many of them are doing the best they can to respond. there's also a law enforcement aspect. there's the transnational organized criminal networks that are enabling and are making hundreds of thousands, really millions come of dollars innsporting these migrants unsafe boats, unsafe c states, and it's just for the money. it puts people at great risk.

where does that money go? does it go to the criminals? does it go to militias? does it go to terrorist organizations? with regard to the border patrolling in the mediterranean, having been stationed in italy and malta and knowing the folks with the european union naval forces, as well as the european border control agency, frontex doesn't own any maritime resources. it coordinates a european response to protect the external borders of the european union. it's a massive undertaking because of those sheer numbers, but they've gotten very good. you are all familiar in late 2013 and then in 2014, there were four incidents where migrant boats sunk with more than 1000 lives lost, and that was tragic. the italians really did lead the mare d formed operation

maelstrom. they did that by having a lot of ships and aircraft and personnel assigned to the central mediterranean region. cost.is probably a they may have wanted to be in other places. there is definitely a financial cost. x, they havente their joint operation triton in the central mediterranean. out,thleen pointed although the biggest factor right now is coming from the sea wheren the aegean you have more than 600,000 arriving in greece, that vector still exists in the central mediterranean. there have been more than 140,000 migrants who have come up from libya heading towards

italy and points north. it's a very daunting task. frontex is out there. have eu member states provided forces, whether it is planes, boats, debriefing teams to try to help the collective european effort, and i tip my hat to them. do see more things. one, i would say you cannot overlook the impact this has on merchant shipping. this particular area in the central mediterranean is the crossroads of the mediterranean when you look at merchant traffic coming out of the suez canal and headed towards the straits of gibraltar. it goes right through the area where eu naval forces in the mediterranean, their operation sophia is operating, as well as frontex.

those merchant vessels have a responsibility when there are mariners in distress to render assistance, and they've done a very good job. in fact, 800 times so far this has, a merchant vessel provided assistance. the shipping industry is owed a debt of gratitude, but at the same time, there is a cost associated with that. that is taking their vessel off its regular service. there is an economic cost, but they do it and continue to do that. sea,y, the mediterranean sometimes people lose track that it is a sea. it's not a small lake. the weather gets very challenging and very nasty, starting right now in the fall, and in the winter, it gets very bad. it's important that there be

.irst responders out there it doesn't paint a rosy picture. >> one more quick round of questions. you to talk more about the refugee convention itself. explain what the convention involves and what its requirements are. i would like for you, given your youground and work with when hc, what is the u.s. role in this? responsibility? europeans were saying, where is the u.s.? great question and one i hear a lot as well. the core obligation under the 1951 convention is not to return efugee to a country where his lifefr