a.m.. the politics reporter for the washington examiner will be joining us and sarah ferriss of the hill newspaper to talk about the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in the u.s.. they are going way up. and then we will be focusing on the u.s. census. it could cost of to $17 billion when the census is done ideas from now. topics and guests tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal", newsmakers is next. have a great weekend. [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] >> here on c-span this morning, is next with a look

at the refugee crisis in europe with anne richard, who serves as the assistant secretary of state. then more on the refugee crisis with a discussion at the wilson center. consumera hearing on reviews and anti-disparagement clauses. today from thes state department is the assistant secretary of state anne richard. thank you very much for your time. secretary richard: thank you. host: in studio we have a foreign policy correspondent for reuters and a writer for "the washington post." first question. reporter 1: good morning. there was a recent eu report that suggested -- projected that by the end of next year the european union could see as many as 3 million refugees arrive at

his borders. can you give us a sense of the scale of this crisis and how much worse it can get, even from now? we have seenhard: hundreds of thousands of people from around the world flowing to europe over the last several months. this is not a new migration. there have been people taking tes acrossation rou the mediterranean, from libya to fory, from turkey to greece years now. what is different is the scale of the crisis, that so many have moved in such a short time. many in the western balkans route are coming from syria, but there also people from iraq and fromnistan and many sub-saharan africa as well. this is very much a mixed asylumon, people seeking

and could qualify as refugees under international law, but also people fleeing for economic motives, looking for a better life. that is what they have in common. all are seeking opportunity, seeking a better life in europe. reporter 2: secretary richard, just to talk for a moment about the u.s. response to the refugee crisis from the syrian conflict, the numbers tell the story of a relatively slow response. fy 11, fyl know in 12, fy 13, the united states was taking in numbers in the dozens and it has increased only in the last couple years to 105 four fy 1682 four fy 15. why has the pace been relatively slow? secretary richard: the u.s. is a leader in helping refugees

around the world. we provide the most assistance to refugees of anywhere on earth. that is an important piece of it. less than 1% of the world's refugees will be resettled. newpiece -- the new piece of what we are doing is the syrians. most came in the fiscal year that just ended on september 30. so, we will expect to see the numbers climb in the coming months and years. this is completely in keeping with our leadership on this, working with the u.n. refugee agency overseas. not to it is normal respond to a crisis in the early days by resettling refugees. because in the early days of the crisis, we were really hoping

that the syrians would be able to go home again. as the crisis has stretched on now, for years, coming up on the 50 year anniversary in march, it fth year anniversary march, it is clear even if we piece, --o come to a peace, returning to syria will be slow. so many places have been bombed. hospitals, schools are gone. there will be no quick return to syria. we also tend to bring people who have suffered so much that going home again would not be in the cards for them rid i'm talking about -- would not be in the cards for them. i'm talking about people with medical conditions, families with small children and no husband who need extra help. those are the most vulnerable

people that the u.s. can help, in part by bringing to the united states and providing extra services and care here. , i amer 1: david miliband well aware that the united states will take in more refugees, but he has called for the united states to take in as .any as 100,000 can you explain to us why from a moral or diplomatic or political point of view why the united states can't or shouldn't take in as many as 100,000 refugees? secretary richard: from around the world, we will be taking in 100,000 refugees, but the issue why can't we take more syrians in? impulse to take

and many more syrian refugees and provide a fresh start here. i think most of the leadership of the obama administration are also championing to help refugees. the problem is the process you used to screen them before they get to the u.s. and the resources we put behind that -- it takes between 18 months and 24 months to get a refugee from being referred to to getnterview them their medical clearance, to get their story, their case put together, to have that vetted by nationalcement, agencies, and the all-important interview by the department of homeland security. then they get lined up to come on an airplane to the united states and start their lives over again, with the help of local groups across the u.s. that process right now is what is holding up bringing more.

we are under direction from the white house now to take a very careful look at that process, see if we can accelerate it without cutting corners on security. the goal for this year is still 10,000, not 100,000? secretary richard: we could have a very high number that would have some value, but the decision was made to stick with a number that was realistic where we could deliver on the commitment to bring 10,000. it puts the impetus on us to improve our process a lot this year so we can do even more next year, and it also means we have to do more in terms of leaving the world in refugees for the rest of the world and also providing assistance in the region where 4 million refugees live in turkey, lebanon, iraq, and egypt. canadian2: the new

government announced they would bring in -- do you say that this is unrealistic? secretary richard: i can't comment on the canadian process. in talking to the people who run the process to bring people to the u.s., here, we are working to bring in as many syrians as possible this year, to reach that 10,000 goal and build on that. and we will have a steep ramp up in the numbers that we bring. could we do something bold like bring a lot of refugees on an airplane and fly them overnight to the u.s.? i don't think that is feasible in the post-september 11 world that we live in. i go to the hill of a lot now and talk to members of congress, representatives and senators, and i find them getting two messages. one is we should bring a lot of

refugees to the u.s. the other is we should not do anything to bring someone who has bad intentions for the u.s. keep up very strict security screenings. so, we have to do both. we have to bring as many as possible while proving to members of congress and the american people we are not going to bring in people who could cause harms to them -- cause harm to americans. i know most refugees are good people and are innocent victims of terrorist. they are not terrorists themselves. nevertheless, i have heard the message loud and clear from congress that we cannot cut corners on security in running this program. so, we have to do both. host: secretary richard, the that americans see is that some of these or many of these refugees are young males, some say of fighting age, and

that, some americans see, as a security issue. address who these refugees are and how the united states decides which refugees are going to come to the united states. say,tary richard: like i we run a program that is oriented to bring the most vulnerable cases to the united states. certainly within that there are young men who are part of families. only 2% so far are single, young men of fighting age. that is not the typical refugee we are bringing. i take exception to the idea that if you see young men walking from syria to europe that they are a threat. some of thetually most smart, motivated, entrepreneurial people. as americans, we see this in our history. the people who can survive a long journey like that, the people who want to flee war and

not participate in its, the people who prefer a long life to a short sacrifice are the people potentially,e, great citizens. they want to work. they want to finish their education. they want to live in peace. they want stability in their lives. that is what they are seeking in europe. when people see that movement and see a threat, i see people who could be a force for good. reporter 2: you talked about the huge burden that the crisis placed on the countries neighboring syria -- a country like lebanon, almost a quarter of its population is refugees. jordan is also facing huge burdens and strains because of the strain of accommodating such vast numbers of refugees. turkey has over 2 million refugees in its borders. 8 billion and budget funds on

the -- i am budget funds on the crisis. what can the u.s. due to help these countries as well? and how much of a crisis is it for the neighboring countries of syria? secretary richard: this is where our aid has gone and about half of our aid has gone inside syria to help the people avoid becoming refugees. we have been doing this for years now. we are, in some ways, the best partner to these countries in trying to call attention to their needs, trying to mobilize resources -- not just from the u.s.. providing leader in assistance to these countries, but also diplomatically, we are reaching out to other countries to convince them to join with us to provide assistance in these places where refugees have fled to so that they don't have to continue fleeing. what we have been able to do as

-- international community the people who come across those keptrs have been fed, warm, sheltered. but there are too many children out of school. there are too many adults who jobs andand cannot get are forced into the underground economy because they are not authorized to work. these are people who want to take care of their families. the more we can do to support the refugees to have fuller lives and the more we can do to help societies hosting those, i think that will really help the stability of this entire region in circling syria. in your testimony on the hill recently, you talked process, diplomatic pushing the countries who were not doing more. who is not doing enough?

: i would likeard to see more aid come from the gulf states and are relatively wealthy like lebanon. jordan. we would also like to see more from the so-called bric's. these are the nations that should and could be doing more on the humanitarian side. arshad: thank you for that. and if i am not mistaken, the numbers showing how much has pledged has been going down and i believe in the current calendar year the pledge is only at 45% of the current need for this year and in previous years it was higher. so, here is the question.

as the magnitude of the crisis has worsened, the response of the global community appears to have diminished. why is that? secretary richard: you are absolutely right -- the response to the appeal for syria, but also responses to appeals for crises all around the world have been week and have left what we are calling the 60% gap of funding that ought to becoming in and is not. the fault is not the fault of americans. like i say, americans are leading the world in providing assistance to these crises, but collectively the world is not doing enough. now, we are seeing a quick turnaround in europe on this. they are trying to raise more money to provide to turkey and other countries in the region and to ensure that food ratios continue and there were not these certain cutbacks in assistance to the refugees as

winter is going on. there is a shift going on. but it's still not enough. that is why i would like to see more contributions from countries that are not traditional donors and more consistent funding herein and year out instead of one time contributions and we do not hear from countries for a while. we would really like to hear from countries that are engaged endeavor.manitarian and also, we would like to see more private sector giving. are one of the few positives with the crises of the last few weeks and months. i think the public is now paying attention to what is going on and coming to realize how many innocent people, how many innocent families are caught up in this crisis and really deserving of support. so, we would love to build on the impulse by ordinary

americans to do something and to .ee more private giving it's not really the u.s.'s government responsibility to the u.s. has, but ,et up a website, refugees.gov to do more. secretary richard, what could or should be done on the smuggling side of this? winter is coming. it is getting colder. those people are in more urgency to make his voyage. what can be done or what should be done by these countries about the smuggling situation? secretary richard: what i have found is, in talking to europeans and also people in other parts of the world -- in may, i was in southeast asia talking to governments about getting into boats from

bangladesh and from burma -- responding to smugglers, cracking down on smugglers is something that countries feel comfortable doing. they have law-enforcement. they have coast guard. and certainlyenue one piece of the response that makes a lot of sense. but we need to make sure that when coast guard's respond, they do that -- when coast guards response, they do that in a humane way. victims of smugglers, the clients of smugglers are not criminals. they are innocent people trying be anvive. there has to appropriate response. yes, we would encourage more and lawcoast guards enforcement and border patrol to be the george and to help people who are en route, seeking a better life.

host: ishaan. as you suggested, the refugee crisis has been politically polarizing in the u.s. it has led to comments about the .hreat that they pose how relevant has this been to you? secretary richard: let me point out the difference between the discussions in the u.s. and the discussions in europe. in the u.s., we have a tradition of taking in refugees and no one is challenging that tradition. on both sides of the aisle, as the rep and for numerous administrations, republicans and support strong funding and the continuation of a program to bring refugees to the

united states. what we are hearing our concerns memberscurity from some of congress, and many of them are unfamiliar with the program. the more they learn about the theyam, i am confident will come out supporting it even more. but we have to give them the best possible answers. the very -- we have to convince them we are doing everything humanly possible to screen out bad actors and keep them out of this program. we brought 3 million refugees to the united states since the 1970's. in very, very few, a miniscule number, have had that intention. most of made perfectly fine residence of the u.s. and many go back to become citizens and give back more than we give them by offering them this opportunity. inside europe, as you pointed out, there is less of a tradition to do this, so, there

is a lot more fiery rhetoric that we are hearing from all sides. so, for us, the challenge is what can the u.s. due to be most allies to our european as they try to come to terms with this in norma's of people walking in, seeking -- this in this enormous wave of people, walking in, seeking asylum. u.n.ve to work with the refugee agency and other organizations. we are providing assistance through them to help -- like macedonia, like serbia, like greece, so we can make sure that services are provided to refugees as they cross borders and attempt to enter europe. host: secretary richard, we have

time for a few more questions. in europe, the british government yesterday said that the migrant crisis engulfing europe is likely to last for 20 years. what does that mean for europe? what does that mean for the united states? secretary richard: i think it is true there are no short-term fixes to the situation that has developed over the past couple of years. and to the large numbers moving. what we want to see though is a whole range of things to help these people. some of it is aid to countries that are not getting economic opportunity. some of it is diplomacy in and around the syrian crisis so we can move toward an end to the horrible violence that has beset that country. theto call him down situation in the neighboring countries. some of it is continued humanitarian assistance. some of it is resettling

refugees. some of it could be and should be the legal avenues for migrants to go to europe and work, to send money home through remittances, the legally working in these countries, and moving in enjoy theretire rest of their lives. that ist one thing going to change the situation. i think it has to be moving in a differentseveral directions and wants. this is a role that the u.s. can play. the u.s. can foster looking at the global dimensions of the refugee and migration issue and also pull together the right people working with the united nations, working with other world leaders to develop smart approaches. it will not fix things overnight, but it will help to cut down on the number of people who are willing to take horrible lives,endanger their own

your family's lives, because they feel they have no other option. arshad: two quick questions. food rations, have a they already been cut in recent months because of the insufficiency of the pledges? and earlier in our conversation, you talked about the possibility there might be a diplomatic solution within months, but even if there were one, many of these people would not be able to go back home anytime soon because of the devastation within syria. one, what is your sense of what are the chances for a diplomatic solution within months? and two, is it essentially inevitable that most of these people will have to live through homes,ter not in their and possibly not even in refugee camps, but rather living on the streets in neighboring countries? on the foodchard: assistance issue, the u.s. is

the leader in supporting the world food program. what we're saying is they did not get enough funding from the rest of the world. they had to cut rations so they were going -- they were targeting those most in need. it may have been a trigger that contributed to the large numbers walking to europe. more funding has come from other countries so that the rations are now being expanded back up, but i would not discuss the world food program situation as stable. i think they are very dependent on significant funding this year because they are doing so many things in so many parts of the world. winter is coming. wheninter can be harsh you're not living in a proper shelter. it aid workers know this. this is why they start in the summer months to prepare for

winter. there is a great deal of effort now to make sure that people are not on the streets, that they have some kind of protection , if they arer , if they are refugees living in afghanistan or pakistan. part of the problem -- part of the problem is the needs are so great right now. will there be a diplomatic solution? i pray that is the case. i know my boss, secretary kerry, is doing his best to get us there. it involves a lot of moving pieces. i think the secretary is an . ofmist and won't give up that means the rest of us have to double down and work even harder and see how far we can get in the coming weeks to bring the world together and develop some kind of path forward to put

an end to the suffering of so many people. i just want to follow-up on one thing you mentioned earlier. you said the gulf states have not done enough, or could be doing more. criticism we have heard for a. what are they not doing? what would more robust assistance from the gulf states look like? secretary richard: thanks for asking me about that. i do know it probably sounded like the gulf states are a real block. i would put kuwait at the top of the list. they hosted the first three pledging conference is for

humanitarian assistance to syria that raised a lot of money. so, they have made a lot of difference. and the united arab emirates are also providing a lot of assistance. but not all of the gulf states are doing that. and like i say, in the past, what we have seen is the gulf states funding can be very intermittent's. very generous announcement one day for one part of the world and then nothing for couple years for other parts of the world. so, this is why i don't really consider the state as fully invested in the international humanitarian system. and i don't know what these countries can be convinced to become part of the international humanitarian system the way i would like to see that happen. but i think we have to try. we have to try to invite them to be more regular donors and more

involved in what the united nations does and what some of the world's top humanitarian organizations, nongovernmental organizations, red crescent movement are doing. arshad: are you talking about saudi arabia and qatar there? secretary richard: right. richard, we are out of time. we appreciate you being this week's guest. secretary richard: thank you very much. host: let me return to what you word from the assistant secretary. let's start where she ended in these gulf states. why do you think that is important? i appreciated she was willing to be as explicit as she was about that. diplomats are usually more cautious. as to -- i don't know the numbers about who is giving what, but for an american official actually point to a

country or two and saving need to be doing more is fairly blunt . so, i was struck by that. it's interesting. these are some of the wealthiest countries in the region. they are clearly stakeholders in certain negative ways in the syrian crisis, and there is a since they are not doing a thing. the problem is a number of these countries are not signatories to the u.n. convention, so as the secretary was saying, they do not have an immediate role in this whole process. but it is clear these are countries that have the wherewithal, have resources, have the logistical capability hasaudi arabia organizes the jj every year. thursday says they could do much more. host: do you sense a frustration on the part of the united states? and what is going on that the

assistant is essentially calling these countries out? arshad: i think you hear a little frustration there, perhaps. one thing in their defense, i believe the saudi's have argued have arguedsaudis they have done much more than israel is. i think the problem is whether the money gets funneled through the u.n. system or on a private or bilateral basis. the reason that the u.s. and other countries want it to goes through the u.n. system is it allows them to prioritize and make sure the money goes where it is needed most. it may be that they are indeed doing more than is commonly understood, but the americans also feel like if you put all of the money in one pot, you can give it up more efficiently. ishaan: and to be sure, there are probably lots of things frustrating her. home domestically, there is a very polarized partisan

conversation about the role the u.s. should lay in resolving this crisis -- play in resolving this crisis and aiding syrian refugees. host: let's stop about a timeline for peace. she was talking about a diplomatic solution there, possibly in the coming months. what are the two of you hearing about a solution to what now will be five years of civil war in syria? arshad: i have been to vienna a number of times, including about of weeks ago for one round talks on this. that round included the united states, saudi arabia, turkey, and russia. and the state department officials have been quite explicit that this is an iterative process. one meeting, two meetings, there is supposed to be a third meeting next week -- is not going to bring about a solution. i don't think they have any idea

whether it might be achievable .n months it wouldn't surprise me if it took longer than that, because there is a sharp division, notably over whether assad can stay in power. thean: in the context of crisis, this is not even a question of months. the state of syria has unraveled to the point that it is a question of decades. i was in turkey recently. officials there think of it a -- think of it as a two or three decade aftermath. --arshade richard , ishaan, think you both for being part of "newsmakers." can do anything you want to do. they used to ask me if i thought

they first lady should be paid. i think you can do anything you want to. it is so much. it is such a great opportunity. so, i would advise any first lady to do what she wanted to do. learned,er thing i you're going to be criticized no matter what you do. i can say -- i could have stayed ,t the white house, poured tea had receptions, i would've been criticized, as much as i was criticized outside for what i did. and i got a lot of criticism. you learn to live with it, as i said earlier. never let it influence you. >> she was her husband's political partner from their first campaign. she attended president gardner -- president carter's cabinet meetings. their partnership on health and peacekeeping issues has expanded for decades.

roslyn carter, tonight on c-span's original series "first --ies: influence an image influence an image," examining their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama. 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. tv --feature of c-span c-span's book tv's or coverage of fairs and festivals. coming up, book tv will be live from the 32nd annual miami book fair. our coverage starts on saturday, november 21st, at 10:00 a.m. eastern. our coverage starts with coverage of "march: book 2." peggy noonan joins us.

judith miller joins us. and news man ted koppel talking about his book "lights out." take calls onwill his book. -- jjoy and read well oy-ann reid will take calls on her book. make sure to follow and we does @book ontv and @cspan on twitter. inmore on the refugee crisis europe now with a discussion from the wilson center. speakers look at the economic challenges of the situation and how governments can better despond to be mass migration. this is about an hour and 45 minutes.

>> let me first of all welcome you to the wilson center here this morning. , andme is james hollifield i am a public policy fellow year of the wilson center. i don't know how familiar you guys are with the wilson center. my normal job is in texas where i am a professor of political science at smu in dallas. it is nirvana for scholars like me to come and spend time at the wilson center. this is my sabbatical year. i would like if everyone would take a moment in silence your phones. welcome you tome the wilson center and point out that the wilson center was chartered by congress as the

presidentemorial to woodrow wilson. it is the nation's key nonpartisan policy forum for tackling research and open dialogue to form actionable ideas for congress, the administration, and the broader policy community. going to look at europe's refugee credit -- challenge, the response to the international crisis, and i it is point out that posted by many programs in addition to the global europe program. it is also sponsored by the middle east program. and also the global sustainability and resilience program. of you arem sure all

aware, and incredibly difficult in time.and time -- the conflicts that have been across what was called the arc of instability from west africa, sub-saharan africa all the way to style -- to southeast asia and the asia and the agent continent. i have said this is a multilevel crisis. it is first and foremost a humanitarian crisis. somewhat say a humanitarian disaster. you have in many countries in europe, 10,000 people a day arriving 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 exit this?

s? exodu of course this is a tremendous political and policy challenge. it is also a crisis 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 in front of you. i just want to say a few words about them and then we're going to go straight to the panel, wet so you understand -- and will go straight to the panel. just so you understand, i will introduce them. each will make brief remarks, and then i will have a couple rounds of questions with them, a little dialogue within the panel, and then i will open it up for your questions. first of all, i want to introduce philipp ackermann, someone i have gotten to know quite well in the brief time he

has been in the united states. he is sitting just to the left of kathleen newland, who i will introduce in a moment. he is the minister and deputy at the germanon embassy in washington, d c, basically the number two german diplomat in the united states. you may be surprised to learn that he has a phd in our history from bonn university, which is great training, i suspect, for being a diplomat. the other thing i want to headedht about him, he to afghanistan and pakistan. he has a deep involvement in southeast asia. among other things, he worked as the speechwriter for two foreign ministers, and he oversaw the

political department of the german embassy in new delhi. so, a lot of experience in south asia. secondly, i want to introduce the gentleman just to his left, charles gati. the planning on staff of the u.s. department of ,tate, published many books including "failed illusions: moscow, washington, budapest" and also "hungary and the soviet bloc." he will have something to say about the hunt gary and position, the hungarian role. hunt gary and position, the hungarian role. he has a new book about the strategy and statecraft of the

leader. to his left, there is cap tin .rian lisko he is a career aviator. a very decorated flyer. among other things, he has fleet inth the sixth naples, italy and is a liaison to the european border control agency. he has a lot of front-line experience looking at what is going on in northwest africa, the middle east, the mediterranean, and many front-line european states. finally, and then we will segue to the panel, i want to introduce kathleen newland, someone whose work i have known followed many years,

her career, but actually we have never met until today, ironically. we have spent much of our career lifetime working on this issue. cofounder and senior fellow of the migration policy institute. she sits on the board of overseers of the international rescue committee. she is on the board of directors nh cr. usa she is worked for the world bank, secretary. i thought it was interesting she cofounded an organization called humanitarian's with lord davis oh when in london. many, manyauthor of books. i'm not going to list them all. the we're going to start with newland, and i just want to ask her if she can help us

understand the nature and the origins of this crisis and give us some perspective on this. kathleen, let's start with you. : thank you. i am looking forward to this discussion very much. withlly want to start where jim started and that is the multidimensional nature of this crisis. interesthere goes my -- my introduction. since you were so brief, i think i can elaborate a little, reiterating this is a andnitarian crisis, a legal policy crisis, especially for european states, a political crisis, for individual countries, and at the eu level, which also makes it a solidarity crisis. , and i think that

is something we will get into in the discussion. on the humanitarian crisis, i think more than even the numbers come out which are extremely high -- more than even the numbers, which are extremely high and change daily in quite 750,000, but more than people have arrived in europe this year. in total of people arriving october was higher than the total for all last year. think it's not just the number, but the pace that is overwhelming. the capacity of european countries to receive people in a humane way. so far, this year, we are sea,aching 3500 deaths at which will come out at about the same total.

the death rates have gone down, and i think that is a real tribute to the rescue at sea effort that european countries and others, including the u.s., have mounted. brian can maybe talk a little bit more about that. the other problem in addition to the pace is that there is no in and in sight. this induces panic in the response system. not only is there no end in sight, but there is every reason to believe that the pace will continue or accelerate with the advent of russian bombing and destabilization of front lines around aleppo. more people are fleeing into turkey and from there, there is every reason to expect they will try to move on. i had a long conversation chrterday with the head of un

operations in jordan. he says people are leaving, not because they are starting, not because of cuts in the world food program allocation -- although that is a factor -- but they are in despair. and they demand of themselves that they try to find a sprott -- a prospect for their families, for their futures, and they don't see that prospect in , which willbanon not allow them to work, in turkey, where things are very restrictive, and so on. the humanitarian crisis. the legal and policy crisis in europe is, you know, in the face of this kind of pace and numbers, how do european countries meet their obligations under the 1951 refugee convention? how do they do it in the face of ?hese numbers

sweetness expecting twice the number of asylum seekers this .ear that it had last year which was twice the number they had the year before. there is exponential growth. crisis aroundicy how to deal with this number of asylum seekers. let's not forget that not everyone is syrian. about three quarters of the arrivals to greece are syrian. are fromlargest number afghanistan, which has been deeply destabilized and in pakistan, somalia, iraq, and some others. the arrivals to italy, which is now, peopleeadlines tend to forget about it, are much more from sub-saharan africa. deal with this? that is the legal and the policy crisis? crisis, you're

aware the rise in individual countries. even within the countries that bothbeen most generous, sweden and germany, the most generous, have toughened up their asylum policies and practices in recent weeks. and that reflects, i think, the ,olidarity crisis within the eu eu isa real 2-track theging with britain, country is becoming extremely resistant to burden sharing and heavilyen falling most on sweden, germany, austria, and other countries. let me leave you with the question. institutions, new

processes, new laws, new international agreements? need new laws. on the others, i would say absolutely yes. what we had in place now is not working set us back early. because it is mostly aimed at eight short-term response. response, the care and maintenance of refugees. and when you think of the long-term contributions of these people, not just the immediate burden from european demographics, looking at the pattern for these people with no alternative to smuggling routes -- family reification, these are the type of big, long-term ideas we need to be thinking about. thank you,eld:

kathleen. i want to quickly segue to our german representative here and ask him to talk about the german and european response. philipp: thanks, jim. thank you for introducing me so kindly. you can see that i am no expert on immigration, but i am happy to talk about the german experience. let me make a few short points. very, the numbers are disparate right now. we have a rough estimate. and what we hear from our administration back home is so 710,000 people have asked for protection and asylum in germany, and this year we have dayt 7000 to 10,000 a coming into germany, every day.

we have also nigerians coming and others. three% are from these countries. and it's not stopping. we somehow hoped actually that the winter would slow down a bit the inflow, but the fact is it's not happening. there is a because very unfortunate human trafficking situation that says germany is closing the borders. you better get to germany now. otherwise you will not get -- that is the situation, as we see it. now, i think we expect this two nighteen 800,000 -- to 900,000 refugees.

secondly, we have to admit that our organization is not laid out to cope with this flow. the german administration is very solid, but it's also not very flexible. -- all of ourhed institutions are really stretched. i think it is fair to say without the help of institutionalized society and individuals, we could not have coped with the influx of migrants 04. it is amazing to see that somehow it works. these people get some shelter. iron 50% of german somehow are involved in this refugee crisis -- i heard that 50% of germans somehow are involved in this refugees crisis. the population is really contributing to that. a point weoint is

hear very often in america -- what's we think of these security now? -- what do we think of the security now? frankly, this is not our first priority in this case. we do not have the privilege to vet the people who come. unlike you. we are there. we see the danger in situations with terrorists or by terrorists. is not the biggest problem. we are pretty sure there are a couple of bad guys amongst them, but we have experience with muslim extremism in germany -- about 750 foreign fighters of german origin moved to syria and fought there. this is something we have experience with and we can cope with this. our problem in terms of security to liveach those people or abide by our laws.

learn that kids are educated in germany. theyo make them understand are part of our culture. how to make them understand that freedom is a fundamental right of every person. part of ouruals are society. there is nothing wrong about them. this is a security problem because that leads to aggressions and tensions. i think it is a much more important problem to cope with than the sort of terrorism idea. my fourth point is -- and that is perhaps we have to look at this very, very clearly. mood point. you've seen in summer, the welcome in germany. people came and handed out diapers and stuff. this certainly is not as strong

as it used to be. we still have a very, very contributing, extremely helpful civil society, but more and more -- the level of people contributing has been dropping in recent months. and people feel threatened. the crime rates have not gone up in the last month, that they are threatened in their lifestyles, that there isuse a very famous village in northern germany which has 100 inhabitants. refugees,m gets 760 and these people are exposed to 760 refugees and they feed them and it's on easy and not comfortable. this is something we have to look at very closely and we have to deal with that.

time, to say at the same like other-- on european countries, germany so far has not had the -- unlike other european countries, it germany is so far has not had -- we have had demonstrations in some part of the country every monday. we have had people demonstrate and get a lot of attention. , it is normal in a way. i'm very surprised is not more controversial. i have to say one thing i found -- a ceo inable this very building, and he said that this refugee influx is a huge opportunity. he says, this might cause the

second economic miracle. he said very openly that they they support the chancellor 100%. were savings went to the shareholders -- he says they vacate things to .helter refugees german business is very optimistic. i think the mood is better. my last point is, and this is the question in the room, what are we going to do? you can go like this for another year. we would not be able to handle it for another year. hereve a couple of tools in europe and the federal government are working on that. you have seen