one thing you agree on. it brings out the best in you. i am sure of that. let's thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here today and testifying. i certainly agree with all of the comments about the importance of aid. it is about our security and the impact of what is happening in europe impacting us in the united states because we do have transatlantic alliance that has been critical to world order. we had a hearing this morning in the foreign relations committee on isis and international terrorism. conclusions i jerked listening to the -- i drew listening to the testimony, and the witnesses generally agreed with it, is that we have been good in the united states when it comes to military efforts. we were successful in

afghanistan in throwing out the taliban initially. we were successful in iraq in our military efforts. we have been working to try and take back territory from isil. that has been successful. we have been successful in efforts to support refugees in camps and make sure that aid gets there. but we have been less successful when it comes to governance, what many people call nationbuilding, the economic and social implications and the ability to improve governance in countries that are failing. i would like to ask if you agree with that and the extent to which you see the need to adjust that as being critical to countering violent extremism. with what webetter have been doing in the past? so far, we have not been as

successful in those areas as i think we need to be if we are going to address the concerns we are all talking about today in terms of countering violent extremism. i don't know. nodding, blinking or mr. blinken. would you like to respond to that? [laughter] you can blink, too. i think you are right on the mark, senator. the challenge of moving from liberating territory to stabilizing it, but then not just stabilizing it, helping people rebuilding. but then not just rebuilding, actually finding a sustainable political accommodation. that is where the challenge really comes in. you have to look at each country in its particulars. unless we are able to get at some of these underlying issues, even when we succeed as we always do militarily, it won't

be sustainable. that is very much part of the challenge. what we are try to focus on indemnity programs to counter violent extremism, where we are working not just with national governments but with local governments, community leaders, minnesota halley's -- municipalities, bringing mayors together to talk about how they are dealing with a challenge in our communities. we are taking these programs but also trying to play metrics to figure out what works and what does not. and when it does not work, to change it. let me give you one quick example. we just stood up something called the global engagement center, our effort to message against -- >> i wanted to ask about that. mr. putin: to jump -- mr. blinken: one of the critical pieces is to counter the narrative that is attracting and people to its cause. we were not satisfied with the effort we had going. we brought in a team of experts, technology experts from silicon

valley and other places. they spent a month with us. they looked at what we were doing. they made recommendations. as a result, we reformed what were doing and that led to the global engagement center. in a nutshell, we are doing less of now is direct messaging in the voice of the united states. we found we were not the best messenger in this space. what we are doing instead is identify, elevate, and build the capacity of local, credible voices. instead of playing this wackamole gamer they would put something on social media and we would try to counter it, we worked on doing it much more thematically. very successfully, we found the testimonies of defectors from isil or daesh and we put those together in a way that is incredibly effective. what it says to people is what you think you're signing up for is not the reality. and they have much more right

ability than we do saying that ourselves. in these ways, we stood up this effort. it was based on trial and effort but based on figuring out what works and what does not. we are determined to do that across the board. >> can i add something to that coming from observing this culture and how elusive maleness is? inforget how elusive it is world society. if you have no access to material things, you exaggerate your maleness. we have to think about men and think about that. it is funny. don't laugh. comedy should be deployed because if you look at national socialism and daesh and

isil, this is the same thing. we have seen this before. signs, really the show business. in a hitlerople throughout germany -- adolph hitler throughout of germany were the surrealists. you speak violence, you speak their language. but you laugh at them they are goose-stepping down the street, and it takes away their power. i am suggesting the senate send in amy schumer and chris rock and sasha baron cohen. [laughter] thank you. >> that is not the first time ever experts talk about that. it is one of the things i know we are looking at. it also speaks to the importance of empowering women around the world and focusing on human rights for women and children

and making sure we have the same focus on what is happening with particularly in countries where we are seeing violent extremism the most are countries where women have not historically been empowered. needkes that a critical for our foreign policy. thank you, mr. chairman. shaheen,ones: senator if i could add a little bit to that. generally, the practice we followed over many years has been one of reacting to bed things -- bad things. i would suggest in the years ahead that being proactive has a skill set onto self in terms of what you could do.

first of all for example, on the security measure, you can't do everything everywhere. but let's suggest a failing state in africa the size of nigeria for example and what that would cause, or a failing state like the congo or pick any other large country. the question is, if you are worried about it now, isn't it cheaper and more effective to fixge now proactively to what needs to be fixed? whether it is security -- and by security, i don't mean american forces or nato forces going in to fight a war. i mean to go in and help people learn how to defend themselves. in some cases, you can stitch together entire regions of several countries who would benefit from that kind of training. while you are doing that, you can encourage the private sector

to go in and start showing people how their lives are better in a capitalist system, free market system, with education, distance learning, all of these things. the problem is we tend to do one very well. in the case of afghanistan and iraq, there was no real plan to nation build. i think that is the missing link. if you are going to do one, be prepared to do the other things that have to be there. it is much cheaper to be proactive than to be reactive, of that i am very sure. senator shaheen: i totally agree with that. i think we have not yet aligned priorities in our spending in a way that supports that. look at how much we spend for humanitarian aid, usaid, diplomatic efforts, and compare that to what we are spending on the military side. there is a huge disparity. we have got to begin to realign our priorities so we are

focusing more on prevention than we on reacting to the situation. general jones: we have the benefit of unified geographic commanders in most of the major regions of the world. i think with a little bit of tweaking in the right direction, that is not just security but ionomic element, rule of law, think you have forward bases already in regions we want to affect. i think that would be a good way to engage proactively to prevent future complex. sen. shaheen: thank you. >> this is a great panel today. thank you for being here. americans are the most generous people in the world comes to humanitarian aid and contribute to relief efforts that span the globe. at the same time, this panel today, my fellow colleagues, are weighing how best to contribute government resources where the needs are overwhelming. at the same time, having limited

resources. how do we counterterrorism, how do we provide humanitarian relief, how can we be most effective on behalf of the american taxpayer? i want to start with general jones. i want to tell you thank you for your service to our country. as the son of a marine, i got raised right. thank you for what you have done for our nation. thank you for coming today. i want to start with a question for you, general. this past weekend in the philippines, at least 18 filipino soldiers were killed with a terrorist organization in the southern portion of the country. of the threattive terrorist groups opposed to asia-pacific and the world. strictecial forces used operations doctrine by embedding with local forces and building strong partnerships as they battle these terrorist organizations on a special task force with the philippines following 9/11. we are starting to see the u.s. take an approach in operation

inherent result. as someone who has a lot of expense, do you feel this tactic is an effective way to counter violent extremism? general jones: the critical ingredient i think you need to engagedthat wherever we , the people and government of that country have to want what we are offering. i think imposing our values and road to the long perdition usually. in the philippines, where i have spent quite a few years, the mindanao problem has been with us for years. the two or three extremist groups that exist there. what worries me is if i understand it correctly, there is an effort at appeasement of these violent extreme is groups. -- extremist groups.

personally, i'm exposed -- opposed to that because that gives them an anchor point from which they will expand their base of operations. i am a little bit removed. i defer to the secretary, sector lincoln -- secretary blinken about our current policies. as a matter of principle, i don't favor of using extremists. i think you have to root them out, stamp them out. a lot of it in some will and capacity of the people. i think we can help them but i don't think we can do it for them. daines: the goal of foreign aid is to assist countries and get them to attain certain humanitarian and institutional conditions in which aid is no longer required. as you look at your longer-term goals, as you look at the investment we make an aid, what are measurable benchmarks that might indicate if a country is effectively utilizing u.s. assistance to improve

governance, combat terrorism, and what country could be viewed as a model of success? secretary blinken: i agree with general jones. we are trying to work with local partners to build their capacity with them along the way. you are exactly right. for reform success assistance business is to get out of that business. we want countries to get on their own feet to be effective and provide for their own citizens. indeed, ideally we would like to channel as much as possible to the private sector and have it work that way. but in the near term as we look at these programs, we are trying to develop clear measures and metrics of effectiveness. to give you one example, in the violent extremism space, trying

to counter that, on the one hand it is tough to measure how many people did not become radicalized. is what we are trying to do have some justice is the -- consistency across the programs. weond, we are making sure have third parties come in and evaluate what we are doing to see if the goals of the programs are being met. and in particular, we are trying to look at when we provide assistance, when we transfer knowledge to a recipient, how are they actually using that? is it making a difference? daines: i realized perfection will never be attainable but there are better outcomes than others. what country stands out as a model as an example of success? secretary blinken: you have to look at different areas. countries in the past have been beneficiaries of our assistance

that are now leading countries around the world. south korea for example. in the present day, i think it varies very much program to program, sector to sector. it would be hard to rank order countries across the board. we have seen jordan use some of the assistance we provided effectively to start to make important macro economic changes. that is the kind we are looking for. we have seen other countries that have not made this kind of changes. we were talking about the syrian humanitarian crisis earlier and this potential lost generation of children as these refugee camps turn into long durations of perhaps even much of a lifetime. from your perspective, what would you say is the most effective way, if you tell this committee where we can invest american taxpayer dollars to ensure we don't lose a generation of these syrian children? to ms.n short, listen

kelly clements. i think they are doing a spectacular job. i'm glad to hear you thinking about this. you go in with them as refugees, and you come out and you have got to know them. syrians are particularly industrious. i would never underestimate them. they are definitely worth the investment. i'm fortunate to be a friend of steve jobs. he was the son of the syrian migrant. he had that industry is this -- industriousness. in a camp, the dutch people were giving 600 bicycles out to the camp. they hadithin minutes, set up a bicycle repair shop to deal with the bikes. when the bikes arrived, they had

a delivery service for pizza before they had the pizza place. these are the best people in the world. they are extraordinary people. they would be so moved to hear you talk about them today. sen. daines: thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for the chance to have his hearing and work with you on this important issue. two general jones, than good to see you again. i'm good to see you pursue the same line of analysis. secretary blinken, thank you for your decades of service at the highest levels. no, great to be with you again. one of the hardest days with at the refugee camp in jordan seeing the challenges and potential of a refugee camp filled with thousands of series of all ages and backgrounds. unicef, to me now runs

he was a professor of mine in college. he has for some time been arguing, as i believe many of you do, that we need to realign our imagination, we consider -- reconsider the funding we provide for humanitarian relief in an emergency situation and the investments we make in development and recognize millions of refugees are likely to be outside their countries of origin for a very long time. if we change direction and make investments in a wiser and more targeted way in partnership with the private sector and allies around the world, we can make a significant difference. not just in combating violent extremism, although that is an essential goal of our conversation today. but also in continuing to build up humankind and relieve suffering. bono, i was moved to hear you talk about how the american people are generous and how our investment in the marshall plan laid the foundation for a western europe that is united, stable, and free. and your reference to pepfar

that has me possible relief that has touched the lives of 9 million. i will also mention the ebola crisis in west africa where volunteers from around the world joined with the united states in turning around the trajectory of a tragic disease. i am encouraged and challenged by your terrific op-ed today in the "new york times," by what i have heard from all of you about we ought to be working together to craft a more disciplined and thoughtful plan. general, in your written testament, you have about as good a call to arms as i have heard. developmentlobal campaign plan as sophisticated come series, and passionate as any fight in our history designed and resourced as if the future depends on it, because it does." with the time remaining, i would be grateful if each of you would speak to if congress were

to embark on a large-scale plan for foreign assistance that combined all of these elements, real investment in human development alongside military relief, partnership with allies in a sustained way that would prevent fragile states from becoming failed states, what would it look like? what conditions would you put on our aid? how would you decide which countries would come in that arc of attention and care and which would be out of it? how would we tell the american people how long this would last and what our goals are? general, i would be interested in what role you in peacekeeping plays in the stabilization. bono, i would be interested in what role you think medications and mass culture plays. secretary lincoln, how far you think we are down the road toward developing and delivering this. and deputy commissioner, how you see the plight and role of refugees being at the center of this. think big and tell us how you would structure it if you would please, general. general jones: thank you,

senator. i will try to be very brief. that inthe opinion order to deal with the challenges and threats that face us and mankind that we have to approach it differently. when i was national security advisor, we tried to work on the more holistic approach to responding to international threats. things like cybersecurity, energy security, water security, food security, and of course the conventional definition of security that we leaned on for so many years in the 20th century. in the world we face today, people have choices and people know a lot more. people in the disadvantaged developing countries have access to information that shows them they don't have to live like this. the battle is on between

extremist ideologies who captivate those minds and say the reason you're not doing better is because of these guys. generally, they point to us. but i am very optimistic if we can put together a strategic concept for how each administration deals with these kinds of problems more thestically to include private sector and public sector working together, to advance the idea america does not have to do this alone. what we can do better than anybody is certainly provide but alsod resources, providing organizing principle around which other countries will follow. the nato is a good example i think of an international organization of 20 countries that has a fantastic history.

but what is its future? if we cannot lead the organization into the 21st century by being more proactive, more preemptive, and more strategic in our thinking, which saves money in the long term, then i think we have a difficult time. and.s. leadership i think organizing principles to do these things, to bring into national and private sectors together, to help countries on e of going one way or the other in terms of democracy, and whose people know exactly what they are missing and will not hesitate to move by tens of thousands across the mediterranean from africa to europe if they don't see hope for the future. so it is agriculture, food, water, physical security. and it is using

organizations like the u.n., obviously n.g.o.'s. we have to find the table where everybody can sit together and plan this. it is not as expensive as it looks. what is expensive is when you have to go through another iraq or afghanistan or libya without a complete toolkit that says you defeated -- we got security, now what? the now what is what has been missing. >> thank you, general. may the other members of the panel respond? i am beyond my time. what countries are in and out? >> i scrub with general jones said. in terms of the countries in and out, we have to do in a session -- an assessment of what countries matter in terms of our own interests and security and which are most likely to be

willing to be partners and make the changes necessary. conditions you mentioned. we want to make sure, but we are trying to do is leverage our assistance in different ways. first, leverage its of countries in question that receive it actually make the changes we think are the right ones to make in terms of having sustainable outcomes in all the areas general jones talked about. second, there are ways to leverage our assistance to get other countries to put in as well. one of the things we are trying to do on the refugee crisis is president obama convened a summit meeting on the margins of the u.n. general assembly in september. one of the goals was to increase the assistance provided around the world by 30% to the global refugee crisis. part to be to take a table is to do more. we can do that, too. even as we are thinking about designing a program, we have to look at innovative solutions that are not necessarily driven

by money. for example, we were talking earlier on the refugee crisis, we need to be doing things like ending this divide between the way we provide mentoring assistance in developing aid. these need to be married together in the way we budget and invest in them. we were talking about providing concessional loans to middle income countries that don't qualify but could use them effectively. the jordans and lebanons of the world. creating free enterprise zones where if countries invest in those zones, the products produced get preferential treatment. the people employed may be refugees or people at risk. those ideas are the kind of thinking we need to have to make it work more effectively. >> those are terrific ideas. bono, you have done a great job leveraging world interest in your leadership to provide relief to millions from hiv-aids. how would we do the same in this unique challenge? humbled to have

asked that question, senator, and to hear you debating senator graham is one of the great in someof my life extraordinary place on the far end of the globe and hear your passion on the subjects -- these subjects. i'm not sure exactly what the marshall plan looks like. i like that three-tiered approach tony brought up. i can speak better about the s ahel and lavant. i want to remind people africa is really rich. not just in its resources, but it's people. it is extraordinary. i think it will be an amazing partner for us going forward. commerce.r trade, for

the marshall plan did great for the u.s. at the time, people were saying we cannot afford it. but the 50's and 60's were born out of these new customers. can you believe a rock star talking about it? but it is true. i think the biggest problem in the way of that growth, any african will tell you is reform and fighting corruption. the africans are leading this. but you make it easier when you make these packages conditional on that kind of reform. that is what they want. finance ministers say to me all the time on debt cancellation, the key piece of that was having our debt canceled, we had to reform. i think it is a fantastic thing to arrive in these difficult regions. you can advise them to reform or you can say here is what happens when you do. here is the club.

do you want to be in this club because it is a great club? that is the way i am seeing it. i think we need an america that is strong like the general describes, but also an america that is smart. you are strong and smart when you talk like this. i am amazed. yougob smacked listening to going people really get this thing and they are talking about asking the american people to go further. that hurts you politically, but that is real leadership when you do the right thing and it cost s you. >> thank you. it is easy to come after these three gentlemen because the concepts are inspirational but also very concrete. weouple of things to add,

talk about this arc of crisis from southwest asia through the middle east through the horn of africa and the lake chad basin in terms of that being the stretch of where people are disrooted,ributed -- that would be where to focus in terms of a marshall plan redux. don't forget the political. it is tremendously important. we are talking about humanitarian development, failed states, and government issues. all of that is important. if we do have those crises solved, it would make a tremendous defense. syria, iraq, and somalia. those three crises alone are responsible from a half of the uprooted -- for almost half of the uprooted people we were talking about. that has to be part of the overall equation. we have a moment now we have not had in decades in terms of political attention, including of this subcommittee. thank you. >> i like to thank senator leahy and senator grab and the entire

panel for what you have done to john us to confront this moment of opportunity and difficulty for millions of people around the world. thank you. >> i appreciate all of your testimony very much. general jones and bono, it is great to connect with you again. ns led acoo delegation and we were able to be in rwanda and discuss the challenges. it is a wonderful complement to being here in washington and discussing the challenges. orps is headquartered in my home state of oregon. i connected with them in terms of what they would recommend in terms of countering violent extremism. they said single sector programming and multiyear programs to create programs in which youth can thrive. target the most vulnerable youth.

the vigilant about making sure you don't just reach privileged youth in urban centers. counter terrorist strategies with the factors that drive youth to violence. connect youth voices with reforms and exclusive governance structures. i wanted to mention those and find thosewould things to fit with your own experience or if you like to take issue with them. anyone. yes, thank you. lements: mercycorps is a committed partner and does great work around the world. nothing can be more powerful in terms of averting radicalization and preventing violent extremism than having hosts and refugees

, friends,de neighbors, etc. in terms of the u.s. being a leader on refugee resettlement, one of the reasons it has been so successful historically is that there is a real integration . in terms of preventing extremism, welcoming people into the community is the first and strongest step. thank you. >> secretary blinken. blinken: the points mercycorps makes are on the money. exactly as they said, the multisector programming is important. we have to have these interconnections. that is what we are trying to do. to bring together what we are doing on counterterrorism with what we are doing on countering violent extremism, that is what we are doing before the problem becomes a problem and what we are doing afterward, we can

create much greater coordination of efforts. if you are training a law enforcement organization to deal but you are also helping it understand what the drivers are of terrorism, it may be able to be more effective at getting at the problem before it starts. bringing these things together is vitally important. i think they are exactly right about targeting the most vulnerable. we are trying to think about our assistance programs and work we are doing focused on the communities most susceptible to creating or having people in their midst become radicalized. it goes as far as our exchange programs to make sure people we are bringing over represent those communities and benefit from the work we are doing. exactly right as well that we need to be elevating their ours,, not so much

but their voices because the people who have the most credibility are people speaking to their own. that fits in very much with what we are trying to do. >> i was particularly struck by the infosys on rigorous analysis -- emphasis on rigorous analysis. we have to see what is working. what is working in one part of the world may be different from what is working elsewhere. bono, i join my colleagues in thanking you for the work on one campaign and red. my daughter is enjoying interning with your organization and is moved by the mission, as so many americans are. you mentioned a number of things i want to stress. first, that aid is not charity, it is national security. so often i have asked my colleagues, if we have another dollar, do we do more for security world through these types of programs than we do through procuring another

weapon, if you will? i think the balance still is too much on the weapon and forced side and not enough on this side. certainly, that ties in with the that i think the way you put it is it is more cost-effective to invest in stability today than to address crises later. you also noted it is important humanitarian aid and development efforts. i think that is an immediate and short-term and longer-term strategy. would you like to expand on that? bono: yeah, sure. piece, big military storm anything about general jones -- the extraordinary thing about general jones is years ago he was talking about the reimagining of the military. i went to the atlantic, is that

what it is called, the big military gathering? yeah, atlantic council. there were all these phd's standing up and generals. they are so cerebral and philosophical. you realize the military is ahead of the politicians on this one. they really understand what has to be done. that.mazed by in an asymmetrical conflict, you cannot use the old strategies. there are new weapons needed. sometimes those weapons are education, fighting disease. it is really cheap. i remember with the aids stuff we did, i remember telling the medicines were the best advertisement for america you will ever see. he was laughing. but when he arrived, everyone was applauding.

america pulls very well. it is amazing. on the long-term versus short-term, humanitarian aid and long-term development, they are coming together now. you cannot care about development and poverty and not care about conflict because 50% of the poor come out of fragile conflict-prone areas. so i'm learning from kelly, and she is learning from other people smarter than me. but it is coming together. it used to be two separate silos. i'm glad to say it is coming together. it was not your question, but because we were in rwanda rwanda is anhink example of a country that came out of conflict, that took our investment in aid, and actually has done quite an incredible

job. i know it is frustrating for that the president went on for a third term. he was doing it for the security of his country. aside from that, he has done a spectacular job and he is an example of how to do this right. merkley: one of the things that struck me was the government infosys on the longer talking a struggle entities and rwandans. and yet it is a fragile moment still. one of the concerns he expressed was campaigns will cause people to immediately, even directly or indirectly, to reach back out to the tribal roots. memories are so painful. it is a situation we have a hard

time fully comprehending given what passed in rwanda. i will close with noting i appreciate the emphasis on corruption. there has been mentioned on the global anticorruption summit in london and that the u.s. will back and ambitious set of proposals. i would love to hear more about that, but i am out of time. sen. durbin: thank you for this hearing and your suggestion on marshall plan. at the risk of ruining your political reputation, i respect you very much. [laughter] >> keep it to yourself. history tells us world war ii was a learning experience for the united states. we were not open to refugees. we turned them away. refugees from europe, jewish refugees trying to escape the holocaust. and after the war, we tried to change that policy and point in a new direction. for the most part, we have done it.

now we are faced with the humanitarian crisis of our time, the refugee crisis of our time, coming out of syria, afghanistan, and so any other places. bono, i remember the first time we sat down to talk. it was about hiv-aids. my reaction and the reaction of most to the crisis was fear. am i going to die? how many people are going to die? is there any way to stop it? the reaction to the refugee crisis, the first reaction is fear. how many people are coming? are they going to threaten us? it is not unusual for us to face new challenges with the first reaction in fear. we've certainly grown out of it when it comes to hiv-aids. we are. much more knowledgeable and thoughtful and know what we can achieve the question is, will we get back on the right track when it comes to refugees? we have to get back to the reality of a lot of deserving people. i was on the island of lesbos

and i saw them coming in on these leaky rubber boats with little babies with water wings. that is all they had to protect them as they came across the straits. i thought how desperate these people must speak to risk their lives and the lives of their children and bring only what they can carry. my question is more of a general question. i think the genuine concern in europe and other places is about the uncertainty of when this is going to end. is there going to be an end to this flow of refugees? is there a finite number we have to contemplate in terms of absorbing into germany, absorbing into sweden? how many? uncertainty is certainly understandable. as you have said, speaking of your expense in africa, this is not confined to the middle east. i remember when an ambassador from italy told us syrians

ranked third in the countries sending us refugees. my question to you is this. if this you in crisis is not abnormal but the new normal in our world where people are living longer because of public the extremee we see ideology, extreme poverty, extreme climate, can we engage our friends of the world of like mind to make investments to allow these people to stay in place rather than strikeout in desperation to find some refuge, some opportunity? bono: it is a giant challenge. but it is a very american one. i think if you get your best and , as i'mt focused on it

listening to you today, you can see that we are going to get somewhere. in the private sector, there's mark zuckerberg trying to bring access to the internet to people cannot afford it. i have had conversations with larry page at google, lots of people, tech people. they are determined, incredible parts of your society. bill gates, we can do anything in the one campaign -- we cannot do anything in the one campaign without bill and melinda gates. warren buffett. it is the whole country that is showing the way. it is not just the public sector. it is the private sector. it is going to do it. we can do it. they have done studies on bringing the internet to developing countries. it is transformative. that is just one thing. electricity, innovations in

solar. it is incredible to bring power to africa. it is really good. these are transformative. is only thing i worry about i am great at raising the alarm, and there is a serious crisis, and we really need to attend to it. but i don't want to drive down the vision of this away from what it could be because it could be your greatest chapter. you were talking about tighter, the influence -- you were talking about the influence of china. in 50 years time, if the united states walks away from the continent of africa and just c edes on the influence to china, it will be seen as the worst on policy mistake of the start of the 21st century. it is that big. why would you?

these people love you. they are entrepreneurs. they are smart. they're coming to your universities. it is great china is competing. one thingesident xi, about him is he is very big on tackling corruption in china. now i want to see that in africa. if he starts to tackle corruption in africa, it would be transformative. i am not sure he is watching c-span at the minute, but i would love to have that conversation. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for this hearing. thank you all. sen. graham: thank you very much. a couple of observations and we are trying to be proactive. the goal of this hearing is to focus on the problem. it is going to get worse if somebody does not deal with it now. it is better to invest now or you will pay later. losing jordan, i don't think that will happen, but we have got to get a grip on this refugee crisis.

it is not just providing food, shelter, and clothing. it is providing a way to integrate them to countries over there so they don't come here. it is designed to undercut a radical extremism, which is a hopeful life versus a glorious death. 10 years ago when you first tackle the aids crisis, no one could have imagined in their wildest dreams how successful it had been and we still have a ways to go. mother to child aids transmission has been reduced by 75%. there are five countries inside the 20 yard line that can be self-sufficient when it comes to dealing with her aids problem. south africa leading the charge. millions of people alive today because of what we did 10 years ago. to the american people, if i thought that was a way to do this different, i would choose it. i don't want soldiers to go over there unless they have to go, and i can't find a way to provide security over there without some of us being there helping in that endeavor.

i cannot find a way in my own mind to deal with countering violent extremism without some kind of international plan of which we will be a part to change the economies of these regions to give people hope. the more education a child has, the better off we will do. after 37 visits to iraq and afghanistan, i can assure the american people they are not buying what these crazy people are selling. they don't want to go down that road. they don't want to turn the daughters over to isil. they being the mothers and fathers. i can promise you are safer here when we are people -- helping people over there. this concept of coming up with a marshall plan for the 21st century, call it what you like, is long overdue. we spent a lot of money. the most important thing we have lives, andnt 6000 thousands of people have their lives disrupted, legs blown off, traumatic brain injury, i can go on and on.

i would like to make the next and use more successful. the only way i know how to do that is to have something outside military solution to complement security once you achieve it. because once you achieve security, you will lose it if you do not do the things we have talked about. with that, i want to thank you all. senator leahy, if you want to say anything, we will wrap it up. the risk ofat damaging your career back home, i agree with you. here areof the people people we have known for a long time. : you haveaham made an enormous difference. i hope you will look back on this hearing and say this is when it began to change. sen. leahy: we have to bring both m party members together to vote. why are we giving 25% of our budget to aid? it is a fraction of 1%, and the

return -- pay for it now or pay many many times later on. what you have given us is a lot of ammunition to work with, both republicans and him any questions for the record can be submitted until friday, april 15. hearing is adjourned.

[indiscernible conversation]

>> madam secretary, we give 72 of our delegate votes! [applause]

>> this month we showcase our studentcam winners. he's been's annual documentary -- cspan's annual documentary competition. students were asked, what issues do you want presidential candidates discuss? one of our second prize high school winners are from sandy spring, maryland. 10th-graders at your would high school. they think presidential candidates should discuss the campaign-finance laws. le, "campaign-finance: the issue of all issues." >> let's talk about an issue that affects every other issue across our nation. it may not be what you think of

because campaign-finance is not a glamorous issue. that is right, campaign-finance. the way money gets from donors to candidates. the method, the amount, the motivation, the inherent problem with unlimited money in politics. 84% of americans think money has too much influence in politics. yet, for being such a monumental problem, campaign finance is sorely under discussed. the 2016 presidential candidates need to step up and tell us their plan for campaign-finance reform because it is the issue of all issues. to learn more about the basics of campaign-finance, i went to talk with my u.s. government teacher at sherwood high school. mr. allen, why do candidates even care about money in an election? >> money essentially buys you name recognition. without name recognition, when the voters go in on election day and see your name, they are not going to make the connection that they should vote for you. >> what is the citizens united

supreme court case? >> it changed the way that the first amendment of speech applies to the public funding of federal elections. >> and what did that do? >> essentially, what he did was remove the restrictions on what outside money, money not connected to the campaign, can be used for. the outside groups which can raise unlimited sums of money may now spend them in unlimited amounts to explicitly say whatever they want. >> why would money in politics even be a problem? >> the people who are opposed to it claim that if you're going to equate money with freedom of speech, that those people with the most money will then have the most influence in an election. >> these are 120 individual smiley faces, really. each smiley face represents one million american households.

here is a number for you. $567.3 million, but is all the money raised in 2015 for the 2016 presidential election. well, half of all of that came from just 158 families. to represent that we'd have to take a single smiley face and cut it to .0001% of its original size. 50% of all the money raised for the 2016 presidential election so far came from this tiny sliver. you might be wondering how the government makes sure all that money is regulated. i went to the federal election commission in d.c. to talk to commissioner elaine weintraub about the process. intaub: we run federal

agencies that administers and enforces the laws governing campaign finance. as commissioner we are in charge of the management of the agency and policy decisions that the commission makes. >> how has the citizens united supreme court case affected the flow of money and politics? raub: we are starting to see now more money being raised and spent, but coming from fewer donors and less transparency because the money is now shifting over to the super pac's and in some cases, to organizations where they can accept unlimited contributions. >> do you think that's a good thing? weintraub: i think trend for not a good democracy. if you believe every citizen has the same rights and representation in the government. >> do you think the fines the f.e.c. imposes are enough of a deterrent? elaine weintraub: they are a important deterrent. it is critically important that the agency play a significant role in monitoring and enforcing the law and making sure that

people who violate the law are held accountable in a significant way. if we have seen challenges in that regard in the past few years. >> is the f.e.c. working to stop rule breakers? : i think theaub agency can mark and has worked in the past. a lot of people say they are set up to fail. there are six commissioners and by law no more than three can be from any one party. so, some people say it is designed to gridlock. i think it's designed to compromise. fortunately, compromise has been a little bit in short supply around here in recent years. >> here's why the f.e.c. sluggishness should concern you. candidates are raising a ton of money. 2016 presidential candidate jeb bush has already raised four times more than every candidate in 2012 combined. harvard professor larry lessig ran his presidential campaign on this issue.

when i talked to him, he had some pretty harsh things to say about our current system. you often say money is corrupting to government. how so? >> i think the corrupting influence is the influence that as the candidate spends if you're a member of congress 30% to 70% of your time raising money. >> do things like super pac's make that worth? >> what that means this is fundraising, it's concentrated in a smaller and smaller number of people. what that does is create a dependence on a tiny slice of in any sense isn't representative of the american public. >> at this point you may be wondering what can even be done? you would be surprised how many different ideas are out there and just waiting to be implemented. >> we need new legal action. we need for clay versus valeo and citizens united overturned.

>> what this act needs to do is make sure that the laws stay up with the changes that the supreme court makes. >> i think the much more important change is to establish citizens for an election. public funding of election. >> we should fully disclose to the public the sources of campaign expenditures. >> it's really free television time is the core, is the core of this solution. >> it would essentially amend the constitution to permit congress to regulate campaign finance. it's ok that people have different ideas on how to approach this issue, what matters is doing something. inaction and silence are just not options. the 2016 presidential candidates need to tell us their plan because until then every issue will be affected by this issue. >> to watch all of the prize-winning documentaries, visit studentcam.org.

tomorrow, washington area transit authority general manager brace members of a house subcommittee. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. next on c-span, a roundtable from this morning's "washington journal" on politics. that is followed by campaign fund-raising in 2016 and the influence of outside groups. later, a campaign event with john kasich in new york city. host: in a tuesday roundtable on "the washington journal," we are talking about money in politics, the impact of citizens united supreme court decision. christian berger is former deputy general counsel at

citizens united and we will begin with you. what citizen united isabel and what changed as a result. guest: what a lot of people lose the fact that this was a small nonprofit corporation trying to make a movie about hillary clinton. they looked at the federal election campaign finance laws, they realized there were several criminal penalties. if they were to run television ads saying "come watch our movie." they went to court to promote a film. they went to court for some basic first amendment rights and that gets lost in this debate. a lot of people say, citizens united is a corporation about corporations being people. that is not white citizens united went to court. they just wanted to show their movie. host: take us to 2016, impact of that case you are seeing. guest: what we are seeing in 2016 is the impact of not always

citizens united, but another case decided at the appellate level. money, nove is sacred shareholder protection, and we have single candidate super pac's. none of those were supposedly talked about in citizens united. we have a decision that was wrongly decided in the sense that it created the court -- this right for corporate free speech in elections. but we're not even getting what the court promised. we are getting none of the disclosure that the court voted for 8-1. we don't have the ability of the shareholders to know what extent of the corporations have shares in. and we have single candidate super pac's that are coordinate and closely, only in the legal definition, are they somehow independent. we really have a wild west of money and we of course, then of the dark money groups.

it is hard to lay that necessarily only at the feet of the citizens united. i think the internal revenue claim ahas to lot of credit for these groups that could have foreign money in them. we have no idea what the source of the money is and they are spending significant amounts to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections. we are not only talking about the presidential level, but also the congressional and even state races. the presidential level gets a lot of the attention. we talked about, the billion dollars raised so far in this campaign cycle, that is just the presidential cycle. not the senate or house elections. that wild west term, do you think it has become a wealth west? guest: i don't think it has become a wild west. i think when you look at super pac's, which is what a lot of people talk about, that is all transparent. we know where the $100 million raised to support jeb bush came from. we can see that in the fec report.

certainly, across the spectrum there has been this worry that corporations are going to buy elections. it has not come to fruition. when we look at this cycle, we are not saying it happen. -- we are not seeing it happen. guest: i want to jump in. disclosure is some at the federal election commission where the super pac money is coming from. if one of those donors to a super pac is a group called americans who love america, we have no idea where that money is from. it is very limited and inefficient. and we don't even know where this money for the super pac's is coming from. we have had llc's that have made contributions. we don't know who is behind the llc's. the notion that there is disclosure for super pac's is a bit of a misleading characterization. ost:

erk, citizens united is not the first ruling on money and politics. what was the legal precedent that this case was built on. when you hear people blame citizens united for a lot of things -- guest: there are decades of legal precedent that have made clear that money is speech. host: what was that case about? guest: this is about whether or not you could curtail how much an individual can that candidate could spend on their own race and you cannot limit that. you just couldn't. money is speech, it is a proxy for speech. guest: i actually think this ision that "money is speech" not exactly what buckley said. there were a number of issues at play in buckley. everything from expenditure limits, contribution limits, limits on independent expenditures and what candidates can spend themselves. the court in that case did not but itney is speech,"

did say there were very there's implications for the first amendment. stevensly think justice got a much more on point. he said, money is not speech. money is property. obviously, he did not win the 5-4 with this court the had rulings in the last several years. there is a very interesting notion here about how you apply the first amendment through the notion that "money is speech" versus, how you apply those restrictions and protections if money is viewed as property. host: let me open the lines to get callers. phone lines are open. 202-748-8001. 202-748-8000. .nd independents, 202-748-8002

a will get to your calls in citizens united, 2010, mccutchen second. the fec. are there wins you hang your hat on? guest: i don't want to limit spending, that is not the point. i think the point is, you have a system in which, average people to havey little ability any kind of impact on the races that are occurring. i want more speech by more people. i want more speech by more people. i what more participation. this question was raised in mccutchen, by the dispensers, saying that we got rid of the aggregate contribution limits. but you have a system now in ,hich, as justice breyer put it you have the ability to drown out the rest of the voices. this is really a question about an application. we all want to have a system in which every american not only

can, but wants to to state. -- but wants to participate. we don't have that right now. host: are people being drowned out? guest: i don't think so and i don't think mccutchen led to that. when the able to give money to as many candidates as you want? the courts said that. really, i think post citizens united people had more speech, more opportunities to speak. they can join together with their friends and their peers and people with similar interests to raise money together, speak with one voice. they have more of a megaphone now than ever before. host: christian burke is a former deputy and citizens united. what do you do now? own legal, i run my practice by representing super pac's. if you have questions,

phone minds are open. we will get to the calls. robert is in harrison, arkansas, a democrat. robert, good morning. caller: good morning. i think this is a timely topic. i understood that nonprofits were specifically for welfare purposes only. as we have seen it go, now we have two major players. we have organized labor and the chamber of commerce. and through these, they take partisan stance. the first thing i would suggest is that nonprofits lose their status if they are not for social welfare purposes. in germanyas a pow and the red cross was there. they were not picking politics. the man that is there that is legal counsel for these pacs, you are there for profit. you are making a living. you are a business. that needs to be taken care of. corporation with an

individual, they should be limited like any other individual. if it is $2500, like it is here in arkansas, the corporation -- i think it is outrageous to think they would be considered a person. it is an accounting principle to protect the assets of those people there making money. those people should be recognized and should only be able to give the amount of money that is allowed like here in arkansas. i appreciate your time. host: christian burke, i will let you start. guest: one thing to bear in mind, there are two forms of corporations when we talk about nonprofits. we have got 5013 c charity. they have a very special status in the tax law. if they do engage in political spending, they lose that status. they lose the charitable participation. and we have 501(c) for social welfare groups, which exist to

engage in public policy ideas, advocating positions. i think it is incumbent in them to use every tool available in the toolbox. to use every tool available in the toolbox. will throw up definitions for our viewers if you want to see it. guest: i think it is a point to talk about 501(c) four. c3 charitable, c4 -- this is the world of the nonprofits. if you look at the law, the law says if you are a social welfare organization, you are exclusively for the purpose of social welfare. the internal revenue service interpret that to say you do a little bit of a little bit of

put collectivity but significantly you should be doing social welfare. in practicality and in practice, we now have a system in which a c4 social welfare organization spent up to 50% of their money on political activity and can still be considered a social welfare. how that is exclusively is beyond reason. had hearings up on the hill where the issue has been how can we have a law that says exclusively and yet allow social web organization that does not disclose its donors. host: where is that interpretation from? the irs. it has not changed since 1950. this is one of the situations where there is so much to be done without having to change

the law. you go to the irs and a look at this question about what constitutes exclusivity for social welfare. you go to the securities and exchange commission and say what should shareholders he able to know about political spending of their corporation, which the citizens united case promise will happen. whether it is the federal communications commission where you know who is running the ad, of the ad, ornsor you go to the election committee and they define questions like what constitutes coordination. all of these things can be done right now and do not require any constitutional amendments and do not require congress to act. in cap a,s go to john florida, and independent. byler: i have been appalled the way the news media has a total blackout on the way

merrick garland supported citizens united versus fcc ruling that equated the grasp of big money and political campaigns to freedom of speech. how could he be qualified as a supreme court justice when he these simplequate concepts? citizens united has been disastrous for the country. please answer this question. host: do you want to talk about merrick garland? guest: we have a system in our judiciary. the district court from the district of columbia is bound to abide by what the supreme court has handed down. i think judge garland in that court is bound by supreme court precedent. the question was there in the speech now case and he did confirm and the way the court looked at that was to say, this is what the supreme court has said.

i think we don't really know where we would come down on this . tois not really a role challenge with the supreme court has said here it is not necessarily a reflection of how do not knowe, but i we will get an opportunity to find that out. host: a lot of eyes on them. darlene is in st. paul, minnesota, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask both of your on this. comment the unions have been doing this for decades. the unions have been contributing hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle. what is the difference? as far as i am concerned, -- no

money in politics. unitedhink the citizens decision is just leveling the playing field. so i would like to hear from both of your guests on that. guest: i agree completely. you have had outside influence for decades. in a way it said everyone has the ability to speak. voice, -- that guest: it is important to remember when the 1970 law was revised originally, the notion was a lyrical compromise. was not necessarily a realization that they were the same type of organization. we have seen a huge increase in membership. i think you would find the sway of unions and politics and

certainly with union members, decreasing. as much say ase they did 20 or 30 years ago. there is speculation the citizens united decision applies to the treasury fund of unions. therefore, they can have the same rights to make these independent expenditures. the issue here is not so much whether or not you they should be treated as similar types of entities or if they should be treated differently, which is what the union members claim, they say they're nothing like a corporation. that is a different discussion you have with the unions who have not been very happy with the legislation. talk about the campaign legal center. guest: a nonpartisan nonprofit that works on issues related to

money and politics issues, voting rights, redistricting reform, and we really try to take a look at those issues from a nonpartisan way. our president is trevor potter. some of the viewers may know him from his appearance on the colbert report. was john mccain's general counsel and a republican member of the general elections commission. a democrat who has done a lot of electioneering law and voting rights litigation for democrats. i have done nonpartisan lobbying for 30 years. taking your calls and questions, in cincinnati, ohio, a democrat, good morning. good morning. hillary has taken -- taken money from the fracking business. know, to

component out, can you all answer that question for me? host: charles hung up. did anyone catch that? guest: i think his point is hillary has taken a lot of money from special interests and is a recipient of a lot of super pac funds. look at bernie sanders, who has won eight of the last nine contests against hillary clinton while disavowing citizens united and super pac's. it has really shown the ability of small donors to have a voice in the process. host: you are the numbers on hillary clinton and bernie sanders. hillary clinton has raised $1.9 million for her individual campaign committee super pac supporting her and has raised $62.6 million. bernie sanders has raised 139.8 million for her campaign committee.

that's supporting him, $48,000. as my friend talks about, hillary clinton being the -- the recipient of super pac funds. butkust want to net dick -- supposedly, the funds were to be totally independent of the candidates. it shows you how ridiculous this is. everybody knows what is going on. this notion that the citizens united case talks about where independente expenditures, it is a farce and everybody knows it is a farce. even if he describes it, he sees it as a farce. is are saying she recipient of the super pac. host: what is the line of what you cannot do? guest: you cannot directly coordinate. the super pac cannot eat with the candidate about how to spend

the money. they cannot have any discussions about it. do the samen do is thing anybody does, open up the newspaper, try to infer how could a best spend their money. if you are the brother-in-law, mother, former staffer, you do not have to have a lot of tea leaves to read those. host: how do you prove coordination? to impossible.xt that would mean someone has to be in the room when they have the conversation. even if you did, even if you found proof that there was a conversation, we had a federal election commission so deadlocked, there would be no enforcement. everyone feels free to go ahead and figure out where the blurry lines are and not worry about it. talk to lawyers where they

can say, we know what the rules are. but there are no rules, particularly because so many super pac's are run by operatives that are very close and have worked with these candidates for so long, they do not need to have that conversation. super pac's are going to be run by people supportive of a candidate there are no question. people who are supportive may ofe a history overtime supporting a candidate or being familiar with the candidates positions or ideas. it is no surprise to me that people who have long been in the orbit of a candidate would set up an organization to support an event for that candidate. beach, anest palm independent. caller: with the funding, and passive in the candidacy race at this time, it has been forever.

with 5013 c and a 5014, those are the money factors holding the nonprofits and the corporations together today. with new seeds of funding like the corporate packages they have those types of funding options allow a different type of schedule of funding to the candidacy's party. the onlyd of the day, thing that will matter is elect world votes. -- electoral votes. host: tennessee, a republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. something i found astonishing , of you showed your chart

how much each candidate had raised so far, i found it very that theng to notice democrats were raising twice if not triple the money of what republicans were raising. when i hear people talk about the main people i hear hollering are democrats. it is almost like they are talking out of both sides of their mouth by saying, we should taxhave all of these evil s and people giving money, and yet we do not hear about the candidates other than bernie sanders, who has talked some about this. even he has raised $150,000. host: just to show you a different chart, and i will let talk to your point,

the original chart i was showing you what the candidates still in is a chart with the same number, the over $1 billion with individual campaign committees and supporting those, of all the presidential candidates have been in the race, and there is a lot more charticans there on that -- including the other democrats who have run as well. your caller does not quite have a complete view of a lot of people in the tea party with politicians working. it is one of the reasons you see the move behind donald trump. there is a new organization working on the issue from a conservative point of view, called take back republic. a campaigny who was manager, of the representative of the. can tour.