a fearer to -- tear for the unborn. i can only hope. and pray. i yield back. mr. smith: thank you very much. you know, martin luther king's niece has had two abortions and she made one of the most passionate comments, speeches, i've ever heard, when she said, how can my uncle's dream survive if we murder the children? and she is now pro-life and she says, the other could victim in every abortion -- co-victim in every abortion, besides the bean, is the bop -- baby, is the mom. and she's a victim herself. thank you for reminding us. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from illinois, a great leader on pro-life, first in the legislature in illinois and now here in washington. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. smith. thank you for your leadership and thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to paint a picture for you and take you to a scene about a year ago now and it was a sunday in chicago and i was invited to be a speaker at the march for life downtown

chicago. and got to the speech a little bit early and nobody was there and i was kind of looking around and all i saw were a small gaggle of pro-abortion protesters. and they looked quite pathetic, actually. there were not very many of them. they looked angry. they had signs that were quite ugly. and i won't repeat the phrases that were on the signs. and it was quite a pathetic sight. but i was observing them. and i was kind of waiting for the event to happen. and then i heard something. i started to hear music. and it was a really good sound. and i heard the music and the music grew and it became more dynamic and louder and louder and louder and more exciting and then thousands of pro-lifers came around the corner. and it was a sight to behold. these were young people, they had balloons, they had yellow and white balloons, they had beautiful posters of little

babies, and there was a joy to them. and i looked at the contrast between these two images. you've got young, dynamic, vibrant and joyful, and pathetic on the other side. and i thought to myself, if i needed any convincing, i don't, i'm convinced by the witness of these people. i choose to be with the joyful people. and so now where are we in history? we're 43 years into this. we're 43 years into the scandal of roe vs. wade. and yet we were told, the country was told in 1973, when this decision came down, that this is all settled. that this is all done. and that there's nothing more to be done about it. and the supreme court doctrine, and those of who you are opponents, you need to get over your opposition and just move along, thank you. but there was something that was unsettling, not just about the jurisprudence, but about the underlying moral claim upon which roe vs. wade was built. and that was, it was built on a

lie. and the lie was that there is nothing significant in a mother's womb when she's pregnant and that of course is not just a lie, it's an absurdity. and so what's happened over the past 43 years? science is our friend. the more people come to understand, even nonscientific people, they see the ultrasounds, you've heard testimony from people, and they say, they're a life. that's a baby, that's a person. that's a boy. that's a girl. and that is worthy of me defending. that little child. and so the scandal of the planned parenthood videos are actually a seminal moment, i think, in this great debate that's under way. because what you've noticed is, there's not very many people that were defending the planned parenthood videos. even people that purport to be pro-choice basically said, whoa, i didn't seen up for. that but yet, that is exactly what abortion is.

the planned parenthood videos took the mask off of the scandal of abortion and said, when you dehuman, when you say something doesn't matter, then you can do anything you want to it. and that's the scandal of the planned parenthood videos. and so what is happening now, there's a growing recognition among americans, many of whom probably haven't thought much about this question for a long, long time. but now the provocative nature s them to. deos force and the forcing of having to deal with this and reconciling their own understanding of science, their own deep feelings, their humanity with the recognition of what is the nature of this thing that is going on, they say, you know what, i think i'm leaning toward the pro-life side. and we clearly see this in the data. younger voters, much more pro-life. and why is that? they recognize the truth of the science and they understand the nature of the humanity and they understand spiritually,

actually, what's going on. so i was sent to congress by a lot of pro-life people. i was sent to congress by pro-life people that placed their confidence in me. and i'm here to thank them and to bear witness and to encourage them as they go out for the march for life in chicago or the march for life in washington or the march for life anywhere, i say thanks be to god for these people bho w.h.o. have been faithful and true -- who have been faithful and true, radsless of what the world has said about them, and history will exonerate the pro-life movement. i thank you for your time and faithfulness and i yield back. mr. smith: thank you very much. that was an outstanding comments on behalf of the right to life and on behalf of history as well. and it will judge this movement as the movement of human rights. and we will prevail over time. i want to thank you. i'd like to yao yield to austin scott, the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: i too want to thank

you for your work on this issue. certainly one of the most passionate people i've seen on this issue in my years. i was thinking about what i might say, my wife sent me a text and to follow up on what mr. roskam was saying, she asked me if i could face time. so i stepped in the room and i face timed with my wife and our beautiful little 10-month-old daughter. and in 1973, state of the art technology was the walky-talky. i can't help but believe that the court ruling would be totally different if a 3-d ultrasound picture like i got to see of my baby when she was 20 weeks old were put on the screen and a judge got the opportunity to say, what do you call that? five fingers, five toes, eyes, ears, lips, nose, you can see them, you can see the hair, the technology, technology is

continuing to prove what many of us in this country have known all along. and that is that life begins at conception. and that god has given value to each and every single life. i just want to take one more minute to say thank you to the men and women that get up every morning and that work at our pregnancy care centers and help encourage those young mothers and those young families to have the child and to love that child and to understand that it is a gift from god. there's no telling how many men and women have been saved because of those volunteers at our pregnancy care centers throughout this country. so i want to say thank you to them. i want to say thank you to the people at the national right to life and in my state, georgia right to life, georgia life alliance, for the work that they've done to continue to educate people on that. and i want you to know, despite -- this fight continues. this is a stain on our country. it's a sin that god is not

going to allow us to get away with. and we as a nation need to accept that life begins at conception and we as congress have a responsibility to do everything that we can to protect it. with that, mr. smith, i want to yield. mr. smith: thank you so very much for those comments. i couldn't agree more that, that if the court, the megatrend in society is to embrace the unborn and it is the ultrasound technology, the womb to the window -- window to the womb, i should say, that has made the difference. so thank you for your outstanding comments. i'd like to now yield to the prime sponsor of the partial birth abortion ban, one of the most hideous methods of abortion that awakened many americans to the violence that is inherent in every abortion, the man who wrote that law, steve chabot, the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you. mr. speaker, i want to thank you, mr. smith, for your leadership. chris smith has been a leader

and in a leadership position on this issue since before henry hyde kind of took up the mantle for henry. so thank you for doing, that chris, we appreciate that greatly. i've got a birthday coming up in a couple of weeks. it happens to be on january 22. which is the day that that horrific decision, the roe v. wade decision, was issued by the united states supreme court. and on my birthday, now, i can't help but think about all those who are not among us because their mother made a different decision than my mom made about, almost 63 years ago, and because of that, those little innocent unborn children aren't with us, because of that decision. my district is cincinnati. and we've had some leaders, some of the original founding leaders of the pro-life movement there, especially dr. jack and barb which willky, who passed away within the last couple of years, but they were leaders, the torch has been

taken up by people like paula westwood, who now heads up cincinnati's right to life. we have made some progress and i was honored to play a role to play a role which is now the law of the land. but when we consider the practices of organizations like planned parent hood and what goes on there in their facilities. all across america, it shows we have a long way to go. but as discouraging as it can get sometimes we must never give up in our fight to protect those, the most innocent among s, the unborn.

mr. smith: noonching you, mr. chabot. thank you. i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend, mr. smith, for all his work on this issue. when i was a young boy unable to read and my mother would read ories from the bible, so enlightening and as i begin to read in elementary school, i ding the bible for myself, was so perplexed to read that there were generations, thousands of years ago that so did he involved and degenerated would oint that they

sacrifice their own children on he altar of other ido lmp s. and it appeared clear that there is not much that is more diss pass cabble to god and it makes sense to anyone who believes there could be a god, there could be nothing more diss pass cabble than the taking of innocent life and that's what you find in the bible. they have been allowed to go on for generations for years. but when the wrath came, it was judgment that was truly ungodly. and since 1973, the realization that here in america we have been sacrificing the most

innocent -- before they were ven capable of saying a lie, stealing any wrong whatsoever, their lives are taken away from them and then to further realize, you have some legislators that have fought to prevent children that were attempting to be aborted that were born alive and they fought to let them die even after they are born alive and you realize once such legislator has been voted into the white house. and it is a bit scary for where we are in america. i know there are some that say, you are a man, you can't complain about the sacrifice of unborn children on the altar of inconvenience. i'm not a slave and never have been, but i would hope if i were

alive 200 years ago i would have stood with john convincey adams to say how can we keep blessing america that we are treating them with bondage. i'm alive today and we need to stop the sacrifice of the most innocent and most helpless. our judgment will come back. mr. smith: i thank my friend. . want to conclude, mr. speaker some day, future generations will look back in america and wonder how and why such a seemingly a society endowed with education advance science and opportunity could have failed to protect the most innocent and

the most inconvenient. history will not look favorably on today's abortion culture. we must work tirelessly to place it with the culture of life. this has shattered the myth that unborn children are lobs of tissue and abortion is anything but an act of violence. i met with an african-american with a degree from harvard who spoke and said the lives that ought me to that day and its aftermath are crystal clear. media campaigns and endless repetition led to the reverse of the death of my first child. at age 20 i had no incling of

the darkness i was supposed to enter. i did find healing. when i found the distortions about fetal development, double speak about choice, rights and planned and wanted children, i understood the reality and victimhood of my aborted child. i understood the choosing. when i embraced the truth, the truth set me free and i gained inner peace. there are two victims, the unborn and the

a live look at the u.s. capitol, the annual march under way and marchers have been walking past the north end of the u.s. capitol on their way to the supreme court a rally set for their in about 45 minutes at three eastern time, the march for life continuing despite the snow today in the nation cost capital. tonight we will show you the annual march for life rally from earlier today that took place on the national mall here in washington. that is coming up at 8:00 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. and a live look here at the white house, where president

obama and the first family are planning to stay during the snowstorm. yesterday white house press secretary josh earnest was asked by an abc reporter what the president's plans were for the blizzard and he responded, my guess is the president will stay warm and toasty here inside the white house. back on wednesday the presidential motorcade got stuck in an unexpected snowstorm that resulted in an hour plus commute from andrews air force base. to the white house -- house. coming up tomorrow on "washington journal," bradley olson will discuss the u.s. stock market and its impact on oil prices and the energy sector. looksthat, harold pollack at how single-payer health care would work and whether it could be instituted along with the health care law. we will also take your phone calls and look at your facebook comments and tweets as well. "washington journal" live saturday morning here on c-span.

campaign 2016 taking you on the road to the white house. this weekend, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern, live coverage from nashua, new hampshire for the first in the nation presidential town hall with eight gop candidates. ohio governor john kasich, new jersey governor chris christie, carly fiorina, former pennsylvania senator rick santorum, and florida senator marco rubio. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, live coverage of a campaign rally in waterloo, iowa, with texas senator ted cruz and tv and radio host glenn beck. sunday afternoon at 1:00, live coverage from muscatine, iowa, and a rally for donald trump. for the complete weekend c-span schedule, go to our website, www.c-span.org. c-span's campaign 2016 is

taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. monday, february 1, our live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span2. calls, tweets,ne and texts. at 8:00 p.m. eastern we will take you to a republican caucus on c-span and a democratic caucus on c-span 2. be sure to stay with c-span and join in on the conversation on c-span radio and at c-span.org. next, a discussion on the role that foreign policy will play in the democratic and republican presidential nominations. panelists also look at the impact of donald trump on the 2016 race and whether bernie sanders can win the nomination while focusing on other issues great held by the council on foreign relations, this is an hour. >> good morning. my name is bruce stokes and i will be the moderator for our

discussion today on foreign policy and the 2016 primaries. i want to welcome all of you intrepid people who have raved the threat of the storm today to make it out here. i'm looking forward to our conversation about the storm and are primaries and what it means to us. is of the real questions whether this will be one of those rare instances where this is a foreign policy election driven in large part by foreign policy rather than domestic issues. we have a number of experts with charlie, old friends, cook, the editor and publisher of the cook political report.

and, the director of studies and chair here at the council. pewa longtime partner with on surveys of cfr members. we will have an initial period where i lead a conversation of here, but we will have ample time for you folks to ask your questions and make comments. i will get you out of here at 9:30 as promised. this is on the record, we are simulcast or life casting this, so this is not a typical cfr event where it is on what we used to call chatham house rules. thank you.

but, let me start it off by pewing charlie cook, the research center's survey in december found that for the first time in years, national security rather than the domestic economy was the leading concern of the public. this was in the wake of paris and in the wake of san bernardino, and specifically terrorism was the issue that people were most concerned about. gallup came out with a survey in january that said concern about terrorism was down a bit. a was back up as the number one issue. do you anticipate that this will be an american election where foreign policy plays if not the most important role, a disproportionate role, or will it be domestic issues that drive the electorate? answer is no. i do not think this will be a

foreign policy driven election unless some event in the 60 days or so leading into the election trade richard asked us to announce that anybody here this morning, it is a 25% discount on year.cfr dues for next americans rarely vote on foreign policy issues, and it has to be a dramatic and immediate event happening leading into the election. bernardino certainly did spike it up, but i think we can get under this differently. john edwards used to say that we have two countries, the have and have-nots. there is a democratic country and independent country and a republican country. republican attitudes towards foreign policy is near apoplectic, x essential threat to our country, things are on the edge, we're about to go over the abyss.

independence in the middle but a little closer to democrats. it depends who you are talking to, how big a role that is going to play. , during the primaries, we just did a poll in new hampshire that came out this week and hillary does best on foreign policy over bernie sanders. the opposite on the republican side. in the primaries -- to your point, republicans are making foreign policy an important issue and it is playing out that way, which i think is giving donald trump more things to talk of thehat some establishment republicans have less to say and it's giving him an advantage in the primary. >> which is ironic, we ought to savor this for a second. the surveys show that there

is a real partisan split on issues,policy republicans are more concerned about china than democrats. republicans are more concerned about terrorism and the war on terror, don't think it's working, then democrats. republicans are more supportive of sending troops to the middle east than democrats. as a chinese friend of mine recently, his assessment of the republican candidates was that they believed in omnidirectional bellicosity. [laughter] the question is, on the directional -- omnidirectional bellicosity, if it resonates with the electorate. you think that republicans seem to be more this,, and in response to more willing to use force than democrats? things happening

at the same time. as you headed out of 2015 and into 2016, the economy was generally doing better. if you are a republican looking for issues you might be able to use against democrats, perhaps foreign policy might be more effective, particularly if over the course of the next 11, 12 months the economy does recover unemployment, with hitting recent lows as branded 2015. that is a part of it in terms of tactics of the candidates, but it also resonates with republicans and trump's message from the beginning is clearly playing on concern and fears that republican voters have been excessive baited by san bernardino, and he's taking advantage of that concern and that fear and it is working. outt's also worth pointing

that republicans traditionally worry more about foreign-policy defense, national security issues than democrats. what charlie pointed to, this very strong partisan difference between democrats and republicans and also independents are in the middle important,sues are issuing -- existing before 2016. i agree with charlie's opened point -- opened point about this not being a foreign-policy election. >> the unpredictability is something that -- who knows what is going to happen in the world in august, september, october 2016. planning a debate we had in las vegas in the middle of december. it was going to be a debate that covered a whole range of topics, the mystic, maybe social issues,

foreign policy, terrorism. that debate came about a week and a half after san bernardino, a couple weeks after the second paris attack, and it became 100% a commander in chief debate. that is the only subject we did because that is what the news events dictated. >> it's important to keep in mind, the fact that something matters to the voters does not vote.t matters to the we have to focus on to what extent we talk about foreign-policy. the case of the republican primaries, since republicans are hitting the same basic theme, obama is too weak, we must be strong. i do not see differentiating on the republican candidates. i do not see any evidence that is true. the final thing to keep in mind, most people already know who they are going to vote for.

they may not know it, but they do. we look at all of our social science, research. people who tend to vote democrat generally tend to vote democrat. indeed, sort of the movable middle has over the years shrunk in size. to go back to the 1960's, perhaps 15% of voters in a presidential election from cycle to cycle may switch. now it is 75%. that's a very good point. if you look at the overall self identification numbers, we've never had more people self identify as independents, at least in our work. if you look at leaners to the republican party, the democratic , we are divided but the middle is not nearly as big. they call themselves independents because they do not

want to be associated with independent political parties. >> there are people that have some deep-seated psychological need to call themselves independents. functionally speaking, they are partisans. an independently and stomach read votes virtually as democratic as a real democrat. sure chris matthews would not want to say this now. say, we have two parties in this country. we have a mommy party and a daddy party. is a caring,ty nurturing party concerned about touchy-feely stuff and a daddy party is tough defense, tough on crime. it's a gross exaggeration, plus very sexist. proofis some underlying

there, there are themes in each party that are very real. it is perfectly natural for republicans to want to rattle cages a little bit more on the republican side, on the defense side. the other thing is that there is now a view among conservatives and republicans that anything that president obama touches or is evil,bout touching wrong, destructive, dangerous. even if he had not thought of it yet, that would be evil. apocalyptic existential threat brought us over there. i think sometimes, and i don't want to be an apologist for president obama, the thing is, there are sometimes in politics if you hate someone so much, it

really colors your judgment on a lot of things. are totally, totally blinded by their hatred nothim, therefore they are necessarily making a lot of really objective judgments. >> just like for hillary quinton , it's not wholly different than legislate for barack obama. isdo you think because obama president and this has been obama's foreign policy for the the seven years, that to extent foreign-policy is an issue in this discussion, it's really a referendum on president obama handling of foreign-policy? for years people have said he's not tough enough. but, this question of the need to have a tough president, that perception of a president being tough, doesn't appeal to an

authoritarian strain among some voters? aboutis some debate here what trump's appeal is. what does it say about the voters? is the question approve/disapprove obama's job on foreign-policy? it's almost a real question of how do you think things are going on in the world? if things feel uneasy about what is going on in the world, it is some's down. issue of strong leader, that question we have been asking forever, matters. americans tend to elect the person they see as the stronger of the two general election candidates. wheres one of those years that matters, foreign-policy is a big part of it.

the notion of picking the candidate of the two who is the strong leader is not new and plays out almost every time. >> we are debating whether foreign-policy will be an issue in this election. time thishe last foreign-policy played in major role in a presidential election as we kind of think back about the outcome of pass presidential elections? i would say that notion of a foreign-policy election is the white wale of american politics. american politics. we go back throughout candidates, 1968, humphrey versus nixon. when you look at the policy admissions of both men, they were not that far apart. there are plenty of other issues going on. george wallace and his

popularity was not tied to the vietnam war. i would remind everybody there was something called the misery index, the economy was not doing very well, interest rates in double digits. it is hard to say that was an election that clearly turned on foreign-policy. i do think you can see in primaries where foreign-policy matters straight you go back to 2008 with barack obama and secretary clinton and then senator clinton, in which for senator clinton certainly at the beginning, her position on iraq, she voted for it and was unwilling to apologize or repudiate her vote, unlike some of the other people in the primary challenge at that time. was that really a foreign-policy issue, or it was a question of was a majorts said

mistake that she did not want to walk away from? >> bernie sanders is taking advantage of that issue. it's one of the few areas where hillary clinton is out of step with her party and she has acknowledged that it was a mistake, that the war was a mistake. now, maybe 14 years ago that vote took place, and it is still thrown up as this is a bad judgment. >> it's very interesting. fairly early on in the campaign, secretary clinton took it off the table i saying, i have been in favor in free debt -- in favor of free trade. that neutralize the issue that could have divided or separated two candidates. >> it is not at the heart of the

conversation. >> democrats don't consider trade to be foreign-policy. >> sanders is pretty much on message and uncomfortable getting off message. >> on foreign-policy they are not in violent disagreement. they agree in large part they are comfortable with essentially president obama's foreign-policy. there's a lot of reason not to come out and say that. back to your point, when you get to a general election, republicans clearly will try to turn this into a foreign-policy referendumake it a on president obama's handling of foreign-policy and the democratic candidate will have to deal with that issue and presumably will try to turn it away from the referendum on

president obama talking about policies, and if we have seen this movie play out before. >> let me ask you one question where you do see economic policy and foreign-policy overlap, and that's dealing with china. at least our surveys show that when you ask people about their concerns about china, it's the economy, maybe cyber security. it's not military threats by china per se. pewpeople see in that cfr, survey we did, among foreign-policy concerns, people name protection of american jobs as a foreign-policy concern. even though it's technically not, they conflate the two, especially when it has to do with china. we havethe question is, seen a little bit of china bashing in the republican primary.

trump, despite the fact he denies it, it's on tape that he called for a 45% tariff on imports from china. and, for those of you who remember that an bernie sanders is itllary clinton -- reminiscent of a little bit of china bashing the took place between clinton and obama in the primaries, but then disappeared, but it's also reminiscent of the china bashing in the 1980's and democratic primaries especially. do we think this has any traction in the election or is it just noise and it will go away? >> that's no traction. is 2016 going to be a foreign-policy election? i don't think the conversation right now is about foreign-policy, it's about terrorism. all the other issues where they are talking about china, russia, if you want to go

to climate change, have largely fallen by the wayside. candidates are not engaging in them great if you look at the public opinion polls, what is the most important issue facing the country, they say terrorism trade they are not saying the future of europe. there is one issue getting a lot of airtime that the public is seized with, what we should do about north korea. you watch this campaign, it is in some sense not different than most campaigns. they are very long on criticism. of outside party's criticism a terrible job the incumbent has done. for a short on prescription. indeed, candidates tend to not get into that. sometimes that's a benefit. oftentimes candidates can make promises that come back to hot them when they succeed and can be president. in large part because a lot of these issues don't have really .reat policy solutions

the classic case is isis. there's a lot of counting the table about who's going to be stronger in dealing with isis. in terms of particular suggestions about what they would do -- do differently, it does not look that different than current policy. it may not be in the same sip code as president obama's policy . >> police the tonality of the republican criticism is very harsh, especially by ted cruz and others. the question is, is there any hint there that people are painting -- painting themselves into corners, or is there no corner you can paint yourself into as a candidate, you can get out of it by ignoring it once you are president? >> i think candidates painted themselves into corners on lots of things. democratic america, independent -- republican america, and i always look and say, for

independence on any given issue, do they seem to look more like the way democrats think are more like republicans? think -- think? independence, they are not over as far as to my credits are, but they generally are closer to where democrats are then republicans are, and that is politically painting yourself into a corner. >> if you believe that donald ismp's success so far because the people who were supporting him are scared, they are scared about terrorist attacks in the united states, worried about their job, worried about having their job five or 10 years from now, they're worried about whether their kids will have as good a life as they have had -- his supporters fall into the category of concerned about all of those things. he is speaking directly to them

and i don't know that he has painted himself into a corner with this group of people, some of whom fear into the reagan democrat category. and, he's having success with those messages. >> obviously more republicans/conservatives, trump is -- to me he's more populist. he's coming to the right -- closer to the right than to the left generally, but it's really more populous than anything else, more anger. there's not a lot of ideological cohesion with what donald trump actually believes. are a presidential candidate, painting yourself into a corner is a good problem to have because that means you have won the election and you can deal with the problem down the road. one of the things that happened when you have a conversation, there's really a lot of table pounding and it's really sort of about attitude, if i'm in office is good things are going to happen.

the classic case would be bill clinton's opposition to nafta. and then finding a way to sort of walk back from that, and that is an example that -- you can depend yourself in a corner, just to create a whole new room for yourself. kind of venturing into a broader discussion about the election. what you've all decided, it's not going to be up foreign-policy election. your't know about conversation with leaders of the republican party, but my conversation with leaders of the establishment republican party is a palpable concern they have, mostly focused on trump at this point but you also see it in terms of their concern about atz, is this just a noise this point, and they will coalesce around whoever the nominee is because that's what you do after the primaries, or is this a potentially

fundamental problem for the republicans if either of those two men become the nominee. >> yesterday was a fascinating day. lottaw abdulla and trent come out with a negative endorsement of ted cruz. the same day, the national review last night came out with an issue, a symposium with 30 leading conservatives and many establishment conservatives ranging from bill kristol to brett for sale with a negative endorsement about donald trump. the real core of establishment republicans and many even base conservative leaders are split and have said, no to donald trump and no to ted cruz. >> i would argue the establishment is no to either one of them.

this idea that the establishment is embracing donald trump or reconciling themselves -- i think it's the biggest bunch of garbage i ever -- they see this in thea stone loser general election if he were to get the nomination, and if that would be a bad thing, but they personally despise ted cruz. him,cruzole, god bless led the fight to torpedo the disabilities treaty. bob dole felt humiliated by what they did, he went on the senate floor and holds ted cruz personally responsible. this is just personal. they hate both of them, they no viewz, and they have for donald trump. but they are not embracing anybody, it is just who takes yo uoffmore, -- ticks

more, trump or cruz. -- you off more, trump or crump. >> at some point, the establishment has not rallied around any other candidates. they remain split and it creates a complicated -- >> the root of their fear is that they could not only lose the white house when they think they have a chance to win it, but that they could lose control of at least one house of congress in the process. charlie, you wrote a piece this week arguing that even if i get , basically the republicans can't lose the house unless something momentous happens. donald trump could not even lose republicans their majority in the house. where these lines are, that cannot happen. >> what about the senate? >> republicans can lose the majority of the senate having a bad night. they could have an ok nominee,

and lose -- when you have 6 republican seats up in states that obamacare, only one, and no democratic seats -- the arithmetic is bad for them. the way i see things playing has basicallyump 35% of the vote. 35% in a 12 way field, that's a big number. when 12 goes to 8 goes to 6 goes to 4 goes to 3 goes to 2, i don't think that 35 number expands a whole lot. i can see us coming down to a point where trump will have a third but probably bleeding a little bit, cruz has a third, maybe, and establishment guy has a quarter, and then there's 1/5 that is just up in the air. what they do before at the

convention, i don't know. >> when do you think we will have some better sense of who the republican and democratic nominees are? is it march 1, march 15, do we have to go into april and may, do we go to the conventions? if bernie sanders has a good day in iowa and a good day in new hampshire, south carolina is a really interesting test, particularly with how bernie sanders can do among african-americans which are going to be very important two weeks later on the march 1 southern primaries. if he has a good day in iowa and a good day in new hampshire and a very bad day in south carolina, that will tell you the democratic nomination could be wrapped up quickly for hillary. the republican side, much more complicated. we have proportional voting t

hrough march 8, march 15. some of the states, not all of them, or winner take all. that process really keeps on going for a long time because i think it could easily be may or june. say, give bernie sanders -- what are caucuses about? ideology, passion, energy. give bernie sanders, just for fun, give him the iowa caucus. let's give him all 15 states that have caucuses. let's give him 100% of all the caucus state delegates. and then let's give him new hampshire and all of new england, 100% of all the delegates from new england. you know what that gets him? 36% of the delegates you need to win a convention.

after caucuses, new england, and college towns, bernie sanders has nothing going on. there are just not enough soy latte drinking, birkenstock wearing, subaru and volvo driving people in the democratic party to nominate bernie sanders. if god told me today that hillary clinton was not going to be the democratic nominee for president, my assumption would be that the public integrity section moves, she was prosecuted, and democrats will hit the red box, in case of fire, break the glass, and joe biden's phone number is inside. this nomination is not going to bernie sanders. >> i said it better than you. i said, look at south carolina. i would like to turn this over, and if you could identify

yourselves, make it a question, keep it short, and we will try to get it around to all of you. just as an aside, there's a sign on pennsylvania avenue where trump is building a hotel in it says trump coming 2016. maybe that's a harbinger of things to come. your comment on painting corners, i wonder how [inaudible] wins an election when they're against the trend in most major social issues in the country. one question is on immigration. tenancy ofa periodic this nativist impulse combined with the security moment that we have not seen before? the people who care about this care about immigration. it is sort of a national issue. but they care about it because they are afraid of their jobs and all of that. democratsr guy, some

who i worry won't be on the next side of the aisle. who are the foreign policy risers to donald trump? can you name them? this question is turnout. i watched a cnn poll and this incredible flip last night that showed if you looked at people who are likely caucus-goers, sanders is way up, but if you looked at the people who came to the caucus last time, clinton is considerably up. i wonder if the turnout numbers on sanders -- >> the new iowa poll that cnn released yesterday among likely caucus-goers, we screen for people the best we can and try to figure out who they say are going to caucus. rubio 14.

these are people who are likely caucus-goers. if you actually look at who voted in the 2012 iowa caucuses, trump 37, cruz 26. it flips. cruz 30, trump 28. the answer to the question of who will win the iowa caucuses is turnout. are year it is really, there new caucus-goers coming out, people who have not caucus before, is there something in the trumpet effect, and the same thing happens on the democratic side in iowa right now among caucus-goers, but if you look at the 2008 caucus goers, it has flipped. clinton 55, sanders 58. you were right, and we have no idea who's going to win the iowa caucuses because we don't know who's going to turn out. if the weather is bad, that will change some things. >> having lived in iowa and

participated in the caucuses, ambient air temperature matters a lot. you have to decide whether you want to get off yourself and go out in -15 degree weather, go down to the local fire department. the colder it is, the more likely you will sit home and watch tv. >> especially older voters. >> even younger voters. thing obvious problematic about looking at who voted, who voted in 2008, that is fine. that is probably a better indicator on the republican side than the democrat. is so agenders' vote driven, if you're going to automatically exclude everybody who is under 26 years of age, which you would do if you were saying only people who caucused in 2008, that changes things a great deal. >> what about immigration is an issue? your question about how can

americans support someone who disagrees with them on social issues -- among republicans, here are the numbers. -- numbers on what are the top issues. among likely primary voters, new hampshire foreign policy, 34%. immigration, 11%. .hen it drops off a cliff among issues, 1% republicans. it is not part of the conversation, not part of the campaign. it may be part of the general election maybe but it does not seem to be registering right now. >> since you sort of dismissed national security as an issue

within the general or foreign policy in general, reduced it, how important is the issue of foreign policy with national security going to differentiate on the nomination of the republican candidate? >> i think it matters much more on the republican side. clearly trump has tapped into something important that has distinguished him from his establishment candidates. i think it's less about the issues and more about the person. i go back to the strong leader measurement, that foreign policy is one of those issues that yours you to establish via positions or your rhetoric, yourself as a particularly strong leader, perhaps an elective leader. ronald reagan did this, even in 1980 when it was not necessarily a foreign-policy election, but ronald reagan used his foreign-policy positions, talked about his strengths, america's strengths, and i think that

build him up as a leader in a way that transcends foreign policy. hillary clinton, even though foreign policy is not a top she ismong democrats, certainly using that as an electability factor against bernie sanders, asking the question about whether he should we the commander in chief and using the strong leader metric. americans still prefer the stronger leader when they have a chance to choose. part of the republican party right now, angry is not the word. they are filled with rage and they are venting their spleens. a lot of them are using trump as a vehicle for this angered. the question is, is this going to continue on through the convention, or at some point

will some sizable part of these trump folks start to think, ok, i'm angry, i'm still angry, but seek a more plausible vehicle for their anger? they want you to know how angry they are. but after about half an hour of them talking, you start seeing some hairline fractures. what trumpr "i love says but i wonder about his temperament or his judgment or his personality." probably theary is last month that people will be sending a message. marchhe real stuff starts

1, i think you will see a substantial part of this -- you know what, i'm having a hard time visualizing donald trump in the situation room with the joint chiefs of staff of the director of national intelligence with his finger on the button. i'm not saying all of the trump people will bail, but i think they will steer toward an theirative vehicle for rage and i suspect that will be ted cruz. after iowa, he will consolidate. huckabee, santorum, rand paul will be no more. ted cruz will have completely consolidated the ideological conservative but this populist area trump has, i think you will see a number of those people bleeding over when they start selecting a president.

>> foreign policy isn't differentiating much among the republican candidates. for rand paul, he's sort of attitude was where the republicans are but lindsey graham is sort of the one that had the most specific -- he was willing to send tens of thousands of troops to syria and he is now on the sidelines. most of the republican candidates are angry, they are going to do something. it's attitude, not specific policy. terrorism differentiated among republican candidates? just for the reasons charlie just laid out. , we askng at the polls republican voters what

characteristics are you looking for in a candidate. experience ranks at the bottom. they are not interested in people who have experience and typically governors have very strong chances to become the nominee. they've gone by the wayside. jindalr walker, governor . the ones we do have still in the race are at the back of the pack. >> governor perry was the first one out. party,he republican experience and expertise is now a disqualifying characteristic with half the republican party. >> it's so overrated. >> the question is not what the establishment thinks but does it matter for how the election will play out? >> i have a two-part question.

interested based on everything you've read what your current analysis assessment is and that is when and what you think the director will come out with. second, incidentally i think it's a wonderful discussion. very entertaining and illuminating. who do you think ultimately will emerge as the so-called establishment candidate? >> to answer your first question, i have no idea what the director maybe doing. we will see. he keeps his cards very close to his chest. the polls are suggesting if there is colace and going on, i holes inre looking at two states right now and that's what matters because if the

establishment candidate is , theye other than rubio could find themselves with a bit of momentum. it's a little hard to tell. we are at the edge of double digits on the establishment candidate particularly in new hampshire, where it matters. rubio seems to have an edge can distantly in morse rates than anybody else. more states- in than anybody else. i think the jury will be out on that. >> what does it say about the fact there is a consensus that rubio may emerge as the establishment candidate, the guy who ran as the tea party candidate when he first ran for the senate, and would be considered four years ago to be the right wing of the republican party. >> a former speaker of the florida house. it was a term limit state.

he runs as a tea party guy in 2010 because that was the avenue to the republican nomination. >> ever since, he's been an establishment guy though in the last four or five weeks, he's started throwing more red meat into his rhetoric but he had to do that. i don't think rubio is a tea party guy a doll -- thy at all. it strikes me that this e-mail thing is -- this is a hot potato that the fbi will want to get out of their hands. up, handed to public integrity section, and say that's why they pay you guys the big money. i think the most important primary or caucus for democrats is the one at 1400 new york avenue, where the public

integrity section has their offices. lord knows what they will do. to me, that's the only key variable when the democratic nomination is what do they do. i've had many conversations with area's people. lots of theories. it almost seems like someone's proximity to classified material makes them more likely to think this thing may go to a bad place for secretary clinton than people with less. not anything like the petraeus situation. it's clearly not anything like what would happen to the late sandy berger. >> way in the back. >> thank you. russianeporter for a

newspaper. do you think the issue of policy in the u.s.-russia relations -- what role can it play in the current campaign, especially maybe can it become more is secretary clinton becomes a nominee because she considered. you think the do current statements of candidates on russia might reflected their policy if they come to the white house. for example, senator rubio on multiple occasions called president putin a gangster and as bad as it russia-america

relations were in the last two years, if he comes to the white house, -- >> how do you think this will play out? roleagree about what foreign-policy issues play in the campaign. if it's not terrorism related directly, i don't think many americans will be voting on it. i think vladimir putin becomes an interesting foil for candidates to demonstrate perhaps their toughness or how they might interact with the foreign leader but i don't think the issue of russia or the u.s. relations with almost any country will be a significant factor in voting. >> let me ask you a hypothetical. instance that the

russians would decide to do something more ukraine or do something in the baltics. in other words, demonstrated this hasn't calm down but got worse. would that even rise to the level of attention other than just rhetorical excess by candidates? would it become an issue? >> it would be considered an in-kind contribution to the republican party. [laughter] guarantee any republican wins? that's what it would take. >> it would have to be such a significant move that americans felt it as a direct threat and even what you described, i'm not sure -- unless it touched terrorism again or terrorism at home, i'm not sure -- >> it will shape what the candidates talk about.

mr. putin would have respected that and it will not lead to any policy pronouncements. i don't think it will move what specifically.nks it does create a problem for secretary clinton because it gets the candidate in a general election if she is the candidate with a talking point as to why you cannot trust her experience because she didn't do a good job with that. >> right here. >> this is for you. simple question. >> be prepared. >> the tactics -- could trump it clinton? -- beat clinton? and at least the good ones i tend to live and die by them but there's sometimes

when you look at polling and you wonder how seriously should i take this? for example, we are seeing polling right now that shows bernie sanders running stronger than hillary clinton against various republicans, including donald trump. it's a product of clinton's numbers are so bad among independents and that they have heard virtually anything ugly you could ever say about hillary sanders, i bernie think independents are following bernie a lot less than democrats are and my guess is is negatives will go up but will they go up 2 -- i think in the last poll among independents, hillary clinton's negatives or like 57%. it was a big, big number. are they going to rise that

high? i don't know how seriously to take things when people know lots about one thing, not as much about something else, and their attitudes toward donald trump may not be quite as developed now as they will be down the road. -- youshort answer is know, i think republicans may do something stupid that they will not do something insane in the selection. i just don't think they are going there. i really, really don't. >> i like to see a show of hands of anybody in this room -- smart, mostly washingtonians -- who believe a year ago donald trump would be the front runner for the republican nomination. raise your hand. note that there are no hands

raised. talked to two union leaders and bear in mind unions represent 9% of the private workforce. two union leaders in very prominent unions when asked about how do their members feel about trump and a both cases, our guys love it. the question is how many trump democrats are there out there for a general election? >> what i would ask is working-class white voters how many of them are voting democratic now anyway. i think the short answer is not much. >> even union members. >> if it was building and construction trades, least of all, manufacturing would be in second place.

>> but now take the limited number and only look at ohio and pennsylvania. is a lot of white union manufacturing and white nonunion manufacturing going on and the trump phenomenon in ohio, i have no idea how that could play out but that's the place i would want to see it. i would want to know more. clicks -- >> i wanted to fight the trend about what you guys say about for policy not playing a role. august 14 when two americans were beheaded in iraq, public opinion polls changed a lot about staying engaged. their december debate, will blitzer asked one question after another about terrorism. wonder what the

economy will look like under that sort of circumstance. does isis get a vote this primary season? can they do something that will make a difference like it did in august 14? >> there's always the question if they will get an october surprise that upsets it. it's another white whale we keep talking about. back to august 2014 with the beheading, what it did was change the conversation. i'm not sure it changed to the candidates would be or if it will have an impact on what the outcome of the vote will be. we tend to focus on what the public is thinking. it's important to keep in mind during this whole conversation. foreign policy won't be

dominant. >> august 2014 is when america was introduced to isis. what isisdn't know was. it was barely in the newspapers at all. it was not something americans were talking about. two years later, america knows what isis is. at this point, what can isis due to shock america. >> i would imagine if your candidate, it would benefit republicans. by staking out the argument i am a democraticd candidate will say my opponent is reckless.

economyhere is the going to be and could there be an economic october surprise like we saw in 2008? another factor the candidates can't campaign. >> i've made one note during this conversation. white the foreign policy whale. that is the money line. that is where i'm going to be getting a proper quote from you. foreign policy and elections is kind of like the economy and wall street. how time is different and many times did we hear "this time is different" and in the end, how often is it really different? not often. i think if you knew absolutely nothing about anything going on, you're better off betting that history will play out more, that

this will be different from the other times. this election, nobody a year ago saw donald trump coming. nobody thought he would go this high, would stay this high. that is all absolutely true. day,nk at the end of the those of us who watch politics very closely will everything we have ever learned about politics be proven wrong this year. everything. 100%. >> i'm going to bet against. this will be a different year. it will have some unusual dynamics but for donald trump to win this thing would require 100% of everything we know to be wrong. note, we are going to end this. i want to thank the members, the folks who have been watching this.

we look forward to carrying on this conversation and talking about president trumps foreign policy in 2017 or bernie sanders. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] both chambers of congress are out of session today. the senate returns tuesday and begins work on an energy bill that would modernize the u.s. electric grid and reauthorize the federal land and water conservation fund. they will also debate the u.s. judicial court nomination with a debate on that scheduled for 2:30 p.m. eastern. a live look at the u.s. capitol. the house will be returning tuesday after the snowstorm for work withe with --

both scheduled that day. it will be a short week and next week in the house with the chamber scheduled to be in recess thursday and friday so democratic members can attend their annual retreat. earlier this afternoon, paul ryan, the house speaker, tweeted he was live streaming from his office all weekend long. website there. paul ryan streaming from his office all weekend of the snowstorm in the nations capital. 34 -- the 43rd anniversary of roe the way to supreme court decision. later on, we will show you our final landmark case program. watch that at 6:30 p.m. today eastern time.

right after that, the annual march for life rally from the national home in washington -- national mall in washington ulster we will show -- washington. we will show it to you tonight. of thew, bradley olson wall street journal discusses the u.s. stock market and its impact on oil prices and the energy sector. after that, professor harold pollack looks at how the single-payer health care system would work. that plan currently is endorsed by democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders. and we will take your phone calls and look at your facebook comments and tweets. all in washington journal live saturday morning at 7:00 eastern here on seas and. -- on c-span. >> this weekend, saturday morning at 10:00, live coverage from new hampshire for the first in the nation presidential town

hall with eight gop candidates, rand paul, jim gilmore, jeb bush, john kasich, chris christie, carly fiorina, rick santorum, and marco rubio. saturday, live coverage of a campaign rally in waterloo with senator ted cruz and tv own -- tv and radio host glenn beck. sunday afternoon, live coverage from iowa at a rally for donald trump. for the complete weekend schedule, go to our website, www.c-span.org. earlier today, the u.s. conference of mayors held a conference on the refugee resettlement system. we heard from homeland security and health and human services officials on the roles of their

agencies and what the obama administration is doing to maintain the system security. this is an hour. >> let's go ahead and get started. i want to thank everyone for being here today. i certainly appreciate you being here. we're going to try to start on time and finish on time at 10:30. tate, imd mayor of anaheim -- i am the mayor of anaheim, california. one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the u.s. i am cochair of the immigration task force for the u.s. conference of mayors.

year.e a new cochair this he is the new mayor of providence, rhode island ulster he's a harvard graduate and decided to come back to his hometown and was elected mayor just last year. been here but he feels he needs to be back in town to make sure the snow gets removed from the road. i applaud that step one thing in anaheim we don't have to worry about. we are both committed to bipartisan immigration reform. anything we can do here at the u.s. conference of mayors to do, that happen, as mayors we deal with these issues on the ground and anything we can do to move that ball forward, we will

do. discusse are going to two important topics. a primary topic is the nations refugee resettlement system. it became very clear last year that a lot of people don't know much about the resettlement process. we have key officials from three federal agencies that comprise that system and they will that systemith how operates. first, we will you're from president obama's special assistant for immigration policy and then we will begin a discussion on refugee resettlement. i would first like to introduce alicia escobar.

she developed a prison strategy for building a 21st-century immigration system. her work involved for knitting efforts to strengthen the current system and working towards a passage of meaningful, comprehensive reform. she worked in the senate. thank you for taking the time to be here. you for your commitment to this task force and staying in town. i know you will want to get back to warm weather soon and for all your commitment over the years and helping support the president's work and the congress is work to task immigration reform. we all know we are continuing to look for legislative action in that space. we had a good bill that went through in 2013 and not able to get back through the house. we are continuing our efforts to

fix as much of the system as we can. i'm going to say a bit about the welcoming campaign but before that, i would remark this was a week in terms of the president's other executive actions he's been working on, his deferred action policies as some of you may know, the supreme court will hear our appeal of the injunction placed on the deferred action for parents of u.s. citizen program. we know a number of mayors did sign on in support of that like withcause immigration reform, bringing people out of the shadows helps with public safety, the economy, helps people feel more comfortable speaking to law-enforcement step we will see where the litigation goes but we expect for there to be a hearing. eventually, a decision in june.

we will see where that goes. everyone has for been able to sign on. thank you for your support. in terms of the other executive the creationnced, of a task force on new americans really building on the work happening at the little level -- local level and state level to create communities that are welcoming. we are thinking about citizenship and making sure people who are eligible know about the process and will make the decision on their own. they create businesses, they're working in various industries and we want to continue to support them.

we know that english is the language of opportunity here. we want people to retain their language they come with but we also know that in order to help move up the economic ladder, it's important people learn english so there's a lot of work than doing with the department of education to promote best practices happening at the local level related to linguistic integration. i was going to talk mainly about the welcoming committee, another tier of work. the work we're doing is in partnership with all of our federal agencies part of the task force on new americans but also nonprofits outside of government who have been working with cities and many others across the country to really promote welcoming communities.

september thest building welcoming communities campaign and it's an effort to encourage folks are ready doing this work to take it to the next level, be very strategic about ,he work they are doing developing plans that look across all sectors. we are bringing refugee groups together that don't always talk .o each other that's work we are continuing to support through this campaign and we want other people to join the campaign if they can.

also encouraging others to come to the table as well. we will be having a meeting next week in los angeles. we know there are a lot of little towns and not for little towns in the area around los angeles and we want to encourage others to come to the table. also national experts. we've have been working over the last several years to support this work. materials about the welcoming communities campaign. i have a map on the white house website. this is some thing you're trying to make sure we are promoting. we had a fax sheet and a commitment form for folks that want to learn more or are

already interested in learning the campaign to come to the table and you part of it. i would say that when we launch this campaign in november 2014, we were excited about it but didn't necessarily know what the world would bring. and the concerns about the refugee process and the questions about whether we should still accept refugees really made us excited that we were visionary and thought about creating this task force even before things like that happen. they make people question whether we immigrants and

refugees in our communities there's a lot of negative rhetoric out there and our job is to help people understand the facts about all of systems. i'm glad my colleagues are sure to walk you through some of that. and as we try to promote a more inclusive and welcoming climate, we want to give people will stoop program to address issues and bring people together rather than divide people. if you all are looking for things to do that are positive, we would encourage you to be part of the campaign. we have all of our federal agencies involved. the department of labor, homeland security, department of education. so many others trying to provide technical assistance and tools to people at the local level.

i would just leave it at that for now and i'm happy to answer more questions. i called to walk you through -- my colleagues will walk you andugh the refugee process hopefully give you some good facts to take back. we want to make sure we're giving people the right information. the president has been very clear he believes our country has to live up to its legacy as a nation of immigrants. we can do that and we also need to make sure we are securing our country and securing the american public from danger. we believe we can do both.

do as do what we have to local governments. the want to make sure we give give your folks back home some information about the process. turn it over to simon. >> any questions? >> let me introduce the next three analysts. simon is an officer at the u.s. foreign service. since he joined the state department in 1985, yet carried out a number of postings. citizenis a joint u.s. and immigration service as chief of the refugee affairs division.

she manages a refugee core and headquarters staff to support u.s. refugee admissions. prior, she worked in the public and private sectors working on projects at the national immigration forum and policy working as counsel to the u.s. senate subcommittee and practicing law in the washington dc form. kerry directs the office of refugee resettlement and the administration for children and families. he came from the international rescue committee where he held several key executive positions. most recently, vice president of migration policy. before that, he served for 10 years as vice president of resettlement. why don't we start with simon.

>> thank you very much. pleasure to be here. thank you for the warm introduction. and thank you to all of you for braving the weather. north of you are from the and planning to stay the weekend, you are in for a treat. [laughter] nearly 20 million refugees in the world. the vast majority will receive support in the country to which they fled until they can voluntarily and safely return home. thatt to make the point the vast amount of the effort of the u.s. government when it comes to refugees is supporting them overseas. mayall number of refugees be allowed to become citizens in the country's to which they fled but an even smaller number,

primary those who are the most vulnerable, will be resettled in a third country. fewer than 1% of all refugees are eventually resettled in third countries. of this 1%, the west takes over half. the crisis in syria is a dramatic illustration of the humanitarian threat they face. they are the largest population in the world, numbering over 4 million. another 7.6 million are trying to survive inside syria. turkey estimates they host over 2 million syrians. many more have spread over , and a egypt, lebanon rock. lebanon's appellation is -- 25% of stuff lebanon's population is syrian.

essentials like food, shelter, health care, education. while our main effort is aimed at supporting refugees in the region, we will resettle a small percentage in the u.s.. our program will be focused on the settling the most vulnerable members in demonstrating our support for the countries in the region overburdened by refugees. while maintaining the u.s. leadership role in humanitarian protection, an integral part of our mission is to ensure resettlement opportunities go only to those eligible for such protection and who are not known to present a risk to the safety and security of our country. our number one concern is security will step the program -- security. the program is committed to detecting fraud and applicant to the program are subject to more intensive screening than any other type of traveler to the

u.s. in order to protect against national security threats. the department collaborates with the department of homeland security and closely with center for disease control and protection to protect the health of u.s. down refugees and the less public. our program is premised on the idea refugees should become economically self-sufficient as quickly as possible. the department of state works to work with programs assisting to make sure refugees receive services 30-90 days after arrival. during and after this initial resettlement, the office of at the resettlement department of health and human services provides leadership, technical assistance, funding to the state.

upon arrival, refugees are immediately eligible for employment. after one year, they are required to apply for adjustment status of lawful permanent residents. five years after admission, refugees have been granted eligibility to apply for citizenship. the vast majority of refugees go on to receive an education and work hard. some serve in the u.s. military and undertake other forms of service for their communities and our country. while the program has become controversial in some circles, it continues to enjoy substantial support from state and local governments and community members in the vast majority of locations we work, which is in 48 states, 173 cities and towns, and 304 sites.

it requires the support of american nongovernmental organizations, charities, faith-based groups, and thousands of volunteers in support of the program in hundreds of communities across the country. we simply could not do this without their support. let me thank you for your support well starting life anew in the u.s. may be dawning, it offers unparalleled opportunity. it's a chance to escape violence, persecution, to start again. the assistance you're communities provide help newcomers find their footing. refugees are not the only ones who benefit. they add to america's vitality and diversity and make substantial contributions to our economic and cultural lives. thank you. >> thank you, simon. before we take individual questions, let's go through the other guests.

barbara. thank you so much. thank you for the invitation to meet at this conference. i work for u.s. citizenship and immigration services. we are in agency within the department of homeland security. with respect to refugee resettlement, we are the operational partner with the state department for the overseas portion of refugee resettlement. i have learnedgs to emphasize in talking about refugee resettlement in the last few months is the fact that as a simon describes, the vast number -- ifugees in the world think one of the things important to remember is the u.s. decides which refugees we choose to offer resettlement to. it's not a situation where the refugees themselves have the opportunity in most instances to

say they will like to come to the u.s. in the first instance, we are refugeewith the u.n. agency in terms of applying the criteria of who are the most vulnerable and worthy candidate for resettlement to the u.s. most of the people in my office are based in washington but we work closely with the state department staff and we span out around the world to locations refugees live and we conduct in-person interviews. we are typically in any quarter of the fiscal year will be in 12-15 locations around the world in asia, africa, the middle east, europe. we try to go where the need for resettlement is the greatest. we put a tremendous emphasis on the training does officers receive. they receive basic training and

protection law but also receive detailed information about the particular populations they will be working with. i too close to the microphone? thank you. determining is the person weefugee under u.s. law so ask questions about whether they have suffered persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution. and we are checking on whether they are admissible to the u.s. under u.s. immigration law. that deals with things like if someone has a criminal history, if they would be a national security threat, if they have a two-minute double disease -- communicable disease. do inher thing that we the background while interviewing applicants is the state department and uscis share response ability for administering u.s. security checks.

these security checks have been in place for refugee applicant since the immediate wake of september 11. there was a positive refugee admissions in 2001 while the white house took a look at the security check. they chose at that point the best suite of checks it could be a cop was but what we've done but whately -- checks we have done collectively is enhanced those over time. we've added department of defense fingerprint checks when we started large scale applicants.f iraqi that's since been expanded to applicants of all nationalities. we started working with the national counterterrorism system.

that has been a process of enhancing the checks as time goes on. that is continuing today. the other thing i wanted to mention is there has been increased attention to refugee resettlement in many communities who traditionally who didn't have a high level of awareness of the program and we realize our public communication material needed some attention. we have a work hard on our website to have better information to help people understand who are refugees are, what is refugee resettlement, and what a screening processes are we take very seriously. that's a resource there and general for education and some is suitable if you are having a stakeholder meeting, there's information that can be downloaded and and about to stakeholders. there's also a short video

narrated by secretary johnson. to enhance those public information tools and we would be very interested in hearing back. there are additional needs you feel in your community that would be useful, we can help communicate better and we are very interested in being partners with you on that public communication. >> thank you, barbara. robert. >> thank you. i would like to start out by thanking this group here, my yourers and the mayors and representatives. the resettlement program is very private program but it would not be possible without the support of countless volunteers and to the gore organizations. service to the most vulnerable ofessential to the mission

the resettlement program and our success as a nation of immigrants is rooted in american values of equality and opportunity, which secure our commitment to fully integrate newcomers into the fabric of our nation. these efforts benefit not only the refugees and their families but the receiving communities. refugees come and start businesses at very high rates, they go to work quickly, pay taxes, become involved as numbers of society. they are an asset. i think that's an important thing. they've always been an asset. and reneweditality ideas and that's demonstrated throughout the communities. it's also a very much public-private relationship. worksfugee program

closely with nonprofit organizations and volunteer organizations across the u.s. who bring to the process not only a large engagement of volunteers and religious institutions and civic organizations, but also community commitment to this long and important tradition. provided are closely coordinated in a coherent fashion. that's important to remember. in addition to the consultation process led by the processes, they are led by the white house the war there is a presidential determination as to the number of refugees to be admitted in the coming year. that number is established in the current year at 85,000. there are also when the support and community-based organizations that consult at the local level.

has partners in each state. there is a state refugee coordinator in each state who is to coordinate provisions of services in that state and ensure that process takes place. there's a state refugee health court and nader, who insures health services -- coordinator who ensures health services within the state are received by refugees and that they are screened before admission at and anyin upon arrival ongoing medical issues and services are provided and in a coordinated and efficient fashion. refugee services include short-term cash and medical assistance. in thrust of the program is the primary directive to ensure refugees become self-sufficient as quickly as possible. servicese support

provided, whether they be language instruction, direct employment, psychosocial services, school adjustment programs, or a host of other programs, are all focused on ensuring refugees become self-sufficient as quickly as possible because the financial support provided through the office of refugee resettlement is quite time-limited. financial assistance through the refugee cash assistance program has a maximum of eight months provision. refugees are categorically for other services but there is a time limit on the cash assistance and the expectation and reality is refugees become employed quite quickly and are quickly contributing to their local communities and providing that talent and economic benefit. we believe -- and this is echoed

in the white house initiative, which is an essential tenet of the program -- refugee be able to fully participate in all aspects of civic life, whether it be involved in goals, parent-teacher associations, speak,ould be able to read, write english, to transport and navigate the transportation systems, to become fully engaged in civil society. historically, that's what has been done. their partnership is an essential part of the program. not only the national voluntary agents these with affiliates in 49 states representing virtually every major mainstream religious denomination as well as non-religiously affiliated entities as well, a lot of

volunteers whether they be retirees come university volunteers, a very broad range of civil society the program a great deal of support within those communities, which is the only way it can function. it is dependent on the public funds and on leveraging that to create private support for the program. receiving communities are critical. that we, asritical barbour referenced, communicate clearly and effectively about the program, what it does, we are bringing. we are always striving to do it better and more effectively because this is a critical mission and a life-saving dish and -- life-saving mission. people are not coming here for economic betterment, they are coming to save their lives and

those of their children, to rebuild, and they are deeply appreciative of the opportunity afforded them to start a new life in a safe setting and that's reflected in the contributions they make to the communities. i would like to underscore that there is an active consultation process. many of you are probably aware but there is consultation on both of the annual and quarterly basis at the state and community level. in every community in which there is a refugee resettlement program, there's a requirement of every regular convening's too brief civil society actors, schools, law enforcement, all of those parties involved or, to contact with refugees about the program, about the plans for future resettlement, about the needs of the populations in advance of their arrival, whether it's torture, trauma,

cross-cultural issues. it's very much a private partnership. if we encourage you or your designees to engage in that process if you are not already doing so and it's a welcome part of what we do and a critical part to ensure the success of the programs we support across the u.s. thank you for that support and engagement and we look forward to the continued partnership. >> thank you. i will open it up to questions from the audience. mayor. go ahead and use the microphone. >> i will try to be brief. i am very inspired, robert, but what you just articulated -- by what you just articulated. i think there are communities similar to mine working with the

immigration community for a long time. our community is a western suburb, northwest cook county. i'm on the border of three community colleges. four townships, seven school districts, a diverse community that is 40% or more first-generation families who are either latino or from southeast asia, from bosnia. we set up a process with our community colleges who took four years because illinois is a steel pipe organization. down a barrierak within the community colleges so we kid share across their borders. a year and a half ago, we opened in educational workcenter. the community colleges

discovered we weren't being served. we are a small community. we are a mile wide and seven miles long. , we have put in place opportunities from first-generation families and anng people who get education -- english as a second language, ged. many people have an education someplace else. at their ged so they can get pathway to community colleges, jobs, internships. it's in place. my biggest concern after a year and a half of doing this, we figured if 250 people aspired to that program in the first year, we would consider it a success.

we were well over 900 and the first year, well over 900, and there are still waiting list's. we are still trying to do the movement in the state of illinois. we have fears about trying to keep these initiatives open. we have the kind of environment open, andceptive, hearing what you shared, how can we be a part of the american dream for some of these people? i i put it in the newspaper, would probably have everybody like, where his back i coming from? but we need to help people -- where is that guy coming from? but we need to help people integrated in our communities. our crime rates have gone down because people have hope.