[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] announcer: coming up on c-span tonight, vice president joe biden talks about the supreme court nomination process at georgetown. and loretta lynch and james comey announced indictments against seven iranians in a series of cyber attacks. later, european ministers speak at a press conference following an emergency meeting regarding the terrorists attacks in brussels. journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up on friday morning, policy director for the coalition, he will be with us to discuss the issues raised during the government reform committee

on drug abuse. he will talk about the work being done by his organization. megan mccarthy, editor-in-chief, will share her thoughts about the federal and congressional spots to the heroin epidemic. and later, maryland lieutenant governor will join us by phone to talk about his state work on the heroin emergency task force. live at 7:00 eastern friday morning, join the discussion. starting monday on c-span, the supreme court cases that shape our history come to light with this series landmark cases, the story decisions. explores realries constitutional drama behind the most important decisions in history. madison --rsus marbury versus madison, it is also a law. if it is a law, we have the

court to tell us what it means. >> it is the fact that it is the ultimate anti-presidential case, exactly what you do not want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? as the supreme court said, it can make those decisions about those debates. announcer: on c-span and c-span.org. bidene president joe called for the confirmation of president obama's pick for the supreme court in a speech at georgetown university lawson. he explains his comments on the nomination process from 1992, which republicans have used to justify their refusal to hold hearings on the current nominee. this is 40 minutes. [applause]

vice president joe biden: hi, please sit down. my name is joe biden. and i have been here a long time. i am told that the dean of students, when i met him, i almost decided not to do the speech here. although my son and staff went to georgetown, and my son did his first year of law school here in georgetown. --duating from e-mail, but [laughter] long story, but that is what he did. he did his first year and transferred to you. ale. i feel an intense loyalty to georgetown. bidens have gone to georgetown. i went to a good school, delaware. [laughter]

i almost decided not to do it at georgetown and do it at george washington because you stole victorian nurse from may. i thought she had to go back to minnesota, and that is why i agreed to let her go. but victoria, thank you. you have been a great friend, brilliant mind. you have help me negotiate an awful lot of very tough terrain. and i want to thank you for that. and it is great to be back here. look, lastly, in the rose garden , i stood by president obama as he fulfilled his constitutional responsibility to nominate to the supreme court of the united states chief judge merrick garland. he was eminently qualified. if you notice, you heard no one -- no one -- question his integrity. no one questioned his scholarship, no one questioned his open-mindedness. you heard no one defy any

substantive criticism of chief justice merrick garland. i have known and 21 years. you will find a great difficulty finding anyone. as a president said, chief judge garland deserves the hearing. just as a simple matter of fairness before we talk about the constitution. but is also a matter of the senate fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. friends -- and they are my friends -- public and senators announced that whomever the nominee might be, they intended to advocate -- abdicate their responsibility completely. that what they said today, what they said then, what republican in mys say they will do, view, can lead to a genuine constitutional crisis. born out of the dysfunction of washington.

i have been here long time. i have been in the minority, majority, minority, majority. i've been on both sides. i understand, and if you read, most people say i have good relationships with the democrats and republican party. but i've never seen it like this. washington, right now, the congress -- it is dysfunctional. and they are undermining the norms that govern how we conduct ourselves. they are threatening what we value most. undercutting in the world what we stand for. i traveled over a million miles since being vice president of the united states. i'm not exaggerating. i usually go because when i go to meet with world leaders, most of whom i have known before, they know when i speak, i speak for the president. because of our relationship. so i spend a lot of time, i promise you, this is what i hear.

whether i'm in beijing, whether i'm in bogota, whether i'm in the u.a.e. in dubai, i'll try to convince them of a position we have and they'll say, ok. and we'll shake hands. but i give you my word they'll look at me and say, but can you deliver? let me say that again, when the president of the united states speaks or i speak for him, world leaders will look at me and say, can you deliver? those of you who travel around the world or from other parts of the world, you know that the world looks at this city right now as dysfunctional.

that's a problem. going to be even more of a problem if it spreads beyond the congress. the great justice robert jackson once wrote, while the constitution defuses power, the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate and disperse powers into a workable government. here's the important sentence, it says, it enjoins branches -- it enjoins upon its branches, separateness but interdependence. autonomy but reciprocity. separateness but independence, autonomy but reciprocity. my entire career, seven years as vice president, 36 years in the united states senate, half of those years as either the ranking member or chairman of the senate judiciary committee, i have never seen the spirit of

interdependence and reciprocity at a lower ebb. not among our people but our government. the bonds that held our diverse republic together for the last 229 years are being frayed. and you all know it. whether you are democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, everybody knows it. the world knows it. it limits our peoples and other governments' trust in us. our trust in each other. this is not hyperbole to suggest without trust we are lost. without trust and give between the branches and within the branches, we are lost. back in 1992, in the aftermath

of a bruising and polarizing confirmation process, involving clarence thomas, who had been nominated by president bush with no consultation, just four days after the great thurgood had retired, i took to the senate floor to speak about the supreme court nominating process. senate majority leader, he's my friend, mitch mcconnell, and other republicans, today, have been quoting selectively from the remarks that i made in an attempt to justify refusing chief judge garland a fair hearing and a vote on the floor of the senate. they completely ignore the fact that at the time i was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper senate consultation. they completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom

line. so let me set the record straight, as they say. i said, and i quote, if the president consults and cooperates with the senate, or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did justice kennedy and justice souter. end of quote. i made it absolutely clear that i would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before presidential election. if the nominee were chosen with the advice and not merely the consent of the senate. just as the constitution requires. my consistent advice to presidents of both parties, including this president, has been that we should engage fully in the constitutional process of advice and consent.

and my consistent understanding of the constitution has been the senate must do so as well. period. they have an obligation to do so. because there is no vacancy after the thomas confirmation, we can't know what the president and senate might have done. but here's what we do know. every time as the ranking member or chairman of the judiciary committee, i was responsible for eight justices and nine total nominees to the supreme court. more than, i hate to say this, anyone alive. [laughter] oh, i can't be that old. [laughter] some i supported. a few i voted against.

but in all that time every nominee was greeted by committee members. every nominee got a committee hearing. every nominee got out of the committee, even if they didn't have sufficient votes to pass within the committee, because i believe the senate says, the senate must advise and consent. and every nominee, including justice kennedy in an election year, got an up and down vote. not much at the time. not most of the time. every single, solitary time. so, now you hear this talk about the biden rule.

frankly, ridiculous. there is no biden rule. it doesn't exist. there is only one rule i ever followed in the judiciary committee. that was the constitution's clear rule of advice and consent. article 2 of the constitution clearly states whenever there is a vacancy in one of the courts created by the constitution itself, the supreme court of the united states, the president shall -- not may, the president shall -- appoint someone to fill the vacancy with the advice and consent of the united states senate. and advice and consent includes consulting and voting. nobody is suggesting individual senators have to vote yes on any particular presidential nominee. voting no is always an option and it is their option.

but saying nothing, seeing nothing, reading nothing, hearing nothing and deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the constitution leaves open. it's a plain abdication of the senate's solemn constitutional duty. it's an abdication, quite frankly, that has never occurred before in our history. now, i'm able to square their unprecedented conduct with the constitution, my friend, mitch mcconnell, and the chairman of the committee, he's my friend, the senator from iowa, senator grassley, they are now trying another tact.

they ask, what's the difference? what difference does it make if the court has eight or nine members? [laughter] i'm serious. remember, they said they weren't going to fill any vacancies on the circuit court of appeals for the district for four years. remember that's what they said? that's not a constitutionally created court. the supreme court is. so, let me make clear for folks who may be listening at home. what happens, and you students all know this, but what happens at the supreme court makes a significant difference in the everyday life of the american people. article 1 gives the power to congress to fix the number of justices.

from 1789 to 1866, the number waxed and waned between five and 10. but in 1869 the congress passed a law setting the court size at nine. and that law has not been changed since. as recently as 1992, i said on the floor of the senate, as pointed out to me, for me, that it was no big deal for the court to go through a period of 4-4 splits partly because the period wouldn't last very long. so, the exact number of justices was of less urgent concern. but i don't believe anybody in their right mind would propose permanently returning the court to a body of eight. or leaving one seat vacant not just for the rest of this year, but for potentially and likely

the next 400 days. that option wouldn't be much better. this is all the more true in a year where congress has become almost entirely dysfunctional. none other than the deceased justice scalia wrote, quote, if you have eight justices on a case, it raises, quote, the possibility that by reason of a tie vote the court will find itself unable to resolve significant legal issues presented by the case, end of quote. if that possibility backs a reality in any given case, the justices would have to announce that they cannot decide either way. they would be left clearing the case from their docket or kicking it down the road to be argued under a new court, when a

justice is finally confirmed. pressing controversies, the that prompted the court to grant review in the first place, many cases because of different decisions in different circuit courts, would remain unresolved. the issues the court believes were too important to leave in limbo are going to remain in limbo. suspended in midair. more than two centuries ago, justice john marshall, famously declared that the court, quote, has a duty to say what the law is. not an option, a duty. a solemn duty. when the senate refuses to even consider a nominee, it prevents the court from discharging that constitutional duty and so clear

a divided court. we are saving the court by keeping the seat vacant for hundreds of days matters not just because -- certainly it perpetuates. because of the way it fractures our country. the framers designed our system to give one supreme court responsibility to resolve conflicts in the lower courts. if those conflicts were allowed to stand, we end up with a patchwork constitution inconsistent with equal justice and the rule of law. federal laws that apply to the whole country will be constitutional in some parts of the country but unconstitutional in others. i don't have to go through the cases you know that are pending appeal. and how controversial they are. the extent of your federal constitution, constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom to follow the teachings

of your faith, determine what constitutes teaching of your faith. the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. all could depend on where you happen to live. i think most people in this country would think that's unfair and unacceptable. we are, after all, the united states of america. either the constitution protects rights across the united states or it doesn't. a patchwork constitution is hardly a national constitution at all. in a divided supreme court, we would be unable to establish uniform federal law. that could mean, as you students well know, and you professors, claims of race or sex discrimination could come out one way in california and arizona, another way next door in utah and colorado. claims of government interference with religion could have one fate in ohio and iowa,

and another nearby in illinois and wisconsin. look at the cases. claims of unlawful policing might be resolved by one standard in nebraska and totally different standard next door in kansas. there's nothing implausible about these scenarios. the american people deserve a fully staffed supreme court of nine. not one disabled and divided. one that's able to rule on the great issues of the day. race discrimination, separation of church and state. whether there is a right to an abortion, if so, safe and legal abortion. police searches. these are all actual cases before the supreme court of the united states. before the courts.

we have to make sure that a fully functioning court, supreme court, is in the position to address these significant issues. and a geographic happenstance cannot fragment our national unity. lest you think this is exaggeration, when you studied brown vs. board, remember chief justice warren had the votes to decide that case, but they waited to get one southern justice to rule with the majority, because he knew what it would do in dividing the country. if that were not the case. extrapolate that to today. the same principle about one constitution. why it's important these laws be applied and the constitution be

applied the same way everywhere in the united states. i realize it's not exactly analogous, but think of what it says. about how important it is. alexander hamilton had the foresight to warn that such fragmented judicial power would, create a government from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed, end of quote. even worse, a patchwork constitution could deepen the gulf between the haves and have-nots. under a system of laws, national in name only, the rich, the powerful can use it to their

advantage, the geographical differences and game the system. not available to ordinary people. look, our democracy rests upon the twin pillars of basic fairness and justice under the law. being law students, you're going to be asked to write essays and exams about what both those things mean, but every american knows in their gut what they mean. they understand it. it's intuitive. both these pillars demand that we not trap ordinary americans in whatever lower court's fate has chosen for them, while letting other more powerful selectively choose lower courts that best fit their needs. i know there is forum shopping now. look, the longer this high court vacancy remains unfilled, the more serious the problem we'll face. a problem compounded by

turbulence, confusion, and uncertainty, about our safety, security, liberty, our privacy, the future of our children and grandchildren. in times like these, we need more than ever a fully functioning court. a court that can resolve diverse issues peacefully, even when they resolve them in directions that i didn't like. dysfunction and partisanship are bad enough on capitol hill, but we can't let the senate spread that dysfunction to another branch of the government. to the supreme court of the united states. we must not let it fester until the vital organs of our body politic are too crippled to perform their basic functions they are designed to perform. and i think you probably think i'm exaggerating, but think of

all the things that have not been acted on now unrelated to the court on the hill that are profoundly important to the functioning of our foreign policy, our domestic policy. just left unattended. no action. we can't afford that to spread to another branch of government. contrary to what my senate republican friends want you to believe, the president and i are former senators, and we take advice and consent very seriously, and we did when we served. we do so not just because it's our constitutional duty, but because we care deeply about getting past the gridlock that

left our people understandably frustrated and angry with government in washington. i wonder how many have been kidded when you go home, you go to school in washington? not a joke. they know georgetown's one of the great universities in the world. but i'm not joking. go home. i live in washington. [laughter] i'm serious. think about it. think about how we even laugh about it like, you know, yeah, we all know it's true. pretty sad. look, we, you, we all care deeply about making this government work again. the president and i care about the letter of the advice and consent, as well as the spirit of advice and consent. that spirit, that spirit of

accommodation and forbearance , not a spirit of intransigence. that's why both of us, why our administration, spent countless hours meeting with, soliciting the views of senators of both parties, i sat there with the majority and the chairman of the senate judiciary committee in the oval office. the president and i spent hours together admittedly we sit down like the three other two nominees, and we are the last two in the room. but it hasn't been a closed process. we've reached out. who do you want? who do you think? what type of person should we nominate? we did our duty. the president did his duty. we sought advice. and we ultimately chose the course of moderation because the government is divided. the president did not go out and

find another brennan. merrick garland, intellectually, as capable as any justice, but he has a reputation for moderation. i think that's a responsibility to the administration in a divided government. some of my liberal friends don't agree with me, but i do. it's about the government functioning. it's about the admonition of justice jackson. the president has fully discharged his constitutional obligation. so, it's a really simple proposition, in my view. now, it's up to the senate to do the same. as i might add, the polling data shows the american people expect him to do.

we owe it to the american people to consider his nomination and to give him an up and down vote. look, the american people are decent and inclusive at heart. it's not our nation -- it's not our nature as a nation to shut our minds and treat those with whom we disagree as enemies instead of the opposition. it's not the american people who are to blame for this dysfunction. it's our politics, our politics are broken. there's no secret the congress is broken. again, regardless of your political persuasion, i would love to hear one of you in class -- i'll come back if you invite me -- tell me how the system is functioning. [laughter] even the most serious, persistent national crises haven't motivated the current

congress to find a middle ground. we just moved to the side. we haven't addressed them -- they just moved them to the side. we haven't addressed them. end where i began. we're watching a constitutional crisis in the making, born out of dysfunction in washington. it's got to stop. it really does, for the sake of both parties, for the sake of the country, for the sake of our ability to govern. it's got to stop. the defining difference of our great democracy has always been, no matter how difficult the issue, we've always been ultimately able to reason our way through to what ails us and to act as citizens, voters, and public servants to go fix it.

but this requires that we act in good faith in the spirit of conciliation, not confrontation. with some modicum of mutual good will. for the sake of our country, the country we love, because of what we value. i mean, that's who we are. we can't let one branch of government threaten the equality and rule of law in the name of a patchwork constitution. we must not let justice be delayed or denied as a matter of fundamental rights, and we must not let the rule of law collapse in our highest court because it's being denied as full compliment of judges as they accept the refusal of a presidential nominee. i still believe in the supreme court of delivering equal rights under the law. but it requires nine now. i still believe in the voice the

people in the land, if we follow a constitutional path. the path of advice and consent. the path of collaboration in search of a common ground. for obstructionism is dangerous and it's self-indull gent. in the greatest constitutional republic in the history of the world, it's a simple proposition, folks, not a joke. think of this last statement. unless we can find common ground, how can the system designed by our founders function? not a joke. how can we govern -- if he doesn't turn off that phone -- [laughter] if it's my staff, you're fired.

[laughter] but all kidding aside, just think about it. how can we govern without being able to find common ground? that's how the system is designed. it's worked pretty darn well for the last 200-plus years. one of the reasons i came to law school, the great law school to deliver these remarks, was i want you when you go back to class, challenge what i've said. look at it closely. take a look and see whether the argument i'm making is right or wrong. make your voices heard. make your voices heard. i want to thank y'all. god bless the united states of america, and most of all, may god protect our troops. thank you so much.

[applause] announcer: students told us that the economy, equality, and education and immigration were all top issues. thanks to all of the students and teachers who competed this year. every day in april, starting on the first, the entries will air on c-span. following them all online. >> book tv has 48 hours of authors every weekend. there is coming to watch for. join us in charlottesville,

starting saturday at noon eastern. programs include an author discussing his book "the who stalked einstein." then, saturday evening at 7:00, patricia bell scott, professor at the university of georgia, on the firebrand and the first lady. eleanor roosevelt in the justice,for social cofounder of the national organization for women and first lady eleanor roosevelt. patricia bell scott speaks with roosevelt house in new york city. on sunday beginning at 1 p.m. eastern, more from the virginia festival of the book. including george carlin's daughter, who talks about her life growing up with the comedian in her book. then some a night at 9:00,

afterwards, with historian nancy cohen. author of the book about the first woman president, looking at political leaders and the advances they are making in the political arena. chair interviewed by the and cofounder of cornell law school's center for women and justice. head andwoman to be a the powerful country of the powerful country in the world, doesone of the key allies not allow women to drive, and our most significant enemy at this time isis, is literally executing women and girls for being women and girls, i think this sends a powerful message from the bully pulpit about what america stands for. announcer: go to book tv for the complete schedule. seven iranian hackers working on behalf of the government were cyberattacksseven on institutions and a dam in

upstate new york. these charges come just a few days after the u.s. and iran and lamented a high profile nuclear deal and carried out a series of parallel deals, including a prisoner swap and a $1.7 billion payment to the country. attorney general loretta lynch and fbi director james comey announced the indictments at a press conference earlier today. this is about 30 minutes. ms. lynch: well, good morning, all. thank you for being here today. now, before i begin, i know at the forefront of all of our minds continues to be the terrible events that unfolded in brussels earlier this week. and let me just take a moment to reiterate that the entire obama administration and the american people continue to stand with the people of belgium, with the

people of all of europe and the world, in condemning these appalling attacks and in offering our support, condolences in any way that we can. our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones, both those who perished, those who suffered, all who were touched by this and the department of justice is in constant communication with our counterparts in belgium. we are committed to providing any and all assistance as we move forward together with unity and with strength. now, i also want to make clear that while we have received no specific credible threats to the homeland, we will continue to remain vigilant in order to ensure that we can keep the american people safe from harm. thank you. now, i am joined today for this announcement by f.b.i. director james comey, by the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, and the assistant attorney general for national security. we're here today to announce a major law enforcement action as part of our ongoing efforts to disrupt cyberthreats and to

protect our national security. today, we have unsealed an indictment against seven alleged experienced hackers employed by computer security companies working on behalf of the iranian government, including the islamic revolutionary guard corps. a federal grand jury in manhattan found that these seven individuals conspired together and with others to conduct a series of cyberattacks against civilian targets in the united states financial services services industry, that in total or in all, in sum cost the victims tens of millions of dollars. now, between late 2011 and mid 2013, the united states financial sector suffered a large-scale and coordinated campaign of distributed denial of service, or ddos attacks. this is a particular kind of cyberattack in which multiple compromised sources are used to target and overwhelm a single system. and through these attacks, the servers of 46 financial institutions were flooded with

traffic over the course of 176 days. as a result of this ddos attack, online services were disrupted, hundreds of thousands of americans were unable to access bank accounts online. these attacks were relentless, they were systematic, and they were widespread. they threatened our economic well-being and our ability to compete fairly in the global marketplace. both of which are directly linked to our national security. and we believe that they were conducted with the sole purpose of undermining the targeted companies and damaging the online operation of america's free markets. in addition to the actions that we have detailed, one of the defendants is also charged with illegally obtaining access to the supervisory control and data acquisition system of the bowman dam in rye, new york.

at the time of this alleged intrusion, the dam was undergoing maintenance and actually had been disconnected from the system, but for that fact, that access would have given this defendant the ability to control water levels, to control flow rates and outcome that clearly could have posed a clear and present danger to the public health and safety of americans. and i'd also like to thank the department of homeland security as well as the city of rye, new york, for their assistance in managing that particular incident. in unsealing this indictment, the department of justice is sending a powerful message that we will not allow any individual, group or nation to sabotage american financial institutions or undermine the integrity of fair competition in the operation of the free market. through the work of our national security division, the f.b.i. and u.s. attorneys offices we willhe country,

continue to pursue national security cyberthreats through the use of all available tools, including public criminal charges and as today's unsealing makes clear, individuals who engage in computer hacking will be exposed for their criminal conduct and sought for apprehension and prosecution in an american court of law. this case is a reminder of the seriousness of cyberthreats to our national security, and these public criminal charges represent a groundbreaking step forward in addressing that threat. we will continue to use every tool at our disposal to investigate the malicious cyberactors so we can attribute their actions down to the government agency, the organization and the individuals involved and charge them publicly. now, i'd like to thank all of those who worked so diligently to bring the investigation to this point including, particularly the targeted private companies and others in the private sector, who were integral partners throughout this investigation. this case highlights the significance of what we can accomplish by working together, holding bad actors accountable and protecting the american people. and at this time, let me introduce the director of the f.b.i., james comey, who will give us additional details on today's announcement.

mr. director? director comey: thank you, attorney general lynch. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. the challenge we face in investigating cybercrime is that cybercriminals often think it's a freebie to reach into the united states to steal from us. they think it's a freebie because they're halfway around the world to use anonymoinization techniques. the message of this case is that we will work together to shrink the world and impose costs on those people so that no matter where they are we will try to reach them. no matter how hard they work to hide their identity and their trade craft, we will find ways to pierce that shield and identify them. that's the message of this case. that's why it's so important we bring this case. i want to say a word of thanks to the men and women of the f.b.i. who worked very hard on this for a number of years across the country. what's also interesting about this case is we did it virtually. we used the new york field office, cincinnati, chicago, san francisco and phoenix, all working together.

we found a reasonably good u.s. attorney's office to work with -- [laughter] and together those offices contributed to a single effort in the southern district of new york to bring charges and impose costs on people who thought before this that it was a freebie. so, my thanks to the u.s. attorney's office. my thanks to the national security division here at the justice. but the good folks at the f.b.i. for staying after this. people ask us, well, these people are in iran so how are you ever going to get them? the world is small and our memories are long. we never say never. people often like to travel for vacation or education, and we want them looking over their shoulder, both when they travel and when they sit at a keyboard. that's the message of this case. there is no place safe on this increasingly small world. so with that i'd like to introduce the u.s. district attorney for the southern district of new york. mr. bharara: thank you, director comey, for introducing me and from whom i inherited a good u.s. attorney's office years ago.

[laughter] so, the charges announced today respond directly to a coordinated cyberassault on new york, its institutions and its infrastructure. as has been said, seven iranians engaged to disrupt and dismantle many institutions, many based in new york city. and obviously, you heard about the infiltration of the bowman dam. as you also heard, these were not just ordinary crimes but calculated attacks directed by groups with ties to iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps and designed with the specific goal of harming america. the iranian defendants intended new york to be the epicenter of harm, because new york is the world,al capital of the because new york has always been the blue chip target for those who want to harm our country.

as i said, as the attorney general said, basically what occurred here was a group of individuals, seven charged in the indictment, three who are members of a particular security company called i.t. sect team, and four others who were associated with the security firm called mersad company, each and together within their respective companies were engaged in ddos attacks. basically, putting malware on computers around the world, seizing them remotely and launching attacks basically on at least 46 institutions, financial institutions around the country which caused, as the attorney general mentioned, tens of millions of dollars to damage and harm to those companies. separately, you also heard about the infiltration of the bowman dam which to our mind represents a frightening frontier to cybercrime. and although no actual harm resulted from that infiltration, the potential havoc that such a hack of american infrastructure could wreak is scary to think about.

and so, at the end of the day there's good news and there's bad news. cybercriminals working with an entity with ties to the government of iran attacked and shut down vast swaths of the u.s. financial systems at times. hackers infiltrated infrastructure as alleged, taking over computers that control the water levels of the dam near new york city. so those sounds like plot lines of a movie but they're not. they're real crimes committed by real people in the real world. so that's the bad news. the good news is that the department of justice and the f.b.i. and other law enforcement agencies are on it and they're working hard every day, and as this announcement today shows, we will investigate any perpetrators who seek to harm the united states of america. we will indict them. we will expose them, and then we will do everything in our power to apprehend and ultimately prosecute them in a court of law. we now live in a world where a devastating attack on our

financial system, our infrastructure and our way of life can be launched from anywhere in the world. just with a simple click of a mouse. whether such an attack is motivated by greed or directed by an arm of a nation state, it must and will be met with a strong law enforcement response. but beyond law enforcement, what we can and will do, these cyberattacks should serve as a wake-up call, a wake-up call for everyone responsible for the security of our financial markets and a wake-up call for everyone entrusted with guarding our infrastructure, our future security depends on heeding that call. now, i want to thank some people also. i know some people have been thanked. you know, this was no ordinary crime. this is no ordinary investigation. solving a crime like this takes a lot of people in a lot of different places in close collaboration with each other. first, i want to thank my friend, attorney general loretta lynch for her guidance on this case and every case she oversees. i also want to thank my friend,

john garland, assistant attorney general of the national security division. and all the folks in his office who worked on this case and brought us to this point. of course, the f.b.i. represented here by its leader jim comey. the sprawling investigation here, as director comey already mentioned, involved a lot of different f.b.i. offices. and i want to mention and acknowledge and thank them also. they involved the field offices in chicago, cincinnati, new york, phoenix and san francisco. finally, i want to thank the fine men and women in my own office who made this happen, especially tim howard. supervisor nicole freelander, who leads our fraud and cybercrime unit. let me introduce the assistant district attorney, john carlin. mr. carlin: thank you. under his leadership there's no better partner in the country for the national security division that and the southern district of new york. as someone who has friends in

new york city, i'm grateful he's there and those that defend against national security threats and i want to thank the for the f.b.i. for the work on this investigation. and the victims who are sometimes not treated as victims when it comes to cyberattacks. we know that the bad guys are not you. the bad guys are the people overseas targeted your systems and that we can't confront these threats without your critical assistance. this case demonstrates the power when public and private do work together to confront the cyberthreat. for many years, nation states and their affiliates enjoyed what they perceived to be as a cloak of anonymity, a cloak they hid behind to break our laws through cyberintrusions and to threaten our security and economic well-being. they had this perceived cloak of anonymity because they thought we couldn't figure out who did it and they thought if we did figure out who did it we wouldn't say it. well, they're wrong. in a new approach, we have unleashed prosecutors and agents across the country against

national security cyberthreats. and that's why, two years ago at this very podium, we could announce an indictment against five members of the people 's liberation army. today, let this indictment reinforce that the days of perceived anonymity are gone. we can remove the cloak and we will. today's announcement proves once again that there is no free pass for those who conduct nation state-affiliated intrusions. this week is a significant week when it comes to our national security cyberprogram. on tuesday, we unveiled charges against members of the syrian electronic army. and yesterday, a chinese businessman in los angeles pled guilty for conspiring to hack into defense contractors and to steal sensitive information, including information related to fighter jets. and now today, we can tell the world that hackers affiliated with the iranian government attacked u.s. systems and we seek to bring them to justice for their crimes.

so, no matter where a hacker is located or who he is affiliated with, be it china or north korea, be it the islamic state and the levant or the syrian electronic army, we can do so publicly, figure out who did it, say who did it and have consequences. and this is still the beginning of this approach. we will continue to pursue hackers affiliated with nation states or terrorist organizations, and when we find you, we will use every tool at our disposal to hold you to account. that means more public actions. it means more charges. it means more sanctions. it means every tool that the government can bring to bear to hold national cybersecurity hackers accountable. thank you. i'll turn it over to the attorney general for questions. >> attorney general, we know the brussels attackers were -- are you concerned that isis may target financial facilities in the u.s.?

and how prepared are we against cyber threats?or ms. lynch: this threat is of great concern to us. the bowman dam. we're constantly working with our partners, both in the private industry and in local governments to relay information when we learn of issues or threats and also to make sure they have the most recent information about other hacking activities so they can protect themselves. at this point, you know, we think this case speaks for itself in terms of these actors. obviously, we remain vigilant in the future against not just dams but all of our infrastructure. it is indeed a serious concern for us and we think this is another example in which the public-private partnership is really key. >> attorney general, also director comey, they often say attribution is incredibly difficult when it comes to prosecuting these cyberattacks. can you talk a little bit and give us more detail how you were

able to trace these actors back to iran? ms. lynch: i can't give you specifics on that because it would go into a lot of the investigative techniques we used. but what i can do is echo what you heard from this podium today, which is an important part of our cybersecurity practice is to identify the actors and to attribute them publicly when we can. we do this so they know that they cannot hide. you know, a large part of a successful cybersecurity attack in the perpetrator's mind is in fact getting in and getting out without anyone knowing who is involved. this cloak is being repeatedly pulled away. i'll defer again to the director if he can give you further information, but we don't get into a lot of specifics on that. do you want to yesterday -- add anything? director comey: we want them to know we can but not now we can. >> madam attorney general, what

good is it to indict these actors if they are not likely to be extradited? further on that, have you seen any tangible effects from the indictment two years ago now into the five chinese military? ms. lynch: well, with respect to these or any defendants whom we indict who are currently fugitives, our view is fugitives don't remain that way forever. we have a long history reaching out and working with countries where individuals may land and extraditing them, and we also have a long history in keeping charges alive and in fact bringing people to the u.s. for justice. so, again, because they're not here now does not mean we will never get them. we do not let that be a barrier to bringing the charges, particularly where it is here. it is so important to let the world know we are aware of their actions. and your question about the five -- >> two years ago, indicting chinese military hackers, again, people abroad, have with you seen any tangible effects on that indictment? ms. lynch: well, i think that -- i think there is a whole of government approach to this and i think we have actually seen some significant changes in our interactions with the chinese government, in terms of cybersecurity norms and in terms of the way in which they have come to agreement with the u.s. on the parameters of how

countries should use cyberactivity with each other. but as we said before, this is the beginning. this is a very important arsenal arrow in our cybersecurity. >> madam attorney general, f.b.i. director comey, any signs that they have ties to people inside the united states first? and secondly, how concerning is it that hackers overseas were rooting around in the infrastructure of something like a dam which could in the future have the kind of damage that we're talking about here? ms. lynch: well, i think whenever you're talking about infrastructure, be it a dam, be it a highway system, be it an electrical grid, we obviously have grave concern as to the ability to affect millions of people quickly. certainly it's very similar to the concern we have, however, with the -- with the attempted impact here on the financial system. as we saw, locking people out of online access to accounts is incredibly disruptive. the work required by companies

to remediate that is incredibly expensive. literally, tens of millions of dollars. so, our concern has always been with cyberissues, and one of the reasons why cybersecurity is such a priority for this administration, for this department is because we are in a world where with literally the stroke of a mouse or the click of a computer pad, damage can be unleashed much, much greater, at a much greater level than an individual can perpetrate alone. however, this is something we're focused on and we're actively looking to prevent. with respect to your question on brussels, as you know, this is an investigation conducted by the belgian authorities. we're offering all assistance but it is their investigation. it is simply too early at this point to tell, certainly to provide information on the extra european links of the individuals at this point. i'll see if, jim, did you want to add anything? >> what assistance have you provided to european investigators, or if they asked

for, have you provided anything? and is there any sense this attack was brought by isis or an inspirational act like the one that occurred in san bernardino? ms. lynch: well, again, we're at the early stages of this investigation, and we are providing assistance. the f.b.i. has offered assistance. certainly d.o.j. through our legal department have offered assistance. and we stand ready to provide them with that. we are at the very, very early stages of this, however, and it is being conducted by the belgian authorities. we respect the investigation. we are in a supporting role here and it's just simply >> in terms of attributions, can you say the on the seven individuals you have indicted, whether you believe this attack was directed by the irgc or the reigning government itself questio?

would you say this message is more powerful or the message from january when clemency was 14en to seven iranians and charges were dropped as part of a deal between the u.s. and iran. would you say those actions send a more powerful message? attorney general lynch: if you are a computer hacker sitting overseas in whatever country, this sends a powerful message. the full source of the u.s. government will come after you. that is the strong message of today's charges. what about the attributions of the iranian government? attorney general lynch: these individuals work for two separate security companies and individuals themselves definitely have time at the irgc . beyond that i'm not going to comment on fax or any that are not set forth in the pleadings. >> i understand the

investigation goes on in brussels, but the fact of the attack being well known, as that caused you to rethink american security based on the facilities that were attacked their, does this give you any second thoughts about how american security should be changed? attorney general lynch: we are always looking at american security, and certainly following what occurred in brussels or paris several months earlier. we are always looking at whether there are four abilities in the american system, and we are always looking to make sure we sure them up as best as we can. at this point, as indicated before, we do not have a specific, credible threat against the homeland, but that does not mean we are not being vigilant in terms of reviewing cases that are already open or investigations that are already these in looking at how could affect the united states. as we have said before, this is, the cancer that is isis is a growing threat that is currently

looking at europe, they seem to be focused on it europe, france, belgium and the like, but certainly we have seen individuals here who have chosen to become inspired by that type of terrorist thinking and have chosen to act on their own. that is also a concern of ours, so we remain vigilant in that regard as well. as you know, we also have an active program in prosecuting those individuals who seek to travel overseas to join the islamic state. 80have prosecuted individuals to date and we continue those investigations. >> general lynch and fbi ey there has been a lot of reporting in the case 'svolving the san bernardino attackers phone and apple and whether there were opportunities

to exploit them before seeking apple. can you explain whether the ofside help is being help? attorney general lynch: as we reviewed the san bernardino case , it is a matter in which we are trying to use all investigative tools to find all information and evidence that could lead to incite or information about the individuals who perpetrated the deadly terrorist attack in san bernardino. in the course of that, we have focused on a number of electronic devices, in particular, the phone of syed farook and have requested apple's assistance in that regard and circulate when the indicated it would not provided assistance, went to court to obtain that as well. in every case ended every investigation, we did not stop there. certainly at the time, we did not have further avenues of assistance or recourse, and we

still may not. we still do not know if the individuals or third parties that have come forward and offered assistance have in fact offered a viable method for obtaining what evidence may be on the phone. we are at this time hopeful that that is the case. it has always been our goal to extract the information on the phone and determine what information or evidence it may give us about this deadly attack. if we can do that, we will do that. at this point, it is too early to say how that is going to work out. we are hopeful that we do not know how it is going to resolve itself. did you want to add anything? director comey: i like these press conferences or i do not have to talk. [laughter] director comey: the only thing i can add is, we tried everything we could think of, asked everyone we talk of help inside and outside the government before bringing legation to san bernardino, and we said that in our papers, the attorney general and i have said it publicly, and under of an conference --

congress, so what is happened, the attention that has been drawn to this issue by the stimulated as marketplace of people from all over the world to come up with ideas. lots of folks have come up to us with potential ideas and it looks like we may have one that will work out. we are optimistic and we will see, but the notion that we had no alternatives, not exhausting alternatives is not true. we did everything we could before bringing litigation. people have come from all over the world to bring methods and we will see how that works. the goal is to investigate a terrorist attack in a >> complete way. on the isis front. , perhaps crisis is getting more organized, better at organizing these kinds of attacks like what happened in brussels? is there concern where they are getting that are at it, more experienced?

i don't think i give this group of savages credit for getting better, this is an aspect of the threat we have long talked about, that is, we worry in the states about people being a radicalize, but as we have talked about, we worry about people that have traveled to syria and get the worst kind of training and then move back out. that is especially a problem in europe, so this is a manifestation of that problem. it does not reflect greater skill on isis'part. directorfollow up theie on san bernardino -- director on san bernardino? you said you try to multiple avenues before you used

litigation, and there have been a number of topography experts to say there are ways that possibly could work, including to basically make copies of the chips. it are shaking her head. director comey: i have heard that one. it does not work. >> the fbi tried it? director comey: they put forward lots of ideas, and we have had one that has been recommended. >> when the company first approached you. director comey: we learned about it this past weekend. it looks like it may work, so we wanted to alert the court immediately. do you know how it works? director comey: i don't want to say anything that indicates what may be. >> is there any indication that encryption played a large role in communication in brussels? attorney general lynch: it is

too early to tell what role encryption may have played. we do not have information yet, and again, it will be up to the belgian authorities as to what they are going to release. certainly, as a larger issue, we have seen a terrorist platform, those involved in terrorist planning, certainly in the u.s. start on an open platform and move to continue those discussions. certainly, it is too early to tell specifically regarding brussels. could you, there has been a lot of discussion, especially by the director about the disaffected group in the united states who have some sympathy toward isil. how concerned are you that incidents like this would tip them to move in one direction or another, and it looking at the history of incidents overseas

that occurred, what has been the experience of either you learning about possible plans and moving on before they hit? attorney general lynch: i will start and then turn it over to you. as we have seen, the threat in the homeland has come most recently from those individuals based here or inspired white terrorist or jihadist thinking online. iso or otherwise. that is always a concern of ours and a concern whether they would be inspired by similar attacks in brussels or elsewhere. we remain vigilant as to the possibility. do you want to add anything? director comey: i want to echoes something the general said earlier. anytime there is a terrorist attack of the seas, we focus on if there are any connections in the united states to the people who committed the attack, and second, are there any risks for

our subjects in the united states to see it as a copycat opportunity. we are very focused on both of those things. so far, we do not see any indication of that here. i think it may have the reverse effect. people see individuals of innocent men, women and children ian slaughtered over the world, and i think that will reinforce the notion that the islamic state is not engaged in some heroic, romantic battle on a side of good, but instead they will see it as a bunch of savages occupying a space that is hell on earth right now. i think we see that reflected in the decrease of cases we have seen of people trying to travel over to the islamic state from the united states, a positive trend. we hope it reflects an understanding by people that did for a center in the life, this is not the place to find it. >> i have to follow it. -- have you could not not seen any connection with the suspects in brussels so far to anybody?

director comey: not yet. we are looking at it closely though. o questions for the director. in the san bernardino case, you are trying to get information off the phone of a dead terrorist. do you still find yourself on the defense against accusations of lying? what are your reactions to that? wayctor comey: i don't feel out there. i do not feel defensive, honestly. i do feel strongly when someone accuses a major publication and the fbi of being unjust. we have to sit there. i do not think so. our goal all along is to facilitate an adult conversation about a serious conflict between two things we care about. that is our goal. san bernardino is about that investigation, and even if this

ridiculous technique makes that go away, that litigation, we still have to resolve this conflict between these guys we care about. we hope there will be an adult conversation about this where there will not be any demons. >> as far as that conversation, if what you're trying works, will you share that information with apple? director comey: i cannot comment about that right now. >> let me ask you a question. what should we conclude from the fact that you have been able to attribute the attacks of these people? are you more determined to do it because you see the point of it, are you better at it? what does this represent, a dedication to do this, or in the past you may have it was pointless? what is behind this? >> i think it is thech:

result of a new approach. as you saw back in 2012, we decided we would take the same approach we had taken against terrorist threats, which is we would make sure the intelligence community does a fantastic job of connecting with law enforcement and we unleash prosecutors who are specially trained across the country to work with lawyers, fbi agents in the community in order to see if they can figure out who did it and figure out who did it in a way that we can talk about it third, a and determination on our part that once we figure out who did it, we ensure that there are consequences. this is now, the third case this week alone were we have shown that unlike what the others have said, national terrorist groups are not anonymous. we can find them in the window publicly and we will.

is there more determination? >> these cases are hard, and once you release the dedicated prosecutors and give them access but the intelligence, hitting them involved with teams, determined to disrupt it, learning new ways to do it, and you see is getting better and better to figure out a way to get it anyway we can talk about it publicly. question,ng up on his was the iranian nuclear deal, does that have any influence on the timing of this? did you bring it today because it was right? , but our turn it over determination is to have our investigators, and this is in the direction of the attorney general, have our prosecutors and investigators, when people are stealing from u.s. companies and they break our laws, we are

going to do what we normally do, which is find the facts. if we can conclude who did it, we will bring charges. director comey: we bring cases when it is right to bring the case. they go to operational concerns, issues of fact, investigation and every thing else, so anyone who knows the department and knows me in my office, we bring cases when it is right to bring the case. >> thank you. ♪ journal" "washington with policy and issues that impact you. friday morning, daniel raymond will be with us to discuss the issues raised at this week's government reform committee on

combating drug abuse. he will talk about the work being done by his organization, and then megan mccarthy will share her thoughts about the federal and congressional response to the hair when eroinmic -- hai epidemic. be sure to watch "washington journal" beginning live friday morning. join the conversation. tomorrow on c-span, a russian journalist discusses the state of russian media under vladimir putin. former director of the nsa and the cia, michael hayden on u.s. intelligence and national security policy. that is live at noon eastern. following tuesday's terrorist attacks in brussels, the

european union held an emergency meeting to address border control between countries. justice andeuropean security ministers spoke to reporters. this is just over 30 minutes. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the press conference of today's extraordinary justice meeting. >> we had a very fruitful discussion this afternoon where the turnout for such a short term meeting was quite impressive, and that already shows the immense sense of solidarity among all the nations and that everyone realizes the attack on belgium was an attack

on europe and all of the values and we stand together. the main conclusion of the afternoon session is that we stand fully resolved that we will always stand for our values. europe has been under attack before, but we always defended liberty, democracy and we will do that together. for that, we adopted a afternoon, in the which i will refer to that seat can read the contents as well, but it emphasizes that we will exchange information even swifter than we already do. we will now, very soon, implement the main records. we will need to see swiss completion of legislation on this terrorism. plans, weneed new need to fully execute plans that have been measured, taken before and the strong results of the meeting this afternoon will do

that. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. dear colleagues. i first of all would like to thank the presidency and european commission that were all present this afternoon for the council of the justice in order to grief with us in regards to what happened last tuesday in brussels. , the brutal and barbaric attacks that took place really hit at the heart of shot atnd were also a the core of our values, of our liberty, of our freedom, of

everything that we care for. after havingn, expressed their sincere feelings of all european ministers, the commission and parliament together with us, insisted on the swift acting of european institutions of the different points of action of our joints of declaration, and i only would like to underlie several subpoints of it which are in the belgian do, very important. necessary in regard to the sharing of information system. we have a lot of examples given in the databases. we really have to act swiftly on that issue. another issue which was very important is the full exchange

of judicial information every in the framework of what happened in paris and brussels, how important it is , ourour intelligence judicial services exchange all relevant information that is required. a third point, which would like to underlie is the issue of the joint investigation after paris. we discovered how valuable the joint investigation that is at this point led by the belgian and french prosecutor with howrd to the paris attacks, fruitful but has been for the investigation. the joint presence of the judicial and police services in many institutions have really been a very, very productive for the acceleration of the whole procedure. maybe a last point i would like

to underlie, which in belgium is very important, that is our joint, i should say, joint struggle to the international operators with regard to the opening of the internet, with regard to communications that are not classical as our -- phonefied that are all calls. i mean the internet, skype, these kinds of communication should get accessible for us and only joint action on the european unity toward the operators can help us there. these are four points i would like to underlie because we are joining in regards to terrorism and we should be joining more than ever because terrorism knows no frontiers, knows no borders. thank you very much.

know, we findu ourselves here again in one more extraordinary meeting. the last one was the aftermath of the paris attacks. we are here again, mornin urning innocent victims. the people of belgium and their families will have our full support. the facts of course were a shock. unfortunately, they did not come as a surprise. , wey time we come together repeat ourselves with commitments. if they are not acted upon, if they are not delivered. citizens are tired. they are scared. i welcome the ministers

responsible, but i did not just want to talk. something needs to change. job ofl security is the the state, but the threat of terrorism is common. it should be our common response. the commission has taken states,ves to support but i'm afraid there is a lack of political will, lack of coordination, and most importantly in some cases, lack of trust. attack cannots continue to be wake-up calls for ever. ,e always talk to our citizens so what do we need to do in the coming days, coming weeks to prevent as much as possible this type of event to happen again?

two essential elements. first, improve our exchange of information and second, implement, put in practice what was politically agreed with the previous attacks. europeanthe counterterrorism center has become a reality. we have secured additional resources. now, it is time for the european union countries to make full use of it and to share more data. it must become the nervous center of our counterterror strategy. we have agreed today to set up a joint liaison team of national experts. i urge members to send their experts immediately and to share information. needd this yesterday, we

to talk to each other, but also our systems need to talk to each other. we cannot put our data in black boxes. data must be interconnected to be useful. that is why, in a few weeks, i will present ideas on how our information systems in both management and law enforcement can be better used, interconnected and enter operated. interoperated. our tools are useless if they are not put to proper use. explosivesample, the used in paris and brussels. they were all homemade. tocannot allow terrorists buy the substances so easy. been regulation

on explosives in place since 2013. why is it not fully implemented? the system for police forensic data, the sharing information system, the databases on stolen information are inconsistent and are gaps. us to immediately respond to that. we need to take our respective responsibility. i also told ministers that we cannot drag our feet with some pending files which are crucial. remember, from last december, our agreement. why is it still in place? parliament has to vote to adopt it in this needs to happen now.

strictly --eu can strictly use it. we cannot wait to years to implement it. president of the element is present here in this meeting. european borders and coast guard proposal, the proposal on firearms, the proposal on terrorism, these have really important findings that the commission has proposed and are waiting to be adopted and used. i ask everyone, especially council to adopt these swiftly and to maintain the high level of ambition of these proposals. otherwise, they will be meaningless for security. thatly, let us not forget perhaps equally important aspect of root causes and prevention

must be realized. the perpetrators in brussels, just like in paris were our citizens. these are our citizens. i will continue to support member states in their inclusion efforts. communities, prisons and online, this is where we fight terrorist and hatred. this is crucial. while terrorism will not hold us back, those that wish to divide us will be met with unity and resilience as we demonstrated today, and this is a very strong message we want to send from this meeting, because it is what we stand for as europeans. thank you. open the floor for

questions. i saw the first one over there near that lady. >> hello, i am from northern iraq. my question for you, well, i will wait for you to have your headphones on. my question is, well, the whole world has known for the past two the activities of the middle east and iraq, and people fighting and they are and have been to europe and have asked you for more support so they could fight isis on the ground so they would not come to europe. now they are in europe. but something have been done in the past to prevent this? the homesquestion is,

saysister from germany more isis fighters are in europe. how sure is that figure of 500? thatat is not something could have been prevented, but some measures have been taken, so how safe are we in europe? asking?exactly are you well, the first question is a question of international policy. how can we fight isis? well, we could discuss this at length today, but that was not the main purpose of this meeting, but the second question is a very important one. how can we recognize these isis fighters and how can we exchange information to ensure that this

information is available to everyone? wes is something that decided today. we want better, quicker information exchanged. well, fight the causes. yes, we talked about that, but the problem is, the causes are not just external. as, we areing talking about european citizens, people who were born here, but they have taken inspiration from syria or have gone that way and we have discussed this at length and it will be very important aspect in the coming years. >> i have two questions for the council because the commissioner does not need questions for the moment, it is my question is for the government.

first of all, this is the third time we have seen this press conference. i would like to know if you are serious this time, and how can you prove your serious, how many people will have to die before serious?e takene the member states the issue of the common agency of intelligence, which is the only way to have a real coalition sharing the information to have a global response to global attacks? thank you. that i fullyst say think that after the horrible attack in paris, the meeting that occurred here was a very serious one, and a very serious measures have been decided upon. our conclusion today is that they have to be executed even faster. with respect to whether the

intelligence agencies should be one european agency or several agencies, i think a wise word is said today, it should not matter, because the way we have made these exchanges should be that it is a single information agency. the police have to work together, the intelligence offices have to work together, and all the other judicial systems have to work together, and this is what is being worked out in the declaration of today and what should be executed faster. >> are you also more sure about measured the member states, that this time they do with a they promised? >> if they do not do it, they will be held responsible in the future.

trust in allut our members of the state. today, wesaid before, have put pressure on everybody to better incorporate exchanging information because without that, we can do nothing. it is the moment of responsibility, and actually, when i called the presidency and i asked for this extraordinary meeting, the response was immediate. we did not come here just to talk again and are people we said before. i said in the beginning, yes, it is the second extraordinary council, but it is the moment for everybody to take his or her fair share of responsibility. otherwise, we cannot move ahead. not have an enemy from the west, and that is why we say we have not declared a war does

begin not know who are the enemies. we have to address a very strange situation. in order to that it, we need to share information. we sent a message in the message was received. i come out of this meeting much happier then i arrived, to be frank with you. as we have said before, we all agreed on all of these points we decided, so it is a common responsibility in a common decision. situation in ahe decent way, but now we all, everybody, including the united states have learned their lessons from this experience. this move ahead with resilience, determination, and i repeat that because this is what i want to

put forth. i am here. these should be predicted and prevented. i will give you an example. brussels were homegrown, but they were also quite well known to intelligence services. same perpetrators were those in paris. they were not well known in terms of services. we were able to share information and intelligence. understand the skepticism of the honorable gentleman that just raised the last two questions. i would even share your

skepticism to a certain extent. however, to smaller remarks. the first is in regard to exchange of information and joint investigation. we really are moving very, very fast toward an integrated fight against terrorism. today, at least three colleagues came to tell me and our minister of the interior that in the aftermath of brussels, they have very important information to deliver. i cannot go in detail but i know what they said. it was quite important. beond, i had the pleasure to minister of finance during the financial crisis, and there has been enormous skepticism. national sovereignty with important finance is

to national sovereignty on matters of interior. we have given up on that sovereignty and it ended up with the european banking collapsing. do not despair. only excel my skepticism, but do believe that europe always, and again and again finds its way to solutions which are never existing as they are here. they're quite original. they work. i would just like to, as a reminder, i would like to be skeptical today, that i cannot say that our countries do not do inir utmost to help intelligence services and judicial services. lot ofly get a lot, a their useful help all of the time. >> let me to you, because there

is a lot of criticism on what we all have done in the last months. we should not forget that we have made many steps forward. as remembered on january 1, i inaugurated the counterterrorism center. last year, we adopted the european agenda on security. have radicalization, it is there. there, and we can really do miracles if we trust. goals,r to achieve our we have to foster trust and and this willion,

happen after this meeting. >> more questions. i have a question for the two ministers. you have said that we should cooperate even more today. information showing that one of the suicide bombers was sent back from turkey to the netherlands without else of knowing. could you explain what happened? he has disappeared, this chap. he does not appear in some files. what is happened? >> i would like to answer that, but right at this very moment, my colleague is answering that question in a press conference in the netherlands, and i would like to refer to the. -- that.

i would not jump to conclusions you for that, and i would like to refer to that. >> i understand. >> it is not utterly clear yet as to what happened. we will know tomorrow. interior affairs minister, the justice minister in the foreign affairs minister will be getting explanations to parliament on this issue tomorrow. for the moment, what we think is expelled the person in question, we think because this person had been arrested near the syrian border. this person was expelled. turkey told us of this expulsion

after the expulsion. the person had been put on an airplane bound for the netherlands. i think we were told the dutch government and the dutch embassy were told after landing in the netherlands, so the person cannot be detained. had a belgian identity card. normal belgian arrival. they need to do is presented belgian security card to go through check.

we do not know all the details right now, the we will learn tomorrow. thank you. there are two things quite unclear right now, which i still think we are on the fence with. is it possible that everybody who arrives from syria or other places in the middle east fighting for my soul or who it sis, is it possible that there is a legal activity over there? since these are extraordinary require extreme measures, do you think we would need something like quintana monday in europe -- guantanamo bay in europe to contain the terrorists?

thank you. question, if it indeed is clear and can be proven that somebody has contributive to terrorist actions and crimes against mankind, then indeed the person can obviously be arrested. the things that need to be figured out in detail is what level of evidence is required before actions can be taken. indeed, speaking for my own country, we worked toward a frame where we are convinced that if somebody willingly goes to that region, then that person knows what he is entering into, what he is going to contribute to, so that also may have legal consequences upon reentry. on your second point, whatever measures will be taken, we need to ensure that they are all within the constitutional or

legal framework that europe stands for, and that, i believe, if we lose that, then we lose our liberty and democracy, so within those limits, we need to fight terrorism, and i'm convinced we can and we will. time, mostpoint in of our countries that regularly have to deal with terrorism have to cope with terrorism, have income and nations in their law which are such pacific nature -- such a specific nature, that i think will always almost be possible to arrest people, upon the return upon their territory. to the extent that they know those people returned on their territory, and that has nothing to do with the law, and we can go into that and well about what ell about those

circumstances. principal ofth the legality fully respected in the extending also under pressure of the european community and a lot of countries, we went very far in increment nations. -- incrimination's. no guantanamo in europe. the rights are fully respected in our union. the second thing i would like to tell you, maybe you remember , we propose to make systematic checks even for the european citizens that are coming back to europe. the council of the parliament has to adopt this proposal and take all of these measures. >> i want to get the minister

the opportunity. >> i would like to say one word because i have an important meeting coming up. becauseg about turkey, you will certainly read about it in the international press needs to be informed, they did not inform us about the timing of the expulsion, so i do not say the belgian embassy was not fore the 14th of july. that was just a formal communication. we received no further message. that was by the end of june, and the 14th of july he was expelled without further notice and without telling us he was going to be expelled. on the exacttory base. the only thing we knew before that was that he had been arrested near the syrian border but nothing more than that. take you very much.

i must attend other obligations. >> i have two other questions and then we call it a day. >> well, i wanted to ask mr. haynes but he is gone. i wanted to know whether you discussed this at your meeting, was their problem with mr. abraham. how important you think he is? we are constantly being told that there are serious measures being decided upon, but they are never implemented, and now it seems to have an instrument for tools but they are not being used. >> that would be the on the subject that we have given forth here. >> last correction.

-- question. skepticism about the real significance of these crisis meetings in brussels, whether they are just for show now, but setting a timetable. i would like to know whether you have a specific date for specific things, the vote on the operability. when will that take effect? with the exchange of legal information, judicial information, when will that take effect? when will the european guard take effect? >> we are stepping up our efforts to finalize this by june. we are talking about the european borders guard.

it should have already been done, the system information sharing. >> thank you very much for your attendance and i wish you a happy easter. thank you. >> thanks again. >> coming up on c-span, a discussion on millennials and public policy. then, a townhall on the current state and future of aging in the united states. later, a roundtable on the fight against isis and jihadist terrorism. starting monday on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with the c-span series, landmark cases.

our 12 part series explores real-life stories of constitutional dramas before some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> the constitution is a political document. it sets up the structures, that it is also a law and if it is a law, we have the courts to tell us what it means. truscott -- scott versus sanford says is a part is it is the ultimate decision. >> the supreme court said it should make the decisions about these debates. >> landmark cases begins this monday night on c-span and c-span.org. consumer advocates from across the country are in washington dc this week for the consumer federation of america conference. we will take you there tomorrow for discussions on the sharing economy in the future of

marketing, live at 9:00 eastern on c-span2. tomorrow, a look at the terror attacks in brussels and the threats posed by european citizens returning home after fighting with isis. that is at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. -- c-span3. >> wall street investor stanley druckenmiller believes the u.s. is spending more on seniors at the expense of america's use. he sat down with geoffrey canada at the university of california, berkeley. this is about one hour. mr. canada: welcome, everybody. it is great to be here. policy. dean of public

it is nice to see a full house for this wonderful event tonight. our twoo introduce panelists, but we will start with a short talk and outline the issues with respect to youth in america today, and then we're going to turn to a discussion with geoffrey canada, and then we will have it open to your questions. there should be cards out there that you can get. there will be people circulating cards and i will choose questions from them to ask our guest. ,o, stanley druckenmiller it ind capital and closed 2010, but during that time, did very well and had in historic career on wall street for his success with his organization. soroso worked with george a mass is substantial amount of

wealth as well. stanley druckenmiller is the guy who knows a lot about finance. part of what we are we talking about tonight is finance budgets and issues of the future, and what this talk is about his thinking about the future, looking ahead to the future. he is concerned, deeply and profoundly about the future of young people in america, and you will see to the degree in which he is concerned about young people and how they are pushed up by other investments we make. educator,anada is an social activist, and the founder of the harlem children's zone which he started in 1990. the harlem children's zone was designed to try to help children, young people in harlem to get to college, graduate and get good jobs. comprehensive,,

and an intriguing approach. it seems to be successful, and i do not need to be defecating when i say that, but it takes a while to evaluate some of these programs. we do know, many people think, this is the model for things we should be doing elsewhere, and in fact, our president, they say, having put into budget some proposals and programs, they are actually trying to replicate the harlem's children's zone. the connection between them is twofold. they both graduated from bowdoin college and the other connection hasstanley druckenmiller raised the money for the harlem children's zone and geoffrey canada has provided the inspiration in leadership to make it a success that it has come. with that, let me return, and remember the notecards. --h that, i want to stern to with that, i want to turn to

stanley druckenmiller who has an outline of issues of the future of america for young people. thank you. [applause] please turn off all cell phones. mr. druckenmiller: i will have to turn mine off. [laughter] he mentionedller: he and i went to school together. used to think we about protest in changing the world, but even back then, berkeley, california was always the larger-than-life institution where movements started. [applause] it isuckenmiller: interesting, i hear a lot today about how millennials do not think the way children of the

1960's thought and they are not into movements or protests, but i look at a couple examples and i could not disagree more. when i think about how much this gave rights and how much of accomplished, i think it is ridiculous to suggest that this generation has not been involved in political activism with results. i would say the same thing about this generation in terms of environment and climate change. i look at the movement that has been made in washington in the last 10 years and i think it is directly a result of this generation's activities and focus. i guess i am somewhat puzzled and the fact that, however, that there is another thing your generation has not focused on, and the reason i am puzzled is because i think it is vitally

important to your future, but also to the future of the country, and it affects you i think we are going to have a conversation about this topic. we thought i would throw six or seven slides to get everybody warmed up to this topic. canou look at the chart -- everyone see this chart? red is federal payments to individuals or transfer payments. what you see is back in the early 60's, they used to be 20% of all federal government outlays. it is currently 67%. over the years, we have gone from an economy that use those transfer payments of 20% of the federal budget to 67%