particular, given the fact that its communications and information sharing are still very much a work in progress. this is what will make stopping the next attack all that much more difficult. we have two clear baskets of tasks ahead of us. one is obviously counterterrorism, and it is what most people will be focused on right now. identify the accomplices; map out the network; arrest as many people as possible who are planning attacks against the west. you heard yesterday, and i am sure there will be more today, of further raids in belgium and france, etc. that's appropriate. in many ways, the larger list, the 20 year plan, the thing that will be a lot harder to do, is integrating communities that have become ghettoized and are not at all integrated. i believe you with just one strange and disturbing statistic. i asked local police officers in brussels if they were able to

work with local imams in brussels when they found people who were drifting off, either into criminality or into radical ideologies, condoning and justifying violent extremism. they said largely not, for two reasons. religious is not a but a cultural taboo that makes it hard for them to reach out to many elements of the community. there are lots of efforts to do this, and some of the most successful have been to reach out to mothers, but they have a real problem getting past the social taboos. in terms of the imams themselves, they are, they told me, approximately 114. most of these young youth inc. radicalized don't speak arabic. don't speake imams any of the three local languages. the number they gave me, which is frankly mind-boggling, is

that of the 114 imams in brussels, a total of eight speak local languages. there is clearly a tremendous amount of work to be done. i will take your questions when you're done with the panel. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for joining us this early. i think we all really appreciate it. attacks, 22 brussels and most of the eu institutions -- i was pretty close to the core of the city. of course, matters of

opportunity and tactical expediency play the role. beenels had instrumental in in the investigations of the november attacks. also it seems that after the arrests in brussels, the most wanted figures, some of the remaining members of the cell chose to kill and die rather than be caught. but the attacks also epitomized the strategic decision by isis to extend operations into europe. jihadists are hitting the continent hard when it faces multiple crises. such are the stakes in the future of europe, and it largely depends on the ability of the eu and individual member states to respond to the threats. visa security and political applications too. europe has become isis's latest battlefield. the group has managed to cull

the caliphate with civil unrest. it has endorsed and supported groups in places like nigeria, afghanistan, etc. now isis is exporting the fight to gear, with the recent attacks in paris, istanbul, and brussels. the move might very well be partly a consequence of the setbacks that isis suffered in constituency, but that is no solace for the family of the victims and for european citizens, who are learning to live with the threat. whole of europe is targeted. it is not only paris, not only brussels; it is the whole of the continent. procurement lines spread across borders in the days up to the

other cities, and have been mentioned as potential targets in isis propaganda. europeans have also been targeted outside their home countries, whether it is in tunisia or istanbul. unfortunately, it is very likely that there will be more attacks likely to come. they have conducted civilian operations linked to persians nuclear program. the french government officials have repeatedly warned of the prospective terrorists in europe. rely on a reserve of 5000 european foreign fighters waiting for the time to deliver weapons; some are on their way and some are dead. not taking into account the possibility of other, homegrown

radicals. when isis is hopefully defeated, other organizations will take up the mantle. europe is no random target. the attacks come at a time when the continent is facing multiple crises. a fiscal and monetary crisis resulting in the bailout of several european states, and economic crisis with endemic unemployment. it was initially spread by the syrian civil war, and increasingly for economic reasons. alsoontinent is questioning the status of islam in europe and the ability to integrate migrants. on top of that, a crisis of obviouslyroject,

since the 2005 constitutional referendums in the netherlands a game playing out with the referendum, the brexit referendum in the u.k. in a couple months. the attacks fit also within isis concept of a political gray zone. western muslims find themselves in a gray zone, either following -- ways of the caliphate neither following the ways the caliphate nor the mainstream. it is designed to provoke a backlash against european muslims, pushing them to embrace the radicals. so facing that, what can europeans do? europe is, frankly, not well-equipped. just after the monetary union was created without a, a without aon --

complementary fiscal union -- -- conduct successful operations within that framework. but that instrument was still standardized in the eu neighborhood, typically in the balkans. not too distant euro proper. a series of steps can be taken in the short term, and some are in the pipe already. intelligence sharing, particularly in the europol e. they need to give more information to agency contacts, and more attention to the schengen border, which is under alert. such devices as the names

caught for the continent, eu member states have to share crucial data and can help face the intelligence and security corporation challenges. more can be done in terms of means,ng anonymous including means of payment with much more limited sum than individual terrorist ventures. separatedty cannot be anymore. a handful of companies need different spending commitments right now, at least five of them. fewer are willing to commit troops and resources to operation. attempts to improve the burden sharing of the continent's

security has been made up from the paris attacks. the french government has called on other partner states to work within the framework of a mutual assistance in parts of the european treaty. more can still be done. what should be pursued in the near term -- the foreign whichgy, policy strategy, should reflect the priorities. the ability to give security to citizens, and it also requires setting europe's values and making sure that these are not empty promises for those who do choose to embrace the european way of life. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. now eric. to thek you very much washington institute for hosting this event.

and for inviting me to join, to be able to share some a topic that is receiving in norma's amount of attention from the policy and practitioner community. you can't open up the "the new "the new york times" without seeing what went wrong and how to fix the problem. it is difficult to add, particularly following these two speakers, much value, but i will do my best, reflecting on my six years in the state department working on these issues. and other experiences i have had. the first point is that i very much share matt's assessment of the two-prone to challenge, because both the counterterrorism problem and social inclusion -- i would frame it slightly differently in

terms of the near term counterterrorism challenge and a longer-term prevention challenge, and at the core of the prevention challenge are issues of social inclusion. one of the main issues that we have to grapple with in europe, that europe has been grappling with for some time, is resources. every single leader will talk about the need to focus on a long-term, while also focusing on a short-term, and the goal should be of course to take terrorists off the battlefield in the streets, but also to diminish the recruits so there aren't tend to replace each one you take off the streets. unfortunately, the resource allocation never matches that rhetoric. we're guilty of it in the united the lastn terms of budget of this administration; i don't believe there were any dedicated resources to countering extremism at home.

the budgets in the department of homeland security have a specific purpose. i think a similar issue confronts belgium and other countries -- the resources simply are not reallocated to prevention. that means the kind of mother schools you have seen popping up around the world, to engage mothers proactively and allow them to engage their children and other young people in the community, to set up hotlines for mothers to reach out when they see early signs of to train school teachers and police. all the rhetoric are there. the european union probably has the most elaborate radicalization awareness network imaginable, and they promote it all the time, and it produces lots of reports and analyses, and they do lots of workshops. but at the end of the day, you

don't see that translating into resources at the municipal level being allocated to implement the good practices being identified. that doesn't get a lot of attention in the how to fix the problem bucket, but over the long term, a greater investment in prevention resources, i think, has to be made a priority. if one looks at the budgets of european commission, the development commission, 1.8 billion euros to deal with counter radicalization and 1.8 billionn africa, euros, obviously a similar amount of money is not being invested in counter radicalization at home. again, something to look at. the united states is not necessarily a role model in this, but hopefully it will become one.

the second issue i think that inds attention is the gaps the european union system, the shortcomings are not new. termsave long existed, in of the counterterrorism structures. terrorist attacks are not new. they have been horrific in numerous countries around the continent. yet we haven't seen the kinds of changes in the system, in the european architecture, that i think a number of european countries have been advocating for. part of the reason we haven't seen that kind of change is because in some sense it is the lowest common denominator process. countries number of that are less willing to invest resources and political will in the kinds of reforms that are so clearly needed.

withouts not counterterrorism related structures; they exist, they just don't work. the question is, by creating these structures, as has been advocated both today and in various newspapers over the last few days, the structures are great, but they have to come with political will. seen -- i hopee the political will will be there to not only design into proof structures, for example counterterrorism agency, an eu intelligence sharing mechanism that works -- but it has to be implemented at the national level. when onlyllustrated, five countries are submitting names, that means 23 aren't. the structure will have to change; the way the european governments operate.

part of the challenge here -- seeagain, we are going to shifts in it, just like in the schengen system, we will see shifts in how the european governments and institutions balance privacy and security -- i think for too long there has emphasis placed on haserhaps too much -- that interfered with the ability of european governments and european unions to provide security to its citizens. i think that debate is a full one; it has to happen. but the debate is so complex that it often slows down reform efforts, because there are so many stakeholders that need to be heard. it just elongates any reform process. that is another thing to keep an eye out for. one thing that i've always

scratched my head about is the challenge that the u.s. government has in terms of dialoguing with europeans on counterterrorism. part of that challenge is a headed of the hydra- system in the european union. you have the justice of home affairs, processed with the department of justice and homeland security; you have a foreign affairs counterterrorism dialogue; you have the financing dialogue; you have a countering extremism dialogue -- it is five or six dialogues, none of which involve the eu counterterrorism coordinator, because he doesn't have any authority. he produces wonderful reports that he has a limited mandate and no resources to do anything. these are all things that i think people have identified for the last few years, but have really not -- we haven't seen

sufficient progress made there. two more points. the first is that as we look at the solutions or improvements in counterterrorism in europe, a lot of it will involve subnational actors. a lot of it will involve empowering municipalities, local police forces, and resourcing them. difficult at the national level for the u.s. government to have a real influence on how national governments in europe engage with their subnational authorities. i think what we were trying to do was encourage as many city to city exchanges between european cities in u.s. cities on issues around social cohesion, countering violent extremism, so lessons could be shared. relatively well-known

example was between columbus, ohio and brussels. the highest per capita number of foreign fighters of any city in ofope, and a group officials came over to columbus and other cities and met with cities that had designed local countering violence initiatives with social workers, police, educators, and how they can all work together in engaging individuals at risk fromreventing folks becoming further radicalized. some of those lessons learned were implemented, and the mayor apparently cited a germanic decrease in individuals leaving.

it is hard to prove as a direct correlation, but there is certainly more that has to happen. i think the u.s. government is trying to encourage it. and then a final point i would that thehe fact tendency to, in this context, cite number of security officials, new police officers, dollar figure investment in security as the answer to the problem in response to these situations -- these tougher laws. what has happened, as we reflect back over the last 15 years in the yearss after 9/11, there was not one day when the u.s. wasn't being

reminded by our european friends about the need to safeguard numan rights as we deal with a egregious attack on our homeland. itry international floor, was the europeans were champions of the human rights agenda. it was europeans who were reminding the u.s. not to overreach. we in the u.s. learned our lessons in terms of overreach, and we have made some adjustments and implemented some lessons learned, but as i watch this from afar in europe, the debate is completely different now. europe is understandably -- it's under attack, feeling directly threatened in a way they weren't after 9/11. you've seen a significant decrease in the human rights rhetoric. it's something to keep an eye out for.

i think there is a risk that, whether it is the emergence of laws in france that have been enacted, and i believe are being incorporated into the constitution now in terms of the ability of the government to do that, i think there is a risk in overreacting. i think there is a way to balance these concerns, both rhetorically but also practically. i think over time -- again, this has to take place in europe -- but over time, i think there will be a more balanced approach, so that we don't actually create more radicalized individuals as we try to prevent them from becoming radicalized. i will leave with that, and will be happy to answer any questions. thank you. [applause] moment,omes my favorite which is i did ask the first

question. listening to you all, i was getting more and more mystified, a to why europe have so much worse problem in the united states. i hear talk about social integration, social inclusion, and i thought it was the united states that have a considerable problem of dissatisfied youth and criminal gangs. and as we have seen over the i was hearing about a lack of government coordination and agencies that don't talk to each other. i thought it was the united states, with our system, which leaves policing in the hands of localities. i have even heard rumors of the fbi and the european police department not getting along. hearing counter radicalization efforts, as one

of our speakers put it, the united states is not to be followed in these areas. i was hearing about isis's targeting strategy of going after people living in the so-called gray zone, and i would be interested -- i thought they would be interested in targeting the united states. persuade me that it is something other than sheer luck which explains why the united states has faced less of a problem in the united states from these sorts of attacks. >> well, we have had our share of cases. there are cases in every fbi field office, and as should be expected to continue. the vast majority of those are of the inspired, homegrown, radicalized offenders. what we are seeing in europe is a shift. these are not mutually exclusive -- a shift towards these far more capable, sophisticated,

dangerous, foreign-directed plots, and there are several reasons for this. one is geography. europe is at the doorstep of the conflict in syria and iraq. the ability to travel, the cost of travel, the distance, the barriers that have been removed. because of social media, it really puts europe at the back door,or maybe the front of what is going on. we are a further distance away, and it is more expensive to go. plenty of people have gone or have tried to go, but the flipside is that europe does not have what we in the united states have put in place since 9/11, which is a far, far more robust and integrated intelligence law enforcement coordination system. we have fusion centers around the country to integrate local, state, and federal law enforcement's; ws. we have participation across the

interagency's. -- the agencies. no such thing as 100% success rate, and it is impossible to say that there won't be a successful attack here. but we have a completely different model that europe is now just beginning to try and emulate. finally, we do have a much better record of integration. you will not find in the united states a community like maalenbeek, or marseilles, that are completely insulated, and in some ways isolated, large segments not speaking the local language, not sending their children to the school. you will find a whole lot of imams in this country who don't speak the local language. we have had pockets where we have seen issues -- for instance in the somali-american community. nothing like what we saw in europe. there was a tremendous amount of investment. as eric pointed out, we now have

this new task force in countering violent extremism, to be headquartered at the department of homeland security. participation, not only across the intelligence and law-enforcement spectrum, but more importantly, across the social service spectrum of government. hhs, the department of education, etc. i think the first thing we should expect from that task force that will be of significant import is highlighting communities where there still are pockets of hotspots, which does not mean a terrorism hotspot, but a hotspot of communities that are not yet fully integrated. we will be looking to do that not only from a prevention perspective, but also from a social cohesion perspective. it's the melting pot of the united states -- you don't need to check the national identity at the door to become what we

are, which is hyphenated americans. the europeans are just getting on top of this. the belgians, for example -- they now have only fairly recently a coordinated unit for threat analysis, which is supposed to be a national model of fusion, which is what we have, for intelligence services and their federal police. way,n't forget, by the that the high national level in belgium is made more complicated by the multiple federal ways in which the system operates; not just politically, but geographically, linguistically, and culturally. 20 bonus points to whoever can tell me how many parliaments belgium. in working down to the local level, where there are multiple task forces, usually one per municipality. that,e trying to copy

but there is not enough investment. for example, in the municipality ismaalenbeek, it really coming up in almost every recent terrorism case. in the municipality of maalenbeek, they have had until recently 185 open, unfilled police officer slots. after the november attacks in paris, they got 50 new officers. that's great; they are now down 135. oft of that is funding, part it is that it is hard to get people to work in a place where there is a lot of work to be done. but clearly there needs to be a focus and a push into that space. >> i think one of the youerences in the u.s. -- have very destitute neighborhoods in the u.s., where people are facing economic was, employment discrimination, etc.

but in some ways it is a d that creates a more dangerous situation. there is also something i would like to make clear -- it's not them and us. these young people are all europe. many of them are third-generation; in france, a third of those who join isis are converts. they don't convert to islam and get radicalized, they convert to isis. is the challenge we are facing. it's not against islam or muslims, not only because they are falling into the trap devices, but because it is utterly not true. >> i think it is a fair question. that, solso just note we don't turn this into a "what's wrong with europe"

session -- the united states has enormous problems with gun violence and mass shootings that europe doesn't have. inequalitiesthe that are driving the situation in some of these muslim communities and european cities -- there is that inequality here, it is just manifested in different ways, and not focused around muslims. continents have issues of social inclusion and inequality that are generating different kinds of of reactions. -- different kinds of reactions. and while w unintentionallye pile on brussels, there are many parts of europe at the national and local level that do have their acts together. particularly at the community

level, you have seen a number of -- whether it is denmark or the netherlands or norway -- you have seen really innovative community level programs that are dealing with exactly the kinds of challenges that maalenbeek is dealing with. the question i am always asking is, given all these networks in europe to share experiences, given all the resources that thf -- whether it is denmark or the netherlands or norway -- you have seen really innovative community level justice affairs commission has, why aren't some of these programs being brought to places like maalenbeek and resourced? i don't know what is preventing this, but it seems like such an obvious transfer of expertise and experience that should be happening. >> thank you. surprise, surprise, there are some questions. let's start -- these wait for the microphone. don't forget, our audience is watching on c-span. >> good morning. uropole senior

representative in the united states. i want to make a couple comments and then go straight to the question. i would representative, like to a knowledge the victims of the brussels attacks and their families. one of my colleagues was injured in one of the attacks. we muster member the victims when we talk about the subject. secondly, i do want to say -- and many of the panel have referred to it -- the big difference between europe and the united states is that we are not the united states of europe. the eu is an economic union. we do have all the challenges, but the solution cannot be compared to solutions found in the u.s., which is where i come to my question. i am happy to say that our law enforcement is a strong supporter of the eu. we have connections with our u.s. entities and a 53% increase in information exchange. we have 10 u.s. agencies.

by question is this. have you learned a lot post-9/11? they ate knowledged failures that could have prevented the attack, and it led to this establishment of the and cnctc. thise set up with creating not on the back of europe. -- that made the ntct a success? nctc seems to have been a success in coordinating terrorist information and counterterrorism activities. is there any advice the panel has as we move forward setting up the european counterterrorism center? >> sure. first of all, thank you for mentioning the victims. it goes without saying that we have to be thinking of them, of course. it's not just the nctc that was

created. we had a massive bureaucracy, including the department of homeland security. i think it's important to broadght that there's a bureaucracy that we put in place, with redundancy, to make sure that nothing, that no one system failure will lead to catastrophe. i think one of the most important things, especially as you are highlighting the large number of local law enforcement agencies in the united states, and think of that more so as you get to the local law enforcement agencies across europe that are in different national spaces, i s the fusion centers, which don't get as much attention. as you go out to the fusion centers, that is where the information is push all the way down the pipeline to the people who are walking the streets, the law enforcement, local law enforcement agencies, the people

doing community policing. that will have not only the law enforcement that the prevention component that are so important. they are much more staffed than any fbi field office, and that is what's important. again, we are piling on belgian because it happened here, but let's recognize that belgium has put in place a lot of good changes. it has onlyt happened in the past 18 months means it has taken time to settle in, as it did in 9/11. this fusion center is important. 18 measures that were taken after january, 2015 -- another 12 after november -- we need to give these things time to work, but staffing is important. in maalenbeek, you had an ingenious model. there is a police entity dealing with counter radicalization, not arresting people, but to integrate people into the community; what we would call community policing. it is a very small unit. enbeek has 8000-10,000

people moving in and out every year. community, second youngest by demographic. while they have this really unique feature of community police officers focusing on counter radicalization, after they got more officers after the november attacks in paris, they are now a total of eight. there are three people in the civilian prevention branch working for the municipality. they are doing great work, but that is 11 people. we need to staff this up and create redundant ways between them. that is most obvious now in one off the fact that t the individuals was a belgian national and a bomber on tuesday. according to the belgian minister, that was, as he put it, because of a liaison minister.

you can't make it that easy. you can't have one person whose job it is to share a critical piece of information. add in terms of a recommendation, less on the information sharing and more on the intelligence sharing. on the strategy developments and strategy of limitations -- a r ole that ntct plays, and i think that is very valuable. i think europe, like the united states, produces a lot of strategy documents. lots of policy documents in response to various threats, mandating certain reforms in systems, and very rarely, i think, is there a really rigorous implementation plan that is both developed and a sessed, and those that

are not following through held accountable in some way. i think something similar might be of interest. while i have the floor, i want to make one comment, which is that a lot of these issues of social inclusion we are talking belgium, arepe and not unique to europe in the context of the counter-isil effort. there are a number of countries resourcing foreign fighters, were those individuals are coming from marginalized communities. the issues we talked about today, in terms of the community engagement, ensuring governments are responsive to their citizens, is actually missing from the discourse of how we deal with isil. military,ssues of the

intelligence sharing, the humanitarian relief; all those issues get a lot of attention, but governance questions, which i think are fundamental to this problem set, are often treated in a completely separate contacts. i think at some point we have to figure out how to integrate these two key pieces -- it's challenging, but unless we do that in a more robust, dynamic way, we will continue to be focusing heavily on the short responses and leaving these longer-term challenges to a completely different set of stakeholders, and therefore undermining our effort to solve the problem. one thing i would like to add -- counterterrorism is on the very end of the spectrum, but even within the real security, there are issues between more

and more with the last few attacks and networks, its ordinary crime. many of the recent terrorists have a past in petty or organized crime, and this seems to be increasingly a pathway to terrorism. sanctified by the blessing of a radical ideology. this is also something they need to tackle, which can only improve the situation of the neighborhoods we were talking about. >> thank you. dan. cbs news. when you comment, please, on the choice of targets? on the one hand, the united states, the boston marathon bombings, and san bernardino three months ago. the boston marathon a

high-profile place; that one office party in california, almost meaningless. yet 14 people were killed. what is the european decision? airports, train systems, is that the routine choice? think what we are seeing in part is the difference between loan offender attacks and foreign directed attacks. in the united states, thae boston marathon bombing in the san bernardino shootings were plotted by the individuals themselves, and they hit targets that were nearby and familiar to them. in europe, we are seeing foreign directed plots, where the idea is to inflict maximum damage. sometimes on transportation, which is an obvious target, we now know that there is

surveillance that was being done on at least one senior official. we saw in november in paris the idea of another type of sophisticated, spectacular attack which is the mumbai style. multiple cells with firearms and explosives. i think the big difference we are seeing are three things -- multiple, simultaneous attacks and plots that are multijurisdictional in nature. november, people from belgium and in belgium were plotting attacks in france; and here we have again multiple , and herenvestigation i'm sure we will see in brussels when the european union is reporting that there are 5000

verified -- just verify -- european union citizens who q, anded to syria and ira we have unverified reports of how many have come home, the one thing we know is that there is a credible threat and an intelligence gap in terms of knowing all the people who have gone, and one state have gone, have they returned and where are they. we see that as an important gap, in in terms of being able to police the borders overall. there is a lot of work to be done but i think we are seeing the difference. down here in front, please. >> thank you. from the polish embassy. i would like to ask you to questions. attacks in europe -- how can we trace the mastermind?

u.s. -- it's not the major source of radicalization. it must be internet, social media, and so one. that's the first question. second regarding europe. asked the european union to have counterterrorism -- what is the practical dimension? how would it relate in a dialogue? i do think there is a danger for schengen, and my comments -- i that 2%he link between spending of the military -- 2% -- it's loosely linked to its counterterrorism cell. this money will not be diligently spent on the, let's say, issues regarding

counterterrorism. >> ok. i'll leave that one for olivier. it would be spent taking the fight to the islamic state. there are -- there are lines of connectivity, tissue connecting all these issues. something calling itself the state, people who are converting to the islamic state. on tracking the mastermind, the biggest piece here is going to be intelligence. we were able to know about the plot because of intercept communication. int individual then bragged the islamic state's propaganda magazine to say how easily he was able to move in and out of europe, despite the fact that he was wanted. it's not just intelligence, but law enforcement issues. i want to challenge the idea, though, that the driver of

radicalization is primarily or only the internet or social media as playing a huge component. we are seeing in almost every case face-to-face radicalization. right;the imams, you are it's other people in the neighborhood. the vast majority of mosques in inleneb our storefrontek -- are storefront mosque. this nexus of criminality is huge.there is one individual now in prison, a key instigator. he was nicknamed papa noel, because he said continue to go out and do your criminal activity, just give me a portion so that we can finance foreign terrorist travel those who want to go. in another case reported recently by politico, a

journalist was talking to officials in belgium, who told him of an intercepted syria, andons in they wanted to know one of the know, how are they referring to him? are they referring to him as a murderer or a bum? they said it is about street cred. it is not actually about the highest levels of paradise. >> thank you for asking the question. they're one of the countries that meet their commitments.

the spending target is not spending on nato, but spending on the military generally speaking. this is useful in the situation where facing. some of these are used to target the islamic state in their iraqi and syrian strongholds. it it has increasingly case in belgium nowadays that troops are deployed on the streets to assist and support the police in trying to secure. soldiers are protecting mosques, synagogues and churches and train station. have to make sure you have a military, the better

you are equipped to face the threat, individually and collectively. that is why i referred to that. question part of your but the central authority article 42.7 in the eu treaty. idea was that the france was taking a lot of the burden of defending the continent. they were targeting another brand of jihadi's, a link to al qaeda. we did get contributions from other member states. the national coalition operations in iraq and syria.

that was a significant change, i'm thinking of germany who is traditionally more cautious. sharing is to be pursued. -- schengen isy, now facing two main challenges. one is the massive flow of refugees into europe. second is the possibility that free movement offers across borders.

the obvious thing is these external orders, that is something extremely significant. is where the most tangible benefits for eu citizens, that you can cross a border. that you can buy chocolate from belgium coming from dunkirk without stopping. unfortunately, they used the same possibilities to do other things. safeguarding that to come up with security challenges is not only a security issue but a major political issue. >> i want to add one comment on the question about how to trace mastermind. there is obviously the communication tracking and the intelligence gathering that is

essential. another piece is the role that community members play in reporting early signs of radicalization. byis not necessarily reporting to the police but reporting through another channel. that't think it's a secret he was able to hide out or find a little safe haven in his home community. i don't know if it has been proven but i assume there are people in the community who knew that he was there and could potentially have notified government officials of his presence and perhaps his plans. i do think the investments in that piece of the information gathering is there.

one way is to go about getting rid of the masterminds and the other way is getting rid of the recruits. a mastermind needs people to implement his or her master plan . couple questions. sanctuary ins the syria or iraq play in this terrorism we are seeing in europe? you're describing these indigenous problems inside europe and these communities. you are talking about privacy considerations and privacy laws. to what degree are privacy laws and regulations in europe a

barrier that laws have to be changed to allow the kind of intelligence and the eavesdropping necessary to track the extremists? >> i will take the first question, and i might have to punt on the second because i am not an expert. in terms of the sanctuary feeding into the problems in europe, i think even when there is a political solution in syria, you will have thousands of fighters who have gone off to , theyin syria and iraq will be either dead, wanting to remain in syria, or they will want to go home. want tos will probably

go home and be willing to renounce violence. the challenge for europe will be what to do with this influx of returnees and how to decide whether to prosecute or reintegrate them into society. just like the system in belgium is overwhelmed by simply suspectedhe 100 plus terrorists in the midst, it will be overwhelmed by how to handle the returnees. think, in terms of being able to rigorous intake or deciding which are threats to society and which are able to be reintegrated in developing programs, this gets to the question our colleague asked about what the european counterterrorism center could do. nevertheless a

valuable piece of what this agency could do. to be a centralized place for dealing with returnees. because individual governments may not have the resources to , iorously vet the returnees think maybe a centralized european-funded outpost could do the trick. i don't think the resolution in syria will end the problem. downll certainly slow it because there will longer be that attraction for fighters going off to syria to get trained. i do think that the cat is out of the bag in terms of there are thousands of people who have been exposed to horrific violence. deal with their

reintegration and return is a huge challenge. another question, there are close to one million people who have fled syria who have come into europe. could you talk about to what extent you think that will be part of the problem? you were talking about the ease and low cost of travel asoughout the middle east part of the reason why europe faces a greater challenge than the united states does. to what extent are restrictions on travel from these countries appropriate? we have heard quite a discussion about that matter in the u.s. presidential debate. >> that doesn't make them smart questions. [laughter] finish dealing with these questions and we will add on an answer to the third.

why don't you finish what you will answer here. >> on the privacy question, again, it is a field unto itself. i will not pretend to be an expert on privacy law. i have seen the passenger name recognition issue in discussions within europe about whether eu member states will be required to gather personal data from airlines of the passengers flying in and out of european union airports. roadblocks that certain constituencies in europe place to creating this database, a database that exists in the

united states -- it is the right to privacy and the right to protect individual information. it is an understandable reaction to what happened in east germany and elsewhere with the government gathering this data on individuals and who knows what they do with it. that created an enormous roadblock to progress in that negotiation which was in the aftermath of various terror attacks in terror threats. for example, the underwear bomber in 2009 i believe was one for the u.s.s pushing europe to intensify progress on the issue. i still don't believe that there is an agreement within the european union in part because of these privacy concerns but my

invitation -- my information may be outdated. individual member states have their own purposes laws. once you get a european level agreement european -- each european country has to implement that agreement and different national approaches and experiences may further complicated that. i cannot speak specifically about the laws but that privacy rights are constantly an issue in terms of information gathering and sharing within the system. >> on the first issue, the sanctuary issue, i want to point out we are making it more difficult for people to travel and we have had some success there. we are seeing people now moving to libya. that will present some other challenges. i think the sanctuary provides assistance to the ideology.

there's nothing like a battlefield defeat to pull back on their ability to radicalize this purported idyllic islamic state and because we have had battlefield defeat in syria and iraq. it is logical that they will more or to violet at home and become more determined to strike at us in our homes. that plays into the other role of sanctuary which is in these foreign directed plots, not everyone, but a significant number of the individuals who did go and in one case and one who are gone from the six days. you only need a few days to learn how to do certain types of skills and they are coming back greater skill for particular types of attack. in terms of what to do with returning foreign fighters one

thing people mentioned to me last week's there is a number for example within the eu counterterrorism office to help member states be able to put together a procedures for the use of internet evidence which has become much more important when you can prosecute. they want to prosecute but at the end of the day many of those people will not be prosecutable. many of them will not get anything near life terms. so whether it is immediate or in a few years you have to think about rehabilitation and that is a huge issue. on the sideline, we hosted here an event on the issue of rehabilitation of foreign fighters. and the u.s. retired general who is involved in these kinds of things in iraq. in the counterterrorism court nader. if you're interested in that kind of issue, that is on our website. i will finally say on the

privacy issue, watch for change. i did he just one example. prior to tuesday's attack. the eu's counterterrorism court nader's had interesting things .n it the assistant deputy secretary overseeing some financial activities. i was primarily interested in this piece. you may recall we had some -- over the program still in effect, to great effect. it took some time for the european parliament to get on board. we got there and were able to function. there were some cutouts. you do not have united states going to the europeans and saying, you have to remove these cutouts. counterterrorism , for example this cutouts and if you make a payment denominated in your rose from

somewhere in the eu to somewhere within the eu is that covered with the swift program, washington is telling the europeans you need to intimate that cut out. the counterterrorism court nader is telling the europeans that they need to cut out there cut out. it's not that these concerns are not legitimate, they are, it just means we will have to find more sophisticated waste to balance in the ways we all feel comfortable and secure in the other. >> much has been said about privacy issues. you have different views from different member states and it is healthy -- healthy that we have that debate, including at the eu parliament. some of the instruments we are discussing have to be passed by the eu body. beia and iraq, it would

extremely beneficial to defeat the islamic state there. these are training grounds for fighters. that also provides a narrative. -- to fight for the caliphate and try to retake damascus. rather than to blow oneself in a two blocks away from where you grew up. >> i'm not going to let you escape so easily. the difficult question which makes us all uncomfortable. we recognize the humanitarian crisis of these refugees. we feel great sympathy, but is there a counterterrorism problem. we may feel quite once a pathetic with some of the individuals making proposals which do not always see very well informed about restrictions on travel from those countries but is that an issue that we

need to think about. the reasonst one of we have had fewer foreign directed terrorist attacks in the united states? answer is,le unfortunately, there is evidence of small numbers but very disturbing cases of terrorists who have been able to sneak into europe within the waves of legitimate refugees. that is something we could contend with if we put in place some of the measures. as the counterterrorism report highlights, there is a problem when they put in place measures and a significant number of the member states don't connect to it. that system will only be as effective as the lowest common denominator. so i don't think we should be tarring and feathering the

refugees. we need to recognize that unfortunately, there have been some disturbing and devastating instances of people being able to move within those larger waves of migration. but as we put in place more wetrols at the borders, if can put these systems in place and make them actually work we have the capability of making it much safer for europe, not unlike we have done in the united states. there are multiple redundancy levels of checks. and we should be able as the human race to be able to accommodate people who are fleeing death and distraction in a way that does not present us the kind of immediate threat we saw tuesday.

research structure tries to bring in people, i can tell you right now that many of these restrictions that the arernment has put in place very much competing hard work. -- if ie mistaken about may, over here? >> it has become anecdotal that the belgians actually had a law or restriction that you could not invade a home or carry out police activity between 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.. is that true? my second point would be, talking about integration and anybody who served or worked in belgium, elgin is the least

integrated country in europe. third, you're talking about europe and three weeks ago, a major bombing attack in istanbul preceded before that by a major attack in ankara. it's no longer in europe but certainly a member of nato. >> three important points, the latter was not brought up because we are really focusing on europe and we can focus on other attacks around the world. at some point, it's part of nato but not part of the eu. this really nothing to watch their. if some of these press cases continue it's unlikely that they will be. on the anecdotal piece, that was the case that there was a ban on doing searches between certain

hours and that was removed after the november attacks in paris. on the issue of belgian integration, i found it tremendously interesting that in ,ll of my meetings last week local, federal, every level you can imagine, not a single person in their opening remarks to me said anything about the issues among the different communities. in belgium the difficulties of avigating society except for friend of mine in belgium who told me parenthetically over dinner about how difficult it is if there is something going on, if there is a trash bin from the your driveway, how many phone calls to how many different parts of government, regional, linguistic am a ethnic federal that you need to call to get that issue resolved in the

neighborhood. >> i think i mentioned the attacks in istanbul twice. to comment on the divided society issue we're talking a lot about community and not enough about individuals. join isis.uals they break with traditional islam that their parents would practice in the traditional western environment of their own family. they convert to islam and the isis interpretation of islam. individuals involved those communities in far greater numbers than the join the security forces of those countries. they play a key role in

following and infiltrating those networks so we should be careful to sometimes referring to communities only and not individuals. not only has it missed the point in what's at stake but those actually play to the favor of the more radical who defined with the community should be and should do and should be defined on the inspired basis which is not what we are looking for. >> thank you. a you should briefly consider narrative. italy has had zero casualties since september 11.

12, the, on october authorities arrested 17 people. one was mistaken identity and the others had explosives. >> what is the question? >> [inaudible] counterterrorism does not exist in italy. imams inans have 161 prison. [inaudible] they locked him up. >> and the question? >> how come these other jurisdictions don't follow the italians? several european countries have -- they do not wish them

more terrorism. how come you gentlemen keep talking about these problems as if they were inevitable and impossible, yet it italians have zero casualties. italians have died in mali, new york, paris, belgium but zero in italy. how come nobody pays attention to the model? in part, because i would challenge the idea that there is a separate italian model. u.s. are question several times i will answer it. they do a great job. they're not acting alone. they are part of the european union. there are open borders. there is a big element of skill and luck. god for bid that there could be

an attack in italy tomorrow. i would not be so brave as to say italy has it right the rest of europe has it wrong. there are other countries that have not had as many attacks there. i would not say it is a completely different model. i would say that the nature of these communities are different in different places. the biggest thing to me in terms of brussels is that they have known about these communities that were not integrated for a long time and it was not a priority, and now they are playing catch-up. mostcould put in place the sophisticated systems and strategies and it will still take time. it is thrilling and wonderful that the italians have not had an attack domestically within italy. may it continue. i don't think i would be as bold as you are saying it is not going to happen or that they found the golden nugget. they are still part of the eu and there is more they can do as the italian officials told me not to long ago.

>> final word? i i think, it is what emphasized in my remarks which is the prevention angle. statesin the united catching up to this pretty rapidly now. whether it be at the national, state, or local level. it is not just involving government but civil society, local leaders, municipal authorities, women, imams. it is a much more horizontal effort across communities and stakeholders. everyone talks about this. you can go to any country including italy or brussels. they will talk this as if they really believe it. . they probably do. the next step is to resource it. until we start doing that, it

does not have to be through the effort to counterterrorism. i think that more investment has to be made in this area. my topline point. one would be to emphasize that stakes are extremely high including for the united states and what is happening in europe. u.s. citizens have been killed in brussels. they can be targeted in europe, from europe. they succeed to being up to the task and it is a long task. we talked about it being a generational challenge. the u.s. might have to come up with a different plan and that is something to bear in mind on the side of the pond. >> they do not have the greatest

number of foreign fighters. they do have the largest number per capita. and so, as i think about this for what i would want to say as a final comment i would say this. one thing that is unique in belgium and elsewhere in europe is that while we do have cases , that isical religion not what we are seeing here. what we are seeing here is that there is a religious but the recruitment of criminals, zero to hero phenomenon is a huge problem. officials in brussels stressed to me multiple times in multiple meetings that there is a religious component. people kept saying -- solecism is mainstream in brussels. every solipsist is a terrorist, each has been .adicalized to solecism

maybe, maybe not. we know these kids are being radicalized. it is a different type of and very fast type of hyperspeed radicalism. i would say the local prevent component that aired has pointed to is critically important. last 15-18s over the months have put things in place and they have trained up over 17,000 police officers in the types of things to look for in terms of radicalism. they have trained up 700 teachers and social workers in to communities to be able identify and how to respond and interact. they have built platforms that weekonce a week or twice a where people can meet with the federal police to discuss things in place. i would emphasize crime.

so much so the belgians have two separate lists. when is a consolidated list for their security, primarily terrorism cases. i think it is 675 persons. the have a separate list -- joint information box. it parallel list primarily for people they know of in the criminal context. because so many of these people were people that the police had to admit, we know him, we knew him as a petty criminal. he certainly was not going to the mosque and involved in terrorism. because they find so much overlap, there looking to consolidate the list and that is probably a good idea. >> i would like to thank you all for consolidating our ideas on this. i would imagine we will be returning to this subject in the future. [applause] >> thank you both very much.

>> [indiscernible] >> today at the wilson center, they hosted a discussion on nuclear security policy and the obama administration's progress on their arms goals. we have that live at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. the hudson institute hosts panel on the syrian war and the impact of five years of conflict. live coverage beginning at noon

eastern here on c-span. from the milwaukee journal issite, js online.com, this the headline for wisconsin gop voters. it is love or hate donald trump. >> the state is turned upside down. intense dislike towards donald trump. the further north you go, the more love for donald trump. >> in the piece that you and your colleagues cowrote you wrote the following -- donald trumps message is an ever present soundtrack of the political season. resonating with some wall of alarming others. based on those who you talked

to, who is expressing concern and what are their worries? >> there are voters expressing concern who believe that he is crass, not a conservative. oneas absolutely i believe office holder the state that supports him. the rest have denounced their support. with ted cruz. there is alarm about what he can do to the republican party among the more traditional republicans. now and tuesday, wisconsin is the only game in town. 42 republican delegates. as you look at the calendar, what can you expect? >> they will all be here. donald trump arrives tuesday. he has an event on wednesday in green bay. he has said he will be here all week. john kasich and ted cruz said they will also be here. donald trump is not there get but the other two, a friday

night fish fry in milwaukee. in st. paul. it is a traditional stop with republican faithful and john kasich and ted cruz have committed to be there. that should be interesting. trust me, in wisconsin, fish fries are very big. ofjanesville is a hometown paul ryan. is that significant that donald trump is starting his effort there? popular in that part of the state even though it is in the southern parts. janesville is a land of the old reagan democrats. there was a gm plant therefore the better part of a century. it shut down several years ago. there was high on him -- unemployment in the area. the area has come back with you would believe that donald trump could make some inroads there. he said on some radio ads that he gets along with the house

speaker. i don't think he is coming in to send a message in the speakers backyard. i think he is just coming into poll votes. >> you spoke with a lot of people as he worked on your story including ray acosta. >> ray acosta is a new thing. he is an obama-donald trump supporter. he voted for obama in 2008. was turned off of politics. he is back. he voted for donald trump along with his wife linda dohring in person absentee voting. was -- donald trump says what he thinks and what other people are thinking. he likes that plainspoken rash speaking donald trump. >> what are the recent polls

telling you about the republican primary in your state? have shown that ted cruz has a very small lead. the key poll to look for is wednesday when the market -- marquette university law school that has been polling here since 2012, they will come out with their poll and that is the one to watch. it will set the baseline for what is going to come. it will not be predictive because there are six more days of campaigning or six days until the vote after wednesday but it will be a key poll to watch. it will set the tone for the rest of the race. walker,governor scott will he endorse this week? >> walker has indicated he will endorse but he is holding his powder until after the marquette university law school poll. if he does endorse, he wants to

make maximum impact. that ted cruzed may be his guide that you cannot predict that. you have to wait and see. will it make a difference? i think with the republican base it might but with the wider electorate, it will not. he is down about 39% favorability in the state now. >> going back to your earlier point about the political demo traffics of wisconsin. what are you looking for with regard to donald trump, governor kasich, and senator ted cruz where do they each need to do well? of thehe northern part state, there are three congressional districts. i think donald trump will do well there. in the southern part of the state, there is a swath of five congressional districts. you would think that ted cruz would do well there. i believe john kasich is making a play for the area outside of the cross. that is about -- la crosse.

in the how you fan out state and that is how it looks. the other thing the viewer's should know is that in wisconsin, it is an open primary. on the a ballot to and ballot you will have both the republican and democratic races. check either republican or democrat and that is where you will boat. you don't know how much crossover voting there will be if there are those so-called reagan democrats who would normally vote democratically. if they may leap into the republican primary. turnoutlso expecting a of about 40% which is high for a primary. >> all eyes on wisconsin's primary next tuesday. bill is following it for the milwaukee journal sentinel. thank you for your time. >> thank you so much. holds a, donald trump

town hall meeting in janesville, wisconsin. five --erage starts at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the media teaches us that democrats and republicans are supposed to be at odds with each other and i think that people that we neednize to be respectful towards each other and we need to understand that senators are respectful towards one another and that will be conducive to getting real policy done instead of acrimony and vitriol. see onpeople we television and on c-span are real people. when we saw president obama, the thing that stood out to be the most was that he had bags under his eyes. he is a real person dealing with real things. q&a, top hight on school students around the country attending the senate youth program talk to us about

their experiences regarding the program and their plans for the future. the students met with members of the executive, judicial, and media representatives. us and ie to take with really loved the insight he gave to us about being the outside source. reporting back to us and the electorate about what is going on in our government. >> ruth bader ginsburg was the most inspirational person we met this week. she has been one of my idols for a long time. i either want to be in the legal profession or possibly a center -- a senator. >> i understand the need for bipartisanship. but they should go with their eyes on a goal. we need to get back to having

a constructive discourse as we are having here. we need to respect all americans regardless of their background. p.m.nday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. of the debate between the democratic candidates for virulence opens each in the u.s. senate. representatives donna edwards and chris van hollen talked about criminal justice reform, u.s.-cuban relations and the trade program. ♪ >> good evening. i am denise koch. wjz is broadcasting forums so you can hear directive from the candidates. today, the democrats running for

united states senate discuss the issues. we take you to vic carter, who will moderate this forum. vic: welcome. tonight's forum is brought to you by the university of baltimore, the baltimore sun, and us at wvz tv. we would like to thank the candidates as well. all the candidates who qualified for the ballot and pulled at 10% or greater were invited. the candidates are donna edwards and chris van hollen. questions tonight will be posed by our panel. they are dr. ann cotton, director of the schaeffer center for public policy, edgar green, editorial-page editor for the baltimore sun, and columnist dan rogers. i am vic carter. i am happy to serve this evening

as your moderator. the order was determined by coin toss. the moderator can repeat the question for the candidate if needed. candidates cannot interrupt each other. time limits for each question is 90 seconds. the timekeepers will warn candidates when they have 30 seconds left. one minute will be allowed for rebuttal, but the moderator will have the discretion to drop rebuttals for time later in the debate. each candidate will be given one minute for closing statements. now first to our opening , statements. ladies and gentlemen, mr. chris van hollen. rep. van hollen: it is great to be here. this is an important election. this is about delivering real results to hard-working maryland families. that is what i have done since my first days in the maryland legislature when i teamed up to beat the nra and pass gun safety legislation, worked with the waterman to prohibit oil drilling around the chesapeake

bay, and with a pta's to boost fundings for maryland schools. i have taken the fight to the united states congress. i once again led the fight to protect social security and medicare. i know when to fight and i know when to find common ground. we cannot allow division in washington to stop all progress for working families. look i never believed it was , enough to be just a vote or only a vote or only a voice. i believe in delivering results for maryland families, and that makes all the difference. vic: thank you very much. now, donna edwards. rep. edwards: maryland is a state with so much going for it. we have great colleges and universities, including historically black colleges and universities. for too many marylanders, they are falling out of the middle class and struggling to get in. i know something about that struggle. that is why i am running for the united states senate, to give a

voice to that worker who wants to take a paid day off because a child gets sick and they don't want to lose their job because of that. for the young woman who makes $.78 on the dollar and knows she should be paid the same as a man doing the same work. for the young woman and man who might have messed up, but they deserve a second chance through education and opportunities to rebuild their lives and take a -- and to make a difference in their communities. and for those seniors and our veterans who paid into social security believing that elected officials in front of the doors and behind the doors should protect their social security and not bargain it away. these are the people i fight for. vic: now to the questioning. the first question will be posed by dan roberts. dan: given the recent terrorist attacks, what should the u.s. to

combat the threat of terrorism, and will you commit u.s. ground troops to combat isis in iraq and syria? rep. edwards: i think it is important for the united states to play more of an advisory role to our european partners, especially in terms of intelligence sharing and intelligence gathering to be able to root out domestic and homegrown terrorism. with respect to isis, i don't believe it is appropriate for the united states to add ground troops to iraq and syria theater. we are making tremendous progress in iraq and syria on the ground with iraqi forces, with kurdish forces. that evidenced just today with the killing of a top isis leader. i think it is important for us in the united states to protect

our domestic security to make sure we have communications among all communities, so that we are participants in our own security and to make sure our european partners have the ability to have the information which we gather and share that information so they can better protect their interests on the ground. vic: any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: my heart and all our hearts go out to the people of brussels. i have been involved in foreign policy issues since i worked on the senate foreign relations committee. we were involved by focusing on this region of the world. we need to do everything possible to provide allies with the weapon systems and help they need to roll back and stop and ultimately destroy isis. we see what is happening as a result of isis presence around the world. i do not believe that we should put american combat forces on the ground.

i strongly oppose the decision to put american combat forces on the ground in iraq, and we are still seeing to this day the consequences of that bad decision, including the rise of isis. we need to provide the iraqi forces and kurdish forces with the training and weapons they need in order to push back against isis. we will succeed in this battle. we will be firm and stand with our european allies and friends in the middle east. vic: any rebuttal? next question from andy to mr. van hollen. andy: the recent debate of whether apple should be forced to help the fbi unlock an iphone use a killer in san bernardino has reignited the debate between privacy and security.

do you think our laws set an appropriate balance? do you think they should be adjusted? rep. van hollen: you are right. we need to strike that balance in that debate, i come down on the side of protecting privacy in the broader debate. in respect to the situation with apple, the question is whether or not we can't find a way to simply go into that particular device without compromising the other apple devices around the world. i am looking for opportunities to, number one, get the information off that phone, if possible, without compromising others, but it is very important that we not have a system that essentially allows other actors around the world to break into all of our devices and all of our phones. this is important debate. so far, the courts have come down in the right place. rep. edwards: i think this is one of the most difficult balances that we have in a democracy, especially since 9/11. balancing our first amendment

rights and privacy interests versus our interests in making sure we are secure. i tend to fall on the side of apple in terms of protecting privacy. i worry that apple might be able to unlock one device and therefore provide the entry into all of our devices. i believe the resources, and i am confident of the resources of the federal government to be able to find what it needs in that device, even in the most recent days. we have heard we are getting closer to that and i would err on the side of privacy in this debate, but i think it is a very difficult balance to strike and is one we wrestle with all the time. in my time in congress, i do generally stood on the side of privacy when it concerns these security interests, recognizing that we have to protect all of our security and we need to give the resources to the federal government to do that.

vic: thank you. any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: no. again, i think this balance is important, but there are ways that we can protect our security without compromising our privacy and i think that balance has been well struck in many of the laws that have been passed by congress. in this latest incident, we need to continue to find a way to see if we cannot get information off a particular phone without compromising the privacy of all phones. vic: thank you. anne: do you believe that the program with iran was a good deal for the u.s., the west, and israel, or did president obama give too much away? rep. edwards: i have been very supportive and privileged to be have been participating in

discussions with the white house and the president of the united states over the course of the past couple of years leading to this deal. i feel confident now, having read the deal and express to -- and express support for it, that it was the right thing for the united states. i believe it was the right thing for our national security interests, for the security interests of israel, the region, and the world. i believe that over the course of this next decade, i think that we have important point of leverage with respect to iran, reducing their nuclear capacity, making sure that they don't have the capacity overnight, almost, and within a couple months of building a nuclear device and -- havoc int habit

the world and an escalation of nuclear proliferation in that region, and i think it is important that we have iran, who is a bad actor in so many ways. we have seen that in most recent days. they are a bad actor with reduce d capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. i believe that it's in the national security interests of the united states. i came out in support early of the agreement, and i believe it will ultimately make the world safer. rep. van hollen: yes, i strongly believe that the iran nuclear agreement will prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the best way to do that is by reducing their enrichment capacity. it is important to remember how we got there, and that was why -- by imposing strong economic sanctions against iran which is what brought them to the table. not all of us supported although sanctions which succeeded. it is important as we proceed to make sure that we hold iran

accountable. they do have a history of cheating on agreements in the past. just yesterday, the president announced sanctions against iran for a number of breaches, including their ballistic missile testing program, as well as their cyberattacks on the united states. i stand with the president in taking that action and we need to be vigilant, to make sure we respond to any kind of iranian effort to violate those other agreements or the iran agreement. if they get the sense that we are willing to look the other way on ballistic missile testing or look the other way on cyberattacks or look the other way on their aggression in the middle east, then they will be tempted to cheat as they have in the past. my view on this is don't trust, but verify. it was the right way to go for the security of the united states, our allies and israel. now we need to make sure we hold them accountable at every opportunity. vic: miss edwards, you have an

opportunity for rebuttal. rep. edwards: it is really important to hold iran accountable and i would add to that one of the things we have seen over the last several days with the announcement by the attorney general of taking action in law enforcement with respect to the cyberattacks and moving towards additional sanctions and enforcing those with respect to the ballistic missiles development, that we see that the president meant what he said when he announced the iran nuclear deal. that is that that would not stop the united states from continuing to enforce against iran in other areas in which there were violations. i believe that will also be true with respect to the iran nuclear deal. vic: thank you. next question comes from dan

rodricks and goes to mr. van hollen. dan: president obama made history by becoming the first president in 90 years to visit cuba. would you support lifting the u.s. economic embargo against cuba and taking other steps to soften cold war policies? rep. van hollen: i would. i think the embargo has been a historic mistake and i salute the president for his opening to cuba. i am pleased to have played a small role in this effort because my constituent, allen gross, had been held prisoner in cuba for over five years and we had to make sure we earned his release so that we could open that new chapter of relations with cuba. i worked very hard and met with i worked very hard and met with

the present multiple times to secure that release and negotiate. i was proud to be asked by the president to accompany allen gross' wife, judy, to havana to bring allen gross home. that was the icebreaker that allowed us to proceed with the change in relations. the embargo has only served to strengthen the hand of the castro brothers. it did not isolate the regime. they are doing fine. it isolated the people of cuba. the castro brothers survived a whole series of american presidents. the far better approach is to engage with the cuban people, engage with the space. hopefully that will open up pluralism and democracy in cuba. it will not happen overnight, with the policies of the past did not achieve their results. rep. edwards: thank you for the question. prior to coming to the house of representatives, i spent a decade at the arkham foundation, a small family foundation, for

about the last 25 years. under my leadership, we slated exchanges with cuba and that pressed united states into ending the embargo and developing a diplomatic relationship with cuba. my involvement in this area it goes back a decade and a half. i believe that the key to opening in cuba and really making a significant change their is the ability for american citizens to travel back and forth, to exchange our cultures and our education, and i'm pleased to have been able to support these efforts coming to congress and certainly now. i think we are seeing a new day and i think this next generation, both of cubans and cubans americans that are seeing our approach to the island

nations in a different way, and i think the president should be applauded for making this very bold step, but clearly there is action that congress has to take affirmatively to list the embargo, to allow us to travel freely to cuba and to allow us to do what we did at the arkham foundation, which is to have a cuban national baseball team come over to play the orioles. [laughter] vic: thank you. any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: i was pleased to see the president's visit continued to open up that space. i had a chance to visit cuba three times over the last five years as part of the effort to get allen gross out of prison, and each time i saw a growing optimism among the cuban people. the change was coming. it was great to see the excitement in cuba in the president's last visit. i do believe that the president is right, that as part of our efforts around the world, it is

important that we not just talk to our friends. it is important that we engage with others who may want to do us harm. after all, ronald reagan called the soviet union the evil empire and sat down with them. i think the president has given us an example in respect to negotiations with iran as well as the opening with cuba. that smart diplomacy and foreign policy can engage using change not just through the use of force. vic: our next question comes from andy greene. andy: do free-trade deals like the transpacific partnership helped or hurt american workers, and what steps should be taken for those it does this place?

rep. edwards: i'm concerned. before i came in to congress, and when you look at the history of trade deals, what you are talking about, nafta, or the most recent agreements with korea and peru were columbia. although steals my opponent voted for. -- all of those deals my opponent voted for. we have seen a hemorrhaging of jobs in this country. we have lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. companies like bp solar in maryland that lost jobs to asia. solo cups to general motors that lost jobs overseas because of our engagement in trade deals. my standard for trade is that it has to benefit and support american workers, american manufacturing, and that it must respect the other laws, environmental safety and other laws. i believe that other trade laws we have been involved in do not do that.

the transpacific partnership, which i have been trying to make that are for quite some time, it does not meet the mark. i would urge my opponent, who has supported nine of the last 11 trade deals, to not continue going down the track that trades away american jobs. rep. van hollen: thank you. like with any agreement, you need to look at a particular agreement and ask yourself the question, is this good for the american economy? is this good for american workers? is this good for american wages? the ttp did not meet that standard for a variety of reasons, including allowing other countries to under mine environmental protection laws, and i opposed the fast track and i opposed the previous multilateral trade agreements. you have to look at each of these on their own merits.

i am proud in the selection to have been endorsed by the united auto workers. we are very interested in expanding manufacturing in maryland. we have a manufacturing plant in washington county. we need to bring more manufacturing here. i am pleased to have their support as well as the support of another organization that is on the cutting edge of workers rights, which is sciu, which supported congress member edwards early in the campaign and is now supporting me. i was in annapolis fighting for paid sick leave at the state level. just as i put that forward as part of the democratic budget at the federal level. i am proud of my history of fighting for workers rights, better pay, and collective bargaining. rep. edwards: let's go back to

trade for a minute. it is true that my opponent has supported nine of the last 11 trade deals, including the korea agreement, which in the three years since the agreement was inked and you voted for it, we have hemorrhaged jobs and the trade deficit with korea has actually grown. i don't think that that is the kind of trade deal that the american people were american workers deserve. the tpp would have been nice over this last year and a half while i, and a group of colleagues, have been working to try to improve a transpacific partnership that mr. van hollen was a part of that, but he was absent until this election. you cannot vote for these free-trade deals and all the other hand say you support american workers. i am pleased to have the support of the hotel workers and the teamsters and a laundry list in the organization.

free-trade has to be fair trade. vic: our next question is directed to mr. van hollen. anne: the national debt has bloomed under the bush and obama administration and the national deficit is almost $500 billion. what would you do to address the budget deficit and reforms to entitlement programs? rep. van hollen: it is important when we deal with any agreements that we read those before we come out against him. like the tpp. i think it is important we see the product and our constituents expect that. i chair, i am the senior

democrat on the budget community. -- budget committee. i have been leading the battle in congress to put forth a plan that will grow our economy, invest in places like the national institutes of health, but also reduce long-term debt. the way we can do that is not by touching social security and medicare. way we can do that is by getting rid by a lot of the special interest tax breaks in the tax code that favor hedge fund managers over hard-working people, school teachers, bus drivers, and i put forward proposals to do exactly that. if you look at the special interest tax breaks that have accumulated in the tax code, they are trillions of dollars. 17% of the benefits of all those special interest tax breaks go to the top 1% income earners and only add to economic inequality. i have been very focused on reducing the long-term deficit in a way that protects social security and medicare. when it comes to medicare, we can save money by requiring we negotiate for drug prices.

that is a way we can save money. vic: we go to ms. edwards. rep. edwards: veterans and seniors pay into social security. it is an earned benefit. i think that they are entitled to have a benefit that is paid out to them and not have that traded away by politicians who in front of the camera say one thing and behind them do another. unfortunately, mr. van hollen wasn't exactly that position in his leadership position. when he was on the simpson bowles commission, he supported that as a general framework for reducing the deficit. the problem is that it was a framework that was cut social security benefits and also raise the retirement age. i think that is not an acceptable position for us to be in.

social security is an earned benefit and i stand by seniors, especially women who are left at the end of their lives by themselves and only have social security. they don't have a 401(k) plan. they don't have a pension. they only have social security. and you wanted to traded away in an effort to cut a deal. i think there is no deal to be cut on the backs of our senior citizens. vic: thank you very much. rep. van hollen: maryland voters deserve the truth, and congresswoman edwards is not telling the truth. i have been leading the fight on behalf of the democrats to protect social security and medicare as recently as two weeks ago.

my colleagues unanimously voted for me to carry their standard and make sure that we upheld those values in the budget committee, including congresswoman edwards supporting that effort until we got on the campaign trail and now she is misleading voters. this is exactly the kind of thing that voters hate about politics. i am 100% rated from the alliance of retired americans. the one difference between us on this is i have been in the trenches leading the fight to detect social security and medicare. congresswoman edwards has not been part of this battle. she has not been part of it until this campaign where she decided to play politics. i think voter should be very disturbed. vic: our next question comes from dan roderick's. dan: college graduates in 2015 left campus with an average of $35,000 in debt. it increased to more than $10,000 in five years. what role can the federal government play in improving

college affordability? rep. edwards: i know something about that. i finished college and law school with almost $100,000 in student debt and i know it really constrains what young people can do with their lives, whether they can move out of their parents homes, whether they can start a business, whether they can start families. i think we have to start doing something about this. we have $1.4 trillion of college debt hanging out there. that is why that a strong component of that free college, ideas for having community college, two years be paid for so students only have to pay for the other two years to fill out their college careers.

i think there are a number of ways we can do this. we have to look at the way private institutions are encouraged to spend their endowment so students do not leave with a lot of debt. as soon as i finish paying for my student loans, i started paying for my son's college and that is a circumstance that many middle-class families duvets. i believe it is important -- families do face. i believe it is important because it should not be more than what the prevailing interest rate is for other kinds of loans. we should look at ways that we can reinforce students being able to go into jobs that are coming out at the economy, so that they are being trained for jobs they will actually get when they get out of school. thank you. rep. van hollen: i have a record on this issue. years ago, the big banks, wall street interests, or making huge profits off the student loan program. eyelid the fight to stop that. we still have a long way to go. for students who out -- who are

out there who have big debts from college, i support efforts to pass a bill that elizabeth warren had pushed which would allow people to renegotiate at lower interest rates. as a leader on the budget committee, i put forward the proposal that the president has, free committee college, seeing that hbcus are affordable and don't get hurt in that process. with respect to kids going to college now, we need to use federal leverage to incentivize colleges to reduce their tuition and we need to push forward even more on in home-based repayment. right now we have moved in the direction of saying the amount you have to repay for your loan will be based on how much you earn and pay. nobody will be too stretched.

we need to build on that because we know this is not just hurting students. it is hurting communities because students start behind from the beginning. they can't rent an apartment or buy a home. i have a record of fighting on this issue and not just someone who talks about this issue. rep. edwards: mr. van hollen says someone who talks about it all the time. college students who are like me coming out of college need someone who talks about the debt they are facing and puts ideas forward how we reduce that debt. i strongly supported the budgets that have been offered, but we have not done anything about it. i think today's college students, especially the first-generation students -- i have had an opportunity to have

a college fair for 8001st-generation students and to help them understand what it means when they are going to college about the debt they are going to incur and ways they can reduce that. we have an obligation to that and i think mr. van hollen has ideas about that and so do i and i am looking forward to being in the senate. vic: our next question comes from andy greene. andy: what is your view of the criminal justice reform movement? do you believe our sentencing practices need to be amended? rep. van hollen: i do believe we need dramatic criminal justice reform. we have a scandal in this country of mass incarceration. we need to be spending more on schools and less on prison. i am part of an effort, the main legislative efforts in college, to actually do something about this, the justice act, which would get away from treating nonviolent substance abuse as a

criminal matter, and address those issues as a health care and addiction matter. we have seen the consequences of this failed policy because we have so many nonviolent abuse offenders in jail, not just under federal law, but state law. it is important that we also address these issues at the state level. along with important questions of police accountability and transparency and ultimately getting at the really deep issues of chronic poverty and inequality in our economy.

these are all things that have to be doubt with together and i have put forward proposals together with colleagues on criminal justice reform, as well as wellness plans, to address the huge income inequality in our country. these are part in parcel of a larger issue and we need to do with them on a systemic basis, because we have seen systemic racism, we see other systemwide consequences that we are seeing in these policies. rep. edwards: before i came into congress, i supported efforts around the country, looking at the deep systemic problem of incarceration and imposing capital sentences, particularly on young black men and brown men in this country. i have a long history that goes back years on criminal justice issues. supporting efforts to make sure that those who are indigent have the ability to get counseled. in the congress, i have led on these issues. i have convened in my congressional office groups working on reentry from all across our congressional district, montgomery and prince george's county as well. we look at how it is we can get people into productive work so they don't go back into prison. it is the reason i introduced

the real act. this would restore pell grant eligibility to those who are incarcerated. i met alfonso at prison. when he first started getting an education, he thought about his life differently. that is why i have been a leader to give people an opportunity to rebuild their lives and that we do things unlike what mr. van hollen did, which is to support imposition of mandatory sentences. that is what he did in congress in 2005, escalating sentences to 30 years in cases at a time when we knew that these mandatory penalties contributed to behind carson ration rate and i think that is a crime.

rep. van hollen: thank you. congresswoman edwards brought this up about my state legislative record. she distorted that. yesterday, state senator john carter conway and state senator dolores kelly wrote to congresswoman edwards and said, cut it out. quit distorting van hollen's record, which he did. when it comes to congress, we were dealing with violent crime from ms13, who were committing brutal murders. we were putting a package the other that included enforcement, but also my fork us -- focus has been on prevention and intervention. when it comes to mass incarceration, it did not even pass. this is another example of a gross distortion. trying to accuse me, who has been a leader on major pieces of criminal justice reform is just upside down. again, a bill that did not even pass. let's get the truth. vic: i apologize. time has run out.

anne: last year's unrest in baltimore following the death of freddie gray highlighted problems that there are 2 -- in federal cities. rep. edwards: thank you. i have had the privilege of being able to meet with so many families across the city in vulnerable communities and i think we have to take a multi-pronged and simultaneous approach. i think about harold, who i met in a male mentoring program in the hood. harold said, i like math and i like school. i am afraid in school. we have to make sure that we have law enforcement that is transparent and accountable, that works with communities, in partnership with community, because that is the best way to fight crime. we also have to make certain that we invest in education and opportunity. it should not matter what zip code you live in that you should go to a good school.

we have to make economic development targeted to neighborhoods that are most vulnerable. i supported those ideas in the united states house of representatives. we have to make sure that we invest in research and development so that we restore domestic and you factoring so people -- domestic manufacturing so people can grow into the middle class. rep. van hollen: i love baltimore. this is a great american city. my dad's family is from baltimore. the other reason i wasn't one of baltimore is my dad went into the navy. i worked for governor schaeffer. he was focused like a laser beam on baltimore, and i worked at the federal level to get more funds to invest in baltimore, whether was transportation, the port, other major engines of opportunity. we know today that baltimore is a tale of two cities.

you have the glitzy inner harbor. blocks back, you have a very different set of neighborhoods. we need to address this in an urgent manner. i believe that we need to dramatically increase the incentives, tax incentives and other incentives, for businesses to move to other neighborhoods. the state senate took important steps yesterday. we need to build better pipelines between city colleges and institutions of learning and employers. we used to have big institutions to do more to purchase and hire locally. we need to build better transportation ask between where people are neighborhoods without jobs and the jobs and the surrounding areas, so it does not take four hours of commuting. these are all important things

and need to be tackled on an urgent basis. rep. edwards: baltimore is our largest city and in maryland, it baltimore is not doing well, it means our state is not doing well. all of us have a vested interest in making sure that baltimore succeeds. also, making certain in the congress led by the senate that we get those federal resources down to the community level where they are most needed. we have a lot of big federal dollars that come into the city, but they are not targeted to vulnerable neighborhoods. i would like to see a portion of that be supported in the congressional black caucus budget, supporting a portion of every federal dollar targeted going into communities. this is a way i think we help rebuild the city and rebuild confidence in the city we all love. dan: clear from a number of

reports that government at the state, local, and federal levels failed to protect the people of flint, michigan, from contaminated water. it has been nine years since the baltimore school system switch to bottled water out of concern of lead contamination. should the epa have more, or even full authority over the nation's unesco water supplies? rep. van hollen: yes, i do. as part of the democratic budget proposal on congress right now, we are addressing these issues and trying to find the resources not to just the people of flint, but to people around the country. it should never be the case in america that where you live or what your income is or what your braces determines whether you

have clean air and clean water -- what your race is determines whether you have clean air and clean water. this is part of a larger issue of environmental justice. this campaign has been endorsed by the sierra club, which makes environmental justice one of its key platforms. i have been fighting on these issues for a very long time. yes, we need to a this on an urgent basis. right now i am working with congressman elijah cummings, who does a great job representing baltimore city, to make sure that victims of lead paint are not harmed twice when they get a settlement for being harmed the first time and someone goes out to try to get them to sell that in a way that hurts them. this is an issue that we need to address on an urgent basis. i put forward to specific

proposals to deal with it. environmental justice is part of the fight for equal justice and equal rights. rep. edwards: just a few weeks ago i had the privilege of cochairing a policy hearing with our leader nancy pelosi on the flint crisis. looking at what happened at every single level. particularly concerned not just with the fact there was a disinvestment in the water structure itself and diverting poisoned water into homes, but what would happen in terms of because it if, long-term cognitive success of those children, some 9000 children. that is the same circumstance we face in baltimore. when a child is poisoned with lead under the age of six, it impacts their cognitive ability over the course of their lifetime. i think that in addition to the heart infrastructure, make those

improvements, we make sure we have resources available for education over the course of a lifetime. we are starting to see relationships between the incarcerated population and lead paint poisoning. when those links are made, it is important for us to make adjustments early on so we can have some mitigation as to what might happen with young people down the line, so that physical resources, but also the other sorts of education and other services that are needed to have people get as whole as they can be. vic: any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: no, only to emphasize that this has been an issue where being left to the states in many instances, we see what happens when you have governor like the governor of michigan who has neglected his responsibility to all the people of michigan. that is why i do believe it is important for the federal government to take more responsibility in this area and certainly to step up our efforts to modernize our water infrastructure and make sure

those are going to where they need it. when i put together the budget, i worked closely with the congressional black caucus, and adopted their proposal as part of the budget to make sure we do a better job of targeting resources to areas that need them the most. that is an important function of the federal government and we need to pursue it in this area. vic: next question comes from andy greene and miss edwards will be the first recipient. andy: in recent years, and number of corporations have moved headquarters overseas in order to avoid u.s. corporate income taxes, which are higher than in most other industrialized nations. corporation stashed means of dollars -- billions of dollars overseas to avoid taxes.

should be lower the tax rate? rep. edwards: what we should do, and i am joined with our democratic colleagues in the congress in saying that what we need to do is to enforce our laws, but also save corporations, you are going to be taxed on your assets here. if your company is located here, you will be taxed in the united states. mr. van hollen has worked very dutifully on these inversion issues. i fully support that work, as do most of our democrats in the house of representatives. i think we also have to incentivize corporate companies to bring their business back to the united states. i have created a tax credit tied to domestic manufacturing so we

begin to bring those corporate headquarters and the businesses that have located internationally back to the united states of they can be fully covered under our tax code. rep. van hollen: i have been leading the fight on this issue. it is called inversions. these are company that are based in the united states but just change the mailing address and get a bunch of lawyers to end up escaping their responsibility to american taxpayers. when they pay less, it means all the rest of us pay more. we need to pass the legislation i have introduced. i had in working with the president. the president has been taking what steps he can through executive order, but we need to finish the job. this is just one example of the broken tax code i was talking about earlier. we have a tax code that encourages american corporations to move their jobs overseas. not enough to enforce the law. these companies are using loopholes in the law which is

why we have to change it and we have to make sure that we take away that incentive. i put forward a proposal on that front too. take the money's are being parked overseas to state taxes this year and invest them in places like baltimore maryland, to a great -- to create incentive for manufacturers to move back here. i have also implemented a ceo employee paycheck fairness act. it is outrageous that businesses can take tax deductions for ceo bonuses when they are cutting employee pay. the ceos are getting bonuses, your employees need to beginning arrays as well. rep. edwards: i applaud the congressman for his efforts on behalf of all of us as democrats on these issues.

he has been leading that fight. we have all joined him. one day, we hope we will have a president that can find that into law. we want to go back to where maryland's future is. we have great assets here in our state. i think it is time for us to talk aspirational he and do the hard work of bringing advanced manufacturing job back to the united states by incentivizing that research and developing and tying it to manufacturing, the way it was for the better part of the 20th century until we got away from that. when we do that we will create jobs throughout baltimore, throughout maryland, and all across our country. vic: this will be our last question. it will come from dan roderick's. dan: after listening to your answers in this another

candidate for an ash can do forms, some voters may wonder what distinguishes between the two of you. between your views on government, how are you different from your opponent in the coming primary? rep. van hollen: as you say, there are not huge differences in the voting records, but there are big differences. when i talked to my constituents and hear the issues they bring to me, i take action. a woman by the name of carol price lost her son, john, in an accidental gun shooting. i teamed up with her to make maryland the first state in the country to prohibit, to rehire built-in trigger likes -- require built in trigger locks. that saves lives. we had a family with children with down syndrome. they want to make sure that when they are gone they have economic security for their kids. i worked on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation to provide more security. congresswoman edwards has been in congress for eight years.

she has not been there for her constituents. you don't have to take my word for it. the washington post has reported about the notorious lack of constituent services in her office. recently, the baltimore sun reported on employees who came to her because they believed they had been discriminated against and had lower pay. they did not believe that they got a fair hearing. issues, when you hear of a problem what kind of action do you take? she says she likes to walk in other people's shoes. she hasn't in their. that's been widely reported. rep. edwards: thank you for the question. when i first came to congress, the first thing i did because i

had been visiting schools across my district for kids were receiving free lunch, i had the asker school program. tens of thousands of students here in baltimore and across our state receive activist, lunch, and dinner at school. i know this contributes to high achievement rates and a contributes to low dropout rates. i know it's not a headline. i am not interested in making headlines. i am interested in making a difference in the lives of the people that i represent. i am interested in making sure certaine led in making that we have investments in development,ces, transportation, and infrastructure. let me say this about constituent services.

i think i serve my constituents well read -- well. all the things you come to a congressional office with, i take these allegations seriously. it means something to me. in these cases around discrimination are some of the hardest that any congressional office faces. we have an working on those issues for more than a year in our office to resolve them. ask the 3000 constituents who got services from my office. vic: thank you. there will be a rebuttal in the interest of time. we will move to closing statements. there was a coin toss. the last closing statement will be done by mr. van hollen. 30 years ago when

barbara mikulski ran for the senate, people told her she could not win on her own without inheriting the seat from her husband. 30 years ago, they told her she did not look the part. today the part looks like her. on april 26, we can make history again. we can add it a perspective in the senate. the vision reflects of who we are. i will fight for that young man or woman who just wants to rebuild their lives and deserves a second chance. the senior citizens, i have done that. i will continue to fight on behalf of all of maryland citizens. let me just say this in closing. it is a tremendous point of pride represent the people of

the great state of maryland. thank you very much. rep. van hollen: thank you. when i think of senator mikulski, i think of somebody delivering real results to all know it -- maryland. we cannot rest until all children gets the very best start in life. we must have an economy that works for everybody, not just the 1%. end gun violence in mass incarceration. we must address climate change. it's not enough to identify these as big challenges and issues. you've got to put forward solutions if you want to move the country forward. i am the only candidate who is put forward solutions on these big issues. it's not enough to talk the talk. you have to walk the walk. do.world needs dreamers

i asked for your support in this election. vic: we do appreciate your time here today. we want to thank the sponsors for today's event. the baltimore sun. the university baltimore. the league of women voters. special thanks again to our panelists this evening. i am your moderator for the evening. we want to thank you for watching and joining us this evening. please your member to vote april 26. good night. [applause] the wilson center hosted a discussion on nuclear security

policy and the obama administration's progress. we haven't live at 11:00 eastern on c-span. the hudson institute hosted a panel on the syrian war. live coverage begins at noon on c-span. >> tonight, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with the series landmark cases. explores real live stories of constitutional drama behind some of the most important decisions in american history. >> john marshall said this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets up political structures. it's also a lot. law.

>> it's the ultimate anti-precedential case. >> who should make the decision about those debates. the supreme court said it should make those decisions. >> we will look at the case that denied plaque citizenship -- black citizenship. that's tonight at 10:00. on c-span. and c-span.org. when i tune in on the weekends, it's usually authors sharing new releases. television fort serious readers. >> on c-span they can have a serious conversation. weekends, they bring you author after author after author. >> i love book tv.

next, the carnegie endowment hosted a discussion on the implementation of the iran nuclear deal. this is one hour and 40 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i am the vice president of studies here at the carnegie endowment. it is my pleasure to welcome you today for the final installment of our programs entitled "past prologue," which we are including now in addressing one of the more challenging issues facing the u.s., japan, and the eastern alliances, and that is how to deal with iran, specifically how that may be informed by experiences we have had with the dpr k.

we started this series led by my colleagues. in 2015, we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the end of world war ii. it was a good time to reflect on a number of the legacies of that terrible conflict. these included, obviously, the impact of hastily defined borders, unresolved territorial disputes, and the use of nuclear weapons, as well as more constructive developments such as the establishment of the united nations and other postwar institutions. as we try to put these reflections to productive use, it seems appropriate, as i mentioned, to think about the agreed framework with the dpr k and how that experience might give us insight into what to do and not to do as we go forward with the joint comprehensive