tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 29, 2015 8:00am-10:01am EDT
ways functionally the songwriters licensing of the rights is regulated. >> we've only scratched the surface. alec went over the composers rights and we talked about how the system is covered by doj consent decree. another portion, a copy portion being controlled i a three-judge panel somewhere that is the copyrighted the board. and those other rights. let's get back to what congress did in 1995 which the digital performance rights, the sound recording. that does a lot to explain the services you listen to on your phone. two of us understand that it over the past 20 is how the marketplace has grown and what is enable that to grow because alec said his organization like ascap and you may have enabled songwriters to get compensated and focus on the great and they did not on the business side the marketplace for the performance rights that congress made in 1995, julia can explain
more about how that has evolved and rubber company placed in that. >> okay. it's funny, so i thought i would have to let a lot of grunt work that you guys have laid a lot of the grunt work for me. alec's talked about the two copyrights in every recording that you here. there's the composition the notes and lyrics and the sound recording. the sound recording is that artist, that recording artist interpretation of that composition. and then fixed permanently somehow to be a recording. so before 1995 1998 before the performance right was created in those two laws there was no performance right% according under federal law. but some in 1998 there was and there was no one to collect the royalties for the performance right. so as services developed and as
they need to pay royalties develop the industry collectively created an entity to collect those royalties and that was soundexchange. initially it was kind of this come in the corner of an office a group of people trying to figure out how are they going to do this. as alec was sitting on the composition side, if you have to go to every person who makes a recording and every copyright owner and figured that out that is very time-consuming and come faded and we probably wouldn't have many of the services we have today if that was the way things had to work. so soundexchange was born and in 2003 became an independent nonprofit collective that represents the entire recording industry. so signed artist unsigned artist, megastars, local bands,
major labels, indie labels we represent all artist, recording artists, and copyright owners which is normally record label i can often also be the artist who decides to record for themselves and owns their own master recordings. and i saw our board reflects that we represent the entire interest. our board passed representatives of record labels, indie labels, major labels and their trade associations and half art is and the representatives and artist managers and artist unions. and every dollar of royalties is paid through soundexchange is split 50/50 between the copyright owners come usually the record label anarchists featured artist and non-featured artists. that is something that is unique and it is the reason that that
is the reason that art is love soundexchange. it is a reason that people often point to soundexchange as kind of a bright spot for transparency and the recording industry which is a big issue that a lot of people are talking about right now. the other things we do besides collecting royalties and distribute royalties, we represented one of the copyright royalty board which is the entity over the library of congress that alec mentioned earlier that sets the rates for all of these royalties. and we also advocate on behalf of the industry up here and elsewhere to try to protect of those rates and to support fair pay for artists and copyright owners. so that's the really easy get up what soundexchange does. i have a more complicated you if you want me to get into that -- >> no, not yet. i guess basically which are
saying is whether it's alec's organization or yours, the very highest level at the ultimate goal is to make sure artists, creative people could get compensated quickly. services to get access to music and most efficient way possible to get out to people so they can listen to it spent so let me talk about that for just a second. so the kind of mouthful i like to say of what soundexchange does is we are the nonprofit selected designated by the copyright royalty board to collect and distribute royalties paid for the performance of sound recordings via non-interactive digital audio transmissions to u.s. listeners pursuant to the statutory licenses that congress created in section 112 and 114 of the copyright act. most of of the first part of that since he visited because the terms of been defined that everybody the panel so far.
you understand what public performances, what a sound recording is, sort of what non-interactive is. you understand that it is audio not audiovisual so it's not youtube. it's only this part. and that it is a digital. so it's not terrestrial what you know we're not going to get into this but that's the fact that terrestrial radio does not pay artists any royalty and never has is a big inequity in industry. >> you mean am/fm. so on your old car radio am/fm you were saying that whoever broadcast that does not pay the artist, butdo come if i had a new car radio with wi-fi and it was streaming and/or they do. >> yes. [inaudible] >> that's right. it does get a little complicated but they are 2500 -- and let you think is him about spotify and
pandora, their 2500 services that pay royalties through soundexchange. it's webcasters like pandora. it's satellite radio, which right now is just sirius/xm. am/fm broadcaster to decide what to simulcast online and it is cable and satellite television systems that have music on them, the stations that are way up at the top of com and the big numbers of your cable channels. so that's the complicated description. but it's important just in terms of the history of it to understand. in 2005 when soundexchange made its first distribution of royalties, the total distribution was $20 million, after copyright owners, have to artist. last year soundexchange distributed $773 million. so this is where there's exponential growth in the
industry where everywhere else you were hearing that industry revenue as a total is going down. we really are where technology and music meet and where there is growth. and part of the reason for that we get to the question about who's more powerful taylor swift or congress, congress created this platform and this is, congress created this in 1990 and this is the platform on which this whole industry was born. about a $773 million last you but they should probably be closer to $900 million or artists and -- >> so some definitions of power are just money, right? taylor swift has a ton of it but congress, this is one piece but congress has just yielded like three quarters of the billions of dollars for artists through this system. >> right. >> we will keep that in mind for later question.
kevin has been as did a bit of cleanup. one thing we haven't talked about this with the taylor swift, is she just like meghan trainor or an issue like the guy whose name i can remember, who wrote the song? we haven't even talked about that. so we're does the powers of taylor swift come from? >> well, okay. a lot to digest. everybody understands -- [inaudible] >> everybody understands there's two kinds of copyright embedded in everything you listen to you. there's the sound recording and there's the composition. this sound -- usually the record love but sometimes the artists themselves and the composition which compensates the songwriter and the publisher. got that? we understand there's different kinds of internet streaming. there's the non-interactive streaming which among other things funnels its royalties through soundexchange and then
there's interactive streaming. interactive streaming is set up differently that often requires direct negotiation with the owners of the sound recordings which is again usually the record labels. >> and that was part of the act. congress mandated they have to negotiate. >> yes, because they were not covered by the -- >> they have to negotiate those licenses because they are not -- >> so congress -- >> the absence of a statutory is why. and then for unaffiliated artist, people who don't have any record label at all if you want to get your music on something like spotify you go through an aggregator which is something like cd baby or two in court, these companies back in stock music. user to take some kind of a percentage or a flat fee. got all that? is a lot to digest. you can start to understand why
back in 2013 when had at the copyright office was giving a speech at columbia university law school of of the next great copyright act she said something to the effect of music licensing is so complicated and broken that if we get the right we can get the whole statute right. there's a lot of truth to that but for no musicians are sort of doing their best to navigate all of the different policy structured at a time when they're already often expected to a lot more than they used to do, keeping track of all these revenue streams and figuring out how to patch it to get into something resembling ending. often serving as own manager and booking agents and publicists and tried to market their work in all the places and keep track of these departments how it impacts them. somewhere there has to be time to write and record and perform music. it's not easy. one of the things we do is we try to make it a little easier i can mystify these systems.
we tried to take a lot of information you just heard in sort of crystallized into a series of infographics and we did, like even this is complicated. look a big this is. accidentally can get a copy of the chart future of music.org urges google music and other medical than you can find that we. we made it for artists but it is also useful for folks in a policy committee trying to wrap furniture and all this stuff. sometimes people see this and think why do we despite all the way up front all of the middleman? i think sometimes well-intentioned but it's naïve. musicians and songwriters don't have time to go around to every potential company that wants to license their music. musicians and songwriters need partners who bring their music into the marketplace. they need by force. in the performance rights organizations. they need publishers, record labels distributors.
not every artist needs all of those things that many of them do. there's just no way to do it themselves. the important thing, all those partners need to be accountable and transparent. an important thing to understand about this from the policy context with newt in a partner, aligned with those partners some the time maybe a lot of the time and then they will divert some of that. that's why it's important to get prospectus or artists themselves. preferably a diverse array of artist because different artists have different business models. where an artist is in the marketplace is going to determine how they feel about a particular development in the marketplace. with streaming different artists have been excited about some aspects of the services and some of them concerned and critical about some aspects of the streaming services. a lot of opinions. because they're working with different expectations about the scale of their potential audience. they are at different stages in
their careers but the goals are different, different genres have different business models. but today rather than give too deep into the content of the different kinds of critiques that up and leveled, with the offer just a simple way to wrap your head around this up and give you a framework for how to think about music policy generally. so is the if the question what do our disney from streaming music and how to the decision by congress impact of them there's two big categories. category one is access to audiences, and category number two is fair compensation. both of these are important to the access stuff is important. the flourishing of new services has greeted an incredible opportunity for artists who end up as would've been shut out of the workplace and unable to reach out and really start thriving and connect to people all of the country and all over the world. equally important is compensation and there are some serious questions with asthma have economic -- a special artist to do the kind of math
skill reach and additions that taylor swift does. it can be difficult for congress to really know what the impact is going to be. in addition to all the licensing questions and the structures that are set up to allow for these different services, there is larger policy background of decisions that congress is involved in that is infected with the streaming landscape looks now. >> so i think as far as running out of time goes i think we've got a good baseline going. we haven't and into what taylor swift is. is she a composer? that she owned her sound recordings? who is she? what issued? where does her power come from? >> oh, boy. well, what we do know that she as a songwriter and performer.
>> so she has the two different powers to control her music. >> she's also somebody record for an independent label, and that's been really important in this recent comment expect conservation to understand because she has a degree of freedom to speak out about these industry structures and the ability to pull for a catalog from some services in a way that could potentially be more difficult if she was recording for a major label. it's funny, you know the song we are never getting back together when she talks about her -- >> i was really upset about that. [laughter] >> she said something about some indie record that is good for my. i thought that was funny because she is on an indie label. anyway -- >> just one important thing to add is, so taylor swift everyone who what we're talking about, pulled her music from are
threatened and did pull some but the thing to know is she had the right because she's the recording artist and all of the recordings to pull the sound recording, she didn't have the right to pull the musical composition. social els wanted to record the song you just mentioned that is a taylor swift song and put it up on spotify hardware ever, she wouldn't have been able to pull that off. because again she's a member i think of bmi and their subject to a consent decree and have to give a license. such a stickler for shiv kapur sound recordings but not a composition student overpowers are limited. by what? why would she -- what is limiting her power in that particular instance? >> the federal government has said that is a consent decree any member of bmi or ascap, that's the best majority, 90% of
songwriters and the u.s. have to license any service that ask for a license even before there's a price or a negotiation or a price spent but in spotify land if that's like she is proud to pull her song from spotify speak with not a the musical performance spent can she pull her songs from non-interactive streaming service like pandora speak with the sound recording but not of the composition. >> not the sound recording, no because we didn't have much of a with the statute license means but in the land of pandora -- >> which is a magical land. hypothetical. >> where they are relying on the statutory license for the statutory license gives them access to every piece of commercial available music as long as they pay the statutory rates assigned to them come and we can talk about, at some point we're going to talk about that a little bit and the artist does
not have the right spirit congress gave that invincibility to pandora against taylor swift spirit not just pandora. >> we are just scratching the surface. those types of things can we go could go through each service and toggle whether even experts can get confused about that stuff. there's a chart that mike godwin put together, like everybody has a chart like rates and how much this entire ecosystem is dictated by the rates they charge and is there a fair market value, other types of economic analysis that yields. this would make your head hurt even more so than the chart that kevin had. rates also heavily regular by the covered or the government is involved in different ways that can control how these rates him it's not just fair market. >> that's right. the rate standard is so
statutory license -- [inaudible] >> every go. if you want to start a digital streaming service in the united states tomorrow, anybody in this audience decide you want to start a digital streaming radio service, you have two choices. you can go to every me this is just on the sound recording side. alec has talked about the composition side but you can go to every record label or every copyright owner and try to negotiate a rate with them for those you can start your service and your able to negotiate a rate with and figure it out and create a back and and way to pay all those people. or you can go to the copyright office, you can fill out this one page form that has eight questions on some of which are multiple choice, give them a $40 check and you can access to every piece of commercial available music ever to use on
your streaming service. the next thing you do is you call soundexchange and you say this is the kind of service i have. what's the rate that i pay? so in a system you pay a rate set by the copyright royalty board. the rate standard used to set the royalty rate is in the law for webcasters. it is a fair market value rate. for satellite radio, it is a different rate. >> we get into, go to all -- >> you asked how the different rates and from a composition side just to point out there's a really crazy result that happened because of the different regulatory structures. pandora streaming all about that base, right, once on to
copyrights in sound recording, music opposition to what that music opposition to would be nothing to record. without the recording to we nothing to listen to. what pandora actually pays to the songwriter and performer are completely different amounts of the performer gets 12-14 times more than the songwriter does because when these two different regulatory structures using two different processes to set the rate. there's some crazy result that happen by the kind of conflicting and different regular regimes. >> it gets more competition there. i promised on the 2020. i have a hard stop at one but have to ask at the end of the conversation, who has more power, congress or taylor swift? i have time for one question. does anyone have one? the gentleman in the back. please make it a quick question. >> -- nothing about music was involved and what does that mean?
>> the transatlantic partnership. there's the music involved in that and that's a commodity out of the u.s. spin i'm not familiar with the deal you're talking about spent let's go to the next question. does anyone have one? >> -- there's another party in these transactions which is people who buy the biggest of them goes out to buy a cd get out of it and they can give it to their sister, donated to a charity. can't do that with a digital thing at a what if you guys could address the sense of that? athe sense of it as a license as opposed to a physical product if you get rid of it stood the first day of a doctor consumers rights to resell copyrighted material if they are reselling or giving away transferring if you will the specific item that
they purchase. so if you buy a book you can go to used book store. the same is true for a cd. that has come to believe that has been litigated a couple times in the context of digital products, and the courts have come if i recall correctly, essentially said when you were giving away the digital download that you purchased your actually reproducing cutdown board -- download. unless you hand someone your hard drive and you're not getting away the specific purchased item pictured giving away a copy of the purchased item and the first sale doctrine doesn't apply to copies. >> and then it gets even more complex because you to look at your terms of service and this is by this song. it could really just be a license. you have to be very clear about that. it gets complicated. there's been talk about having a first sale doctrine. we had a whole panel on that issue alone, an entire 60 minute have on last you. you can download the mp3 and you
can own it as far as i'm concerned. >> and you can give it away spent the panel is called first sale no resale. it talks about the question. at the end i asked whether they download something, i mentioned the service, do they own it, does like copyright professors and they were like i have to go look at the terms of the service, i'm not sure. it's really complicated and that's, again this is competent enough. that one is one slice of the entire pie. but that's a great question to the answer is not easy. so i guess with my three minutes, four minutes left let me just go down wants to take the question first? who has more superpower in the internet music marketplace congress or taylor swift? is there any limit to taylor swift power? >> i think alec's laid out what the limit -- there is while
this a statutory license, the is a limit because she can't take her recording off of services that are using the statutory license. but you want to take a crack at the rest of his. >> sure. on the composition side or the government is more powerful. the government controls, tells her she can take her music off from, as a songwriter spent she joined ascap or bmi. that was her choice. so she doesn't have to join one of the services. because you actually couldn't afford a bunch of people to go read and license every radio station if she chose to. >> golf 700000. >> she could also go to see cap -- cicac. >> because she's uniquely powerful just because of her shared skill should rise above that particular -- >> any songwriter can choose cicac which is that on regulated
on consent decree -- >> actually cicac is an invitation only. .edu and can join. i think they would give her an invitation if she wanted. [laughter] >> going back to taylor swift, she obviously is tremendous a powerful in getting the message about supporting fair pay for artists out there. in congress right now is looking at copyright issues, looking at licensing issues, and we spent a lot of time talking about there's one basic thing that we should do in music licensing reform. you should make sure that artists and copyright owners have the opportunity to get fair market value for the work. address the same think -- >> so she's just be on to rights in a music. she is influenced. so if she wrote like the looks of the most -- if she wrote like a slight letter to congress, with a turnaround in 24 hours?
>> i don't know. they are people in this room we could ask. we fight a lot of polite letters to congress and it hasn't worked yet. >> polite letters work best. >> it's important to understand with apple, the rest of the into the second of a lot of the groundwork for taylor swift before the letter was published in which recognize the the power of the independent sector has as well. i used to think taylor swift was -- toshio stuck on that teledata stage thing at national park on monday night. >> she couldn't just fly off of it? >> but if we're going to use taylor swift as a proxy for artists, especially artists who are sticking up for themselves and think they should have a voice in how the new digital marketplace is structured and shouldshouldn't just be about competing business interests, i would say the best outcome at the most power happens when artists in congress work together and create, create some ongoing work relationship to
establish some dialogue and craft collaborative policy solutions. that's democracy and that's where the real power comes from. >> jonathan? >> i think the most powerful recording artists are the ones who can stop presidential campaigns are using their songs without permission which we seem to have a problem with. look taylor swift is that a magnificent art in her career where she has influence which i think is not to be confused with power. so she certainly has she can't undo the statutory license and statutory license pace are the very same amount that it pays an indie artist who nobody has ever heard of for one stream to one person so that's a pretty interesting limitation on power also. >> if i may jump into this. even think about how the american topic respond to those two different entities, in poll numbers, we can look at the polling for the congress and what kind of lyrics they put out, it isn't so hot.
but i think in poll numbers the american public, i think taylor swift is 30 the winner in that one but it's an interesting question. hopefully this serve as a baseline as congress starts reworking and looking into them. hopefully a baseline understanding of the bit of that. you would have to get a ph.d or take semesters of school for this potentially complex but hopefully everybody is invested and hopefully congress can make a decision on things coming down the pike. i want to thank the paddlers and thank everybody. thanks everybody. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the only pilot in history of
ever fought the british navy to a standstill. >> to royal navy frigate. this is unheard of. >> most pirates hightailed out. >> this sunday night on q&a robert person on the search for the hardship the golden fleece and its captain joseph banister. >> he started off his life not as a pirate at all but a noble english sea captain am a gentleman who is trusted by very wealthy ship owners to sell the ships, the golden fleece beautiful sailing ship between london and port royal, jamaica which was known as the wickedest city on earth. to carry sugar, indigo dyes. for you she did that responsibly and nobly. but then one day in 1684 for reasons to think why determined, joseph banister still the golden
flake on his own ship and went on the account as a set of piracy. he turned pirate. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> presidential candidate marco rubio visited the early primary state of south carolina yesterday to give a talk about national security and foreign policy. his speech part of a forum organized by the americans for peace and security. this is one hour. >> well, thank you all for being here. i tell you, i believe senator, that 2016 is the electing a commander-in-chief who is
prepared to do what it takes to keep this country safe so we can remain free. you've been a very vocal and outspoken in your criticism of the iran deal. let's say that there's a present review in january 2017. how to deal with iran's? >> first let me say what the deal is no deal at all. second on to how i would reverse a third will take what we will do instead. able to do because the first thing about having a deal that we need to understand is that releases billions of dollars of frozen assets into pants iran. what will iran do with that money? what to build roads and bridges and schools and charities? no. they would do if you have always done. invest in terrorism, sponsorship of hezbollah, sponsorship of shia militias in iraq, sponsorship of the 14th of every boom in bahrain. sponsorship of the houthis. second with about their conventional capabilities to the doing to destroy an american aircraft carrier or by buying chinese technology to do.
and thereby imposing the risk of putting a blockade on the straits of hormuz in the persian gulf. and third they would develop long range rockets in nuclear weapons program. why would they build long-range icbms? one reason as to put a nuclear warhead on. and i tried to put a man on them or send a probe to mars. the only reason you build long range rockets is to put a nuclear warhead on it that you don't ever think we need to know. u.s. congress imposed sanctions on iran and individuals and the banks and other sectors of the economy. those sanctions are in the books today. what this president is going to do is he's going to use the national security waiver in that law to lift those sanctions. when i am president of the united states we will reimpose those sanctions to renew the nation's good waiver and countries around the world and discovered the do business in iraq will have a choice to make. they could have access to the i bring economy or access to the the american economy but they will
have access to both. not only will we reimpose those sanctions i hope you can add additional terrorist, banks and entities to the sanctions list. we will continue to do that into iran realizes they have a simple choice. they can have an economy or they can have a nuclear weapon program but they cannot have both. and that's the message we need to find ourselves in over the next couple of years. >> the nuclear threat, you talked about the icbm threat from iran. here in south carolina on the east coast we have a land-based missile defense get the good for this country. what would you do to strengthen the missile defense? >> i think it begins in your. the first opportunity for us to intercept a launch. i think that helps us not just against the threat of an iranian weapon but the existing threat of a russian attack which today as ludicrous as it may sound we are on the verge of a second cold war. by vladimir putin choice, not because of ours. i think the ability to protect
our allies and the u.s. begins with a missile defense system in europe as the first line of intercept. i do believe in east coast system is important for our country as well. to proliferate -- improving their targeting capability. russia has them china hasn't and our brain is trying to get them. this will be an era of missile defense and we need to be prepared. >> the russian bear is back. how do you work with our key allies like great britain and the germans to confront putin? >> it's important to understand economic the rush is not a global power. they are militarily. 90% of the world nuclear weapons enhance of the united states and russia. that is the reason to be concerned. our quarrel is not with the russian people. is with vladimir putin who has decided he's going to the way he will reposition russia once again as a global power at least in his mind is to split europe,
undermine europe, tries to undermine nader and challenge of the united states. he has made a decision that's what you'll become prom and the world is by obstructing are being against us ever in the world. in essence the other thing is he's been in tikrit problems that only he himself can solve to position itself as this great global leader. he armed and equipped of distinguishing them with a conduct of these chemical attacks on he is in position to broker a deal to get him to abandon the weapons which by the but haven't done. they are still using chlorine gas against their own people. this president has fallen into that trap. >> we went out on social meet asking people to send the questions in. we received one question as far away as sweden and the question was, so we've gotten some interest on national security. the question was this. how to stop expansion of isis? >> first of all you stop expansion of isis the way to stop expansion of in radical
jihad is group group and that is you deny them a safe haven from which to operate. in order for jihadists group to grow and conduct operations they need someone to operate from. al-qaeda and the sponsorship of the taliban to plan 9/11 and isis needed serious and instability. not iraq come increasingly libya and other places to we have to deny them these operational spaces. the next plays isis will focus on is afghanistan. you see within afghanistan a battle between isis and the taliban. as america retreats from different parts of afghanistan isis is moving in improving their capability as well. we have to target them in their safe haven. series and the right but i think that needs to be expanded to include the areas of libya with operate from and are using as a base of operations to destabilize assignment. we need to begin to think about confronting them and afghanistan as well.
confronting them means ultimately confronted him on the ground. i believe that increase air assault against them and it's important integrating their logistical capabilities the ability to resupply, et cetera. in the short term we need to subject them to some high profile humiliating defeat so we can reverse this global narrative of isis is gestapo. that's how they are attracting recruits. they put up videos on social media and the message they're sending two young jihadists around the world to join us, we are unstoppable. we haven't proved that wrong. in the long-term isis must be defeated on the ground and i think ideally defeated on the ground by local forces including sunnis themselves who will confront them militarily with our help including the help of american special operators. also with intelligence support, logistical support from
airstrikes and targeting that will allow a combination of jordanians, saudis, sunnis and iraqis themselves and kurds and others to confront an end to defeat them on the ground and take back the territory they now control. >> talk about social media. how do we fight isis on social media? spent part of it is beating them in the propaganda battle. everywhere in the history has had a propaganda element to. about a the look of the old newsreel of world war ii where we were constantly pointing out the successes we've had and of course others invest in a propaganda. vladimir putin today invest heavily in propaganda. there's a television network you make me not a single russia today. it's on some cable systems. it is run by the kremlin. it spreads propaganda. it's important for viewers for the u.s. to also when the information battle. it does begin by subjecting them and advertising to the world.
i also think we should target them online. there's a reason why a country as a country we shall isis unfettered access to facebook and twitter and also to other platforms that are used not just to attract recruits but to inspire attacks against us the west, and the world spent its report isis to have as me as 100 jihadi training camps. what do we do with regard to young people what can we do to combat that? >> offer them hope in this country can be mean and the united states or around the world? >> both. >> around the world we have some people in the united states that have been radicalized onslaught for a lot of different reasons. some of these are just to send -- disenchanted losers. others have weird conversion. they seek to join if i carry out
attacks inspired by the that's why this whole idea that we need to defeat them in the information war is important but global it is important as well to deny them the operating spaces for the scams to take root. that's why it's important that sunnis themselves because they. isis is the radical sunni movement. it finds its strength from disaffected sunni you. it's important work with our allies in the region. people need to see the isis is being defeated by fellow sunnis, that this is not just a western crusade or the like to call it against islam. these are sunni muslims themselves who are going against the radical pilot aboard. i think that's a critical part of this as well spirit for dimensions of warfare, now we have cyber. it's giving us. it's like death by a thousand hats. how do we win the cyberwar? >> first we have to improve the
quality of our cyber. most government agencies simply do not employ 21st century us practices. you compare the cyber defense of a private sector firm to most federal agencies have come we are well behind. in fact, two to three generations behind the one of the challenges of the 21st century for the next commander-in-chief is to improve the cyber defense capability of our government agencies. also to pass a cyber to which i hope will do in the next couple of weeks in the u.s. senate that will help us with more information sharing. cyber is evolving and so once you solve one problem, five new ones are being created by an innovative hacker somewhere under development. when you to stay on the cutting edge and that will require us to share best practices information, information between government and the private sector. i think we need to improve our cyber offensive capability. mutual assured destruction that existed during the cold war on the nuclear front is something that's important to side as well. that will be effective when it
comes to our relationship vis-à-vis other nation-states like china and russia. i think it's important not that the deterrent themselves were but i think it's important we have the cyber capability to knock out the building of a radical group like isis to conduct operations in cyberspace. you talk about some of the other areas critical to that is space do this. our potential adversaries realized that it doesn't matter how advanced our technology may be, if they can distort or blind our satellites our guidance systems overcome our communication systems don't work. with his technological high ground on the satellites and the cyberspace spent recent cyber attack on office of personnel management by the chinese confidence our government, but for five months to discover a. how would a we view administration deal with a chinese? >> it's important -- they flat
out said that chinese are conducting these attacks and that's important i think it's important there be a reciprocal response to if we're going to be attacked in cyber by china with to show a willingness to do the same. and again i do want to get into a cyberwar but i'm telling you unilateral armament only encourages other nations to do this. the chinese believe the cost of cyber warfare are not are outweighed by the benefits. they think they gain more than lives and they think they can get away with it. so yes, it's great we are indicting senior chinese officials that are conducting cyber warfare. the truth is we will never get her hands on because they will not travel there. we need to go further editing for each of cyber attack that we can verify their needs to be a reciprocal response to let others know that if you attack america in cyber we will respond. i think it's an emergent issue, nation importance that we improve our ability to defend against these attacks and be able to prove our daily. the existence and the private
sector mechanism to do that better than. to what our government uses today. >> our top cyber expert at nsa and cia tells we need to spend 20 to 30,000 cyber expert and will have 1000 or how can we have taken recruitment campaign we need to get cyber experts? >> the good news is the young generation of americans is the most cyber tech savvy that is overly to israel people to people that grew up around technology their whole lives. they have no notion of what the world looked like before socially or the building to act as an access instant information. we have the village great a cyber defense force and recruit, much like we've done in the past for the army, navy, air force and marines. i think it would be militants who'd be interested in joining this sort of effort. of course, were not going to hire millions of people but the ability to begin to recruit people to become part of america's cyber defense is
something i think will appeal to millions of young americans and thousands of them will find qualified and prepared to fill the role. it would be another way of serving our country the way people have served in the past in uniform. >> king abdullah of george weasley came to the the u.s. congress and complaint ignores our state department was putting up bureaucratic roadblocks think you need to take the 50 radical islam and i suspect how would you work with king abdullah and what kind of a we deployed in your foreign policy in the middle these? >> understand jordan's challenges are significant or jordan doesn't have to will develop economy. they are not an oil-producing nation. that economy is sustained by the gulf kingdom and the united states. they have a significant portion of the population that feels disconnected and disaffected by the current system of government and economics and long-term that's a toxic brew that could to the rebellion and stability in that country. those are issues we need to put jordan do with. their most immediate threat is
to have the refugee camp on the border that today houses hundreds of thousands of people. i think it's important. jordan is a willing partner in december. i think it's important for us to allow them to improve their military capability with unfettered access to the military aid if you're asking for renew our commitment to the. it's important for us to do with the price they are facing at the. the truth is the aid has been slow in coming not just from the u.n. but from the u.s. about providing what they need to gain control of that border region that today is being flooded by suing refugees, most of whom are not radical jihadists as i said if just a small percentage are infiltrated, you have a major, major problem. >> turkey has been called probably our least dependable nato ally. on one end their bombing i said on the other hand, they are bombing the courage. how do you deal with turkey? >> it's a real challenge.
turkey was admitted at a time when there government was quite different than what it is today. their current leaders have taken on a more jihadists radical islam is traditional islamic approach that is because made harder to work with him on a number of issues. it wasn't long ago that turkey wasn't ally of israel acted as course that's no longer the case the way it once was. it's important to examine the relationship and quite frankly to put it to test. either they will allow us to use turkish airspace and turkish bases or they're not. i think it's important for them to express the willingness to participate in an anti-isis coalition that simply comes down to worries about the kurds but in fact, extends to the need to defeat isis. come back and say we are concerned because we don't think any of these challenges in the region will be solved until you roll a slot into the mix. unless you get rid of a sought advice if you still can't have a problem. i think there's some legitimacy to do. ultimately, as long as assad is
in power you will continue to have the raw elements that make isis possible in the first place but even if we wipe out isis tomorrow a new group will emerge. it could be al-nusra which is -- of the group a lot of people thought would be isis. they are gaining strength. i think it's important to understand that as long as there is instability in syria and women a prime environment for radical jihadists groups to take root and grow. today could be isis come to market to be someone else. when the turks talk about the need to do with assad i think that is legitimate point to raise. hopefully we could put forward an agenda that includes a assad part of this whole situation. we could encourage them to be more active participants in the fight against isis. >> of the radical islamic the jihadists are here on our soil. how do we do with that and how do we fight radical islam here
on american soil? >> it's a threat we've not been wholly prepared for. we largely have built our anti-terror program on the notion that some of which coming from abroad and conduct an attack. then we weren't about americans who travel abroad radicalized in québec. now the we the people that never leave the united states that are radicalized online or at a local mosque summer and as a result take action. that's the nature of the threat. it's hard because unlike 10 years ago these are not often well-designed plots that involve longtime plumbing. is increasingly involved potentially an individual watches dvds online, is inspired to take action, buys a gun or a bomb and goes out and kills 10 people at a mall. these are the sorts of things there plenty. that's a much harder challenge. we need to understand as the fbi director has said we won't be able to get them all. it would be attacks on american soil by terrorists because of the nature of this but we need a more robust intelligence
program that allows us to understand this new threat allows them to monitor online before they can organize and carry out attacks. everyone of these plots we disrupt as a major success story. overtime and will involve the defeat of isis itself because that is what is feeding the sort of radicalism. they the ones inspiring people. >> robert mueller testified a few years ago that we apprehended like 59,000 people from countries other than mexico illegally trying to come to this country, somalia, iran, syria, pakistan, all the usual suspect. how does a rubio administration deal with more security and how do you keep that people and bad things like radioactive substances out of the country? >> the majority crossing the mexican border for the first time ever are not from mexico. they are coming from the northern triangle of latin america, central america.
they are coming from all over the world. and mrs. people realize if you get to mexico you get into the united states because you can cross the border the mexicans had begun to realize this is what and for the first time in many years the mexicans have become serious about border security on their side of the border because they recognize these are people coming into the country that if they can't make it across the border are going to stay in mexico and they don't want to have to deal with it. i think there's opportunity work close with mexican authorities to increase a secure those portions of the border that remain porous. part of that is create the infrastructure on the ground the thinking, cameras that cut off the unauthorized point across and narrows down the crossing points to only those authorized places where people crossed the border. we transact a lot of business across the border everyday. the people who come across everyday with millions of dollars of goods for trade and economic commerce. we don't want to shut that down but if we can close off the
illegitimate corridors of travel then we can focus our attention and are monitoring a legitimate crossing and improve our capability, for example applying -- finding the content of his weapons of radioactive material. so i think one of the things we'll have to do is work closely with our partners on the other side of the border in mexico who today have been increasingly vested interest in securing the border as well because they understand it is acting as a magnet for millions of people to sneak into mexico before they sneak into america. >> does a fence come into play such a technology, a combination? >> it does. fencing is accessible we we've seen it work in places like san diego. if we're talking with illegal immigration we have to understand that almost half of the people in this country illegally didn't cross the border physically. they came on an airplane with a visa. they overstay. border security also the airport
and seaport an entry exit tracking system that allows us to know in real time when people have overstayed their visas the they are sectors that we can secure through fencing, through sensors and cameras and drones and other technology. what it will do is it will funnel more and more of the traffic to places that it easier to monitor and easier to control stick the ports and harbors can we have no measure. what would you do to improve port and harbor security? >> that's an ongoing challenge. in florida we have major ports and security causes on the matter of the day because the federal budget creates mandates that doesn't offer funding. we have improved our capability many borders but ultimately we live in an era of global commerce and there will be every single day millions of tons of material being sent abroad incoming and. as always and our efforts to contain to put our ability to
monitor what's inside of a container, whether it's a weapon being smuggled in or something else, drugs or something we don't want in this country. it's an ongoing challenge. we will never be 100%. we know that. we have never been able to seal a country all but we can most certainly make it harder improve our capabilities detection and hopefully deal with the root causes. it can diminish numerically in other things that come in by the it is weapons for people are weapon of mass destruction. >> electromagnetic pulse come there's been good evidence may be the russians have an emp warhead. the north koreans. how to get electromagnetic pulse warhead and what would you do speak is a significant long-term threat. it's been described people and they think it's science fiction but israeli. part of it is i think and express allowed to make it a priority to harden critical infrastructure in this country meaning our electrical grid our chief government operations and hopefully technology will allow us to harden other things like
airplanes. we don't want airplanes fall out of the sky because of an electro- magnetic pulse wipes out the belly wipes out the ability of those engines to function. this is a real threat. as i said something something from a horror movie but it is in fact, technology that is available to countries come increasing number of factors around the world and potentially a nonstate actor, a terrorist organization that can create tremendous advocate it must become a priority in this country to harden critical infrastructure which we have the technology to do now that would insulate much of it you protected from that sort of attack. >> we've set the u.s. army to pre-world war ii levels. we have more admirals and ships. how does the u.s. military look under every administration? have they given our become a big of an air force the topic of the navy? >> the numbers and capability has become by the threat. a bipartisan group looked at our long-term defense needs and came
up with what's known as decades commission the gates funding level to fester and become this is what it will cost and this is what we should spend it on. we are about $50 billion under the future. so basically we are underfunding our military but about about about. earlier this year i tried in the budget to pass in the senate to restore funding for the military not to the gates number. it would have just been for one year we need to make that permanent. as president of make defense fund every. it's not just that spending more money on the military, it's by spending it on the right things. to defeat china's anti-axis capability. the chinese are building our have developed a $4 million rocket that can destroy a $4 billion aircraft carrier. we have to of countermeasures to of the ability to defend our space assets come satellites and so forth from attack. we have to be able to defeat our critical infrastructure from
cyber attack which could block out the building the community. it's important we stay at the cutting edge. the way i described people is whether the commander-in-chief is 10 years from now when they face a threat and the military officials come to them with options, what those options will be are being decided right now by what we are developing. if we did not develop the cutting edge technologies that allow us to keep our promise to our men and women in uniform that there'll always be the best trained, best equipped and best informed fighting force on the ground or in the air, if we don't invest in that capability we will not be able to keep that promise to them. ..
i think they are part of the overall strategy i outlined in the case number is an important critical element of the 21st century national security. >> the last 10 years or so the biological threat has been consistently ranked as one of the top threats to this country. how would you deal with it and prepare for it? >> verse of all we want to be ahead of the curve in terms of any adversary development and biological capability with a terrorist organization able to develop a biological agent dispersed to the water supply in
a crowded place. this falls in line with all the other thread too talked about from the terrorism they appeared when you talk about the biological pandemic threats, i think the centers for disease control play a critical role in making sure our country is well-stocked with the antiviral necessary to protect us from a biological attack and to quickly deliver that to the right place. the ebola crisis a year ago exposed the weakness in our system around the country in terms of the ability to rapidly respond to incidents should it occur. part of our overall 21st century strategy is the ability to rapidly respond to a biological or chemical attack by ensuring the right responses are available quickly in any major community in this country. >> the 9/11 commission said it
was a failure of imagination. responding to the last terrorist attack thinking outside of the box, how would a rubio administration think outside the box to prevent the next terrorist attack? >> this is an insider conversation but the national security council plays the critical role. it is sort of a hyper state department operational unit as opposed to a strategic one. we desperately need people in the government thinking ahead about what the next threat could be and how they could evolve. around the world they are thinking of ways to defeat us. around the world today terrorists are figuring out how to get a box cutter on an airplane anymore because they know we're looking for that. instead they are starting to dissolve other things that perhaps we haven't prepared for. understanding intelligence is critical and capabilities have been eroded for a number of reasons. some of them self inflict it. if we know what they are working
on it allows us to prepare to identify. part of it is having people sitting around constantly teaming up vulnerability and thinking if i was then this is what i would do in thinking about ways to prevent that staying ahead of the curve. that is why so important to have people in government and the national security apparatus thinking about driving trying to game out what the other side might do as opposed to thinking about how we deal with the threat we are dino. >> edward snowden? >> absolutely. the most devastating relief of information. we know for fact enemies in the united states today have changed the way they communicate specifically based on the remission he has released beard if mr. snowden have concerns about u.s. intelligence programs or multiple proper channel to get a raise. he didn't have to go to the chinese and russians in turnover
troves of important bible information. you may agree or disagree but the fact is today very men and women in american uniforms who are in danger because of the information he has released beard by the way some of the things are flat-out inaccurate. they are not true. and much of that information he has manipulated. he is without a doubt not just a trader and has a devastating impact. we know less about our adversaries today than we need to know or should have known he is done terrible damage and put the lives of real americans that danger. >> thinking outside the box from a terrorist attack poco her rom recently in the country of. one of the largest reserves of uranium. >> ultimately and we need to
contain a system in the endeavor. boko haram has pledged allegiance to isis and it is important to understand they are part of the global network basis is now establishing across multiple countries arranged from africa and impose a real threat. we need to be boko haram within the broader context of the war on terror particularly the war on isis. i think that is a local african government during the best they can to defeat it and continue to provide assistance. in an ideal world, these threats are needed at the local level. and they won't be involved in the ground incapacitating local partners and get other allies immediately interested in the idea of defeating the militarily is important. we have the world's greatest
intelligence diminished by things that i've described. we still have the ability to identify things from imagery in an ersatz and ultimately i think we need to spend some time investing in the domestic capability of the counterterrorism capability within training in the right weaponry and strategy they need to effectively defeat these insurgencies/terrorist groups terrorist armies. >> almost every time we buy energy overseas, some portion goes to financial terrorism. how do you view energy is a national security issue and what would a rubio energy policy look like? >> what i don't want people to believe us if we produce countries around the world now benefiting from what we produce less. every single day hundreds of thousands of people in the middle class by cars, fly an
airplane. i think it has enormous economic benefits to the united states. i believe to have domestic energy resources at our disposal lowers the cost of doing business in america which will strengthen our economy and allow seven manufacturing renaissance. ultimately there will continue to be oil resources available to other countries and will continue to be siphoned off. isis themselves sell oil in the global market because they seized the refinery. he hopes to recapture and use them once again. i think energy independence is critical to this country. geopolitically it will allow us to help break the stranglehold that has on europe and relies on natural gas from russia and the russian can cut that off. and the russian federation. it helps it politically as well.
>> will take questions now. if you have them, jonathan hoffman over here on the side. one question senator we have from the audience today. what is the senate's general opinion of israel's defense capability? what is the u.s. senate's general opinion of israel's defense capability? >> israel is a capable military force. israel is never asked america to fight a war or invade anyone. the only thing they ask is if they run out of bullets or rockets to resupply them. in global forms we stand firmly on their side and deeply committed to security. it's in our national interest to do it. i have a moral connection i believe in and of itself justifies our relationship. israel was a relationship created in the aftermath of the holocaust that they would not be a homeland for the jewish people to go through an escape persecution and that is a deep moral commitment we must honor.
we have to remind ourselves geopolitically that israel is the only free enterprise pro-american democracy in the middle east. if more countries looked like israel, the world would be a lot safer in the conversation would be a lot shorter. there is one country in the middle east that is a pro-american free enterprise democracy and we should make sure not just if they survive, but that they are and supplying resupply if they come under assault. not like what happened the last time when they came under assault by hezbollah in the administration differ with about supplying the things they needed. part of it is not turning over billions of dollars to iran who will in turn use it to improve the guidance capabilities possessed by hezbollah. they are basically aiming to hit anywhere in israel. they are now increasing their guidance capabilities so rockets to contact the weapons to
specifically target places within israel. it is important to continue commitment to the iron dome in any other defense mechanisms but ultimately the world needs to know we will help them with money, weapons, will help them with intelligence and do whatever it takes to help israel defend his elf. >> what are the odds the new deal with iran gets overturned in congress? >> there is no doubt in my mind that members of the house majority in senate will vote against it. the question is whether we get 67 voters is that is what it will take to override a presidential veto. we need to get 13 or 14 democrats to vote with us and that's the battle right now can we convince enough democratic colleagues in the senate that this is not a good deal for the future of our country or the world and that is where public pressure is increasingly important. will have another hearing tomorrow in the senate and take testimony from next week but ultimately it is important to be
engaged and pressure our senators of the democratic party not to sign onto this deal. a couple years from now israel comes under assault from hezbollah it is without a doubt not all the rockets hitting and killing israelis were funded at the money they steal loosened up and made available. they need to know that. >> is it true the harebrained deal makes more money than we have given to israel? >> i don't know how you measure that other than say it doesn't provide any direct u.s. aid -- my microphone was hacked by the iranians. [laughter] but what it does do you have followed the iranian money frozen in the bank accounts around the world. that will now be released under the deal.
the administration says between 50 and $100 billion of cash which is a significant percentage of the gdp of iran. this is a significant infusion of money that they will use. i know they will use to do things like sponsor terrorism throughout the islamic republic. the second thing we need to understand is that opens the way for more companies to do business in iran, which will also prop up and use as well. you have all these european companies, germans, italians and others chomping at the bit to get back to iran and do business there. the deal makes it possible to do that. if they did the work before they couldn't do any work in the u.s. if you are deutsche bank and decided to provide finance to iran before the deal you would lose access to the u.s. marketplace. under this deal you're not able to provide lines of credit and capital in the use that to
rebuild capabilities the administration is as silly as this to rebuild their economy and take care of domestic turns. i guarantee you that won't be what happens. i guarantee the money will be used to develop terrorism capabilities around the region. >> what are the three greatest national security threats facing the united states? the person who asked this question says please don't say climate change. >> well, there are more than three worthy of our attention. but first we immediately are confronting is the threat of military posed by russia. as i said a few minutes ago between the united states and russia we control 90% of the world's arsenal. when you have a russian military openly admittedly changing the military doctrine to for the first time it openly
contemplates the use of tactical weapons in the battlefield to defeat a nato assault. you've run into a dangerous situation. when you suddenly see them taking aggressiveness, you run a real risk of a miscalculation. as putin -- putin is convinced he will test article v in prayer to the world nato is a paper tiger and he will continue to push the edge of the argument he's trying to make is if we decide to move the u.s. isn't going to go to war with us over that. nato becomes a piece of paper and the notion he could miscalculate him do that is a tremendous risk and threat of a war started between russia and the united states and that's a major when you have the largest nuclear arsenals in the world faced enough a conventional showdown that could rapidly escalate in the way we find to be unpredictable because we are dealing with the vladimir putin is much more unpredictable than ways to see see in the former soviet leaders.
35 years ago. the second risk we face is the risk of radical islam and spread throughout the world and opposes a new world 21st century risk that is not totally like that of the nationstate. they don't necessarily have a capital city. they don't have an economy weakened target. they don't have a conventional military force. they pose threats that include not just local fighting forces to take over territory and behead people but also people conspiring around the world who don't carry membership cards and they can launch attacks against them. continuing to spread around the world is extremely real. the longer picture, the one that will be dominant when people look back at the history of this time, the one they will look at and say that is what shape the world is the relationship between the united dates in
china. that will determine much about the next century looks like. china is a rising power. they expand military capabilities, facing significant headwinds internally but they will continue to grow as the country. unfortunately if you look throughout history rising power and a status quo power have ended up going to war and i think that a soul have been with china. it is posing real risks already. china has decided to act on their claim that they own the south china sea and build artificial islands. they extend out 12 miles and start to put the circles together. we cannot allow for any contrary to dominate. much of the success of the 20th century was because of the freedom of navigation and it's important for us to challenge that notion and ensure
the chinese vendors and the cost of doing that will be much higher than any benefit they think they will generate from it. >> we live in an age where technology is increasing rapidly but our government is so stove piped and? the ability to adapt and respond quick enough. it is almost as if as technology increases, threats are increasing. how does present a review deal with responding quicker to thread spears >> first is understanding what you're talking about. they have no idea what you just said. look how much our economy has changed in this rattles on similar facts. and about the new economy. the largest hospitality company in the world air b&b and the largest ground transportation
company buber, doesn't own a single car. largest retailer doesn't own a single story. that is how much the economy doesn't change. it's at the telephone 75 years to reach 100 million users. it's users. it tickets to grant two years to reach 100 million users and the game can be crushed a 100 million users in one year. it is changing faster than it ever has. there is no way government policy designed for the old economy and old world could possibly deal with these changes not to mention how fast the changes are. one of the most important issues is whether we will elect people to understand you can't regulate goober like a taxicab and you can't treat isis like some parts of the 20th century. winning the government that can respond in this thinking ahead in realizing by the time you're done by giving them something it doesn't exist anymore.
if you try to overregulate he will end up costing yourself that economic opportunity. when i talk about the need to turn the page on the past this is what i'm talking about. we better elect people that understand the 21st century for the future will leave us behind. >> what is your view of foreign aid? >> number one, less than 20% of our budget. number two i think for inmate has been very successful in foreign aid that has not been. you want success stories of foreign aid. columbia was basically a failed state 20 years ago dominated by narco terrorists and narcotraffickers. today colombia still faces significant challenges that is a stable increasingly prosperous country in the strongest american allied in south america. not only are the colombians a capable military force to partner closely with ours. if you look at special operation
forces they were the same uniforms and weapons training the same way a special operations people do. as in colombia in december and watch them work. they tell you we will go into battle anywhere in the world because we train them work with them and trust them. colombians are now offering two special operations forces to defeat narco terrorists in guatemala, honduras and el salvador and help mexicans with these threats. that is an example of how foreign aid was about to sail into strong prosperous and reliable american allies. south korea 30 years ago the south korean economy was smaller than the north korean economy. 15 years ago south korea was still a recipient of foreign aid. today south korea has a developed economy and today south korea is a donor not a recipient and a strong american allied in the asia-pacific region made possible and
challenges. we put millions of dollars in haiti and find out about the money they've put in there enough progress hasn't been made. we still fund the foreign aid project, some of which is siphoned off by corrupt officials. i think we need to redo for inmate. although one more point forward. for inmate gives us leverage to change the world. about two weeks ago were a month ago i passed a bill in the senate and here's what it basically sad. it's as if you receive foreign aid you must give little girls per certificate. if the little girl is born anywhere in the world and they don't have a birth certificate and makes them a prime target to being trafficked being enslaved, not receiving education. half the worlds population in many developing countries, young girls do not exist in the roles of government and it's easy to kidnap them and sell them as a sex slave.
if you receive american foreign aid you must take steps to change that because growth count. i probably passed the bill. i'm proud the president signed it and i think as an example of how we use existing spending to improve the world in a way that enhances our bruce teaches and in the world in the eyes of millions of people. >> looking back on your life experience, what to do the best prepares you to be commander-in-chief? >> and begins with a clear experience about america's role in the world should be. we are not just another country. americans have never been comfortable with the idea that we must be the most influential in the world. others would rather focus on life at home. america has no desire to conquer innumerate territory. we're not interested in invading any country. that is novel wanted and that's not what we do. the problem is for reasons we don't understand, america has
been charged with the task of being the most influential nation on earth. i would say the world will always have the more influential country and that will help shape and determine what the world looks like and it is not a coup with them since the end of world war ii democracy and freedom and liberty and peace has broken out throughout the world because the most powerful country in the world was a free enterprise democracy in a peaceful people. that is what the world to that direction i didn't have a third world war. in the 21st century have a choice. either we are the most powerful or we will be replaced by another country like china that does not respect human rights and religious liberty that does not allow people unfettered access to the internet and information that tells churches to their bar ships are their pastors can be. is that we want the most powerful country in the world to be? a nation that does not respect their own people, not to mention others. if that's the most powerful the world will change in every
single one of us will feel the impact. and guided by the understanding america isn't defensible. guided by the reality that the world crumbles because america is telling them what to do or get involved in issues. when we they don't they complain even louder. chaos is out because america is not eating. i believe unqualified because i know for a fact over the last five years of being engaged on these issues i know what happens when america doesn't need, what happens to chaos what happens is work on what happens is radical jihadists grow and prosper. that is not the world i want to live in and leave our children. whether we like it or not, this nation has enticed with the role of being the leader of the free world and it's not a woman should give up because the alternative is the world will return to nature dark miss and violence and lack of freedom. that is not the world i want to leave for my children.
>> north korea south korea the missile that kim jong and has looks a lot like the missiles that iran. increase in the distance in the range of that, how do you deal with the north korean regime? >> north korea possesses already and they are not very good aiming. we don't know what they're going ahead, but they will hit something. that is five of important japan has continued to develop defensive capabilities. japan is a capable navy. for the first time in history they are able to provide self-defense which means after world war ii you can only get engaged in a calm but. that meant an american shift boss against the united date they couldn't do anything about it. now they are able to do something about it and that is a
significant multiplier for us. that will improve capabilities and provide antimissile defenses at the frontline of the conflict in asia before it crosses the pacific and we can figure out a way to get japan and south korea working closer at some of these issues. we will multiply capabilities even further. that is the first line of defense to ensure any rocket launch by north korea will be shot down before it strikes japan, south korea or the continental united states. >> the president today with the current government in afghanistan and iraq how would you work with them and how would it differ? >> we would stop the timeline. we need to eventually afghanistan is to be turned over to the afghan people. if we leave too early or too quickly or erase it simply, we will undo all the gains made. there's still significant challenges. we don't know the whole branch of significant challenges
because when you tell the taliban until just wait till you leave before they really launch their attacks. here's what we know. every time will be the province, the taliban would gain influence. we have to continue to be committed to security amounts to one afghanistan to become the next iraq. the president artificially pulled out from an artificial timeline without working harder on a status of forces agreement that allowed us to have a president they are. the government there would be much more stable and conditions less conducive to what happened. when we pulled out of afghanistan maliki really use the power to go after sunni. what happened is they felt oppressed by a central government. when aces came in, they initially greeted the presses. they don't feel that way anymore, but it's too late. it is important for us to figure out a way to work with the iraqi
allies to create a country that is inclusive of christians kurds, sunnis and shia. if we don't do that iran will dominate iraq and they will again get another. >> senator, we are coming to the end. i want to thank you on behalf of americans for peace prosperity and security. we know how busy you are. thank you for coming to south carolina. is there anything we did not today that she wanted to the people of south carolina? >> you asked a lot of questions. i just want to thank you. i think the most important obligation of the federal government is to provide for national security. we do a lot of things that the federal government that we like to do with the one thing we must do is provide for national security. it cannot prosper economically. the american dream cannot grow and it cannot reach people this is a nation under threat and hundreds arrested the next president of the united states
need to be people that clearly understand that and the world as it is. not the way they wish it was and understand america plays an indispensable role in the world that when america fails to leave, chaos ensues in the result is less prosperous, less able and less peaceful. i hope this election will give us an opportunity to restore procedure in the world stage and reinvigorate the role we play to lead the free people on this planet. >> thank you. [applause] >> senator rubio, thank you for an enlightening conversation on behalf of apps and bring an university. thank you very much and have a good day. >> thank you very much. [applause]
>> if cloture is invoked a final passage but become on thursday. the thursday. there've also been a couple nominations to the agriculture department and inspector general to the gsa. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. active and intervening god we trust in you. nothing can stop your plan and your purposes will prevail. bless our lawmakers. guide them on the right path so that they
will be instruments of your peace. use them as salt and light to strengthen our nation and world. forgive them when they forget that you're still on your throne and that the hearts of humanity are in your hands. help them to remember that your power is far above any conceivable command, authority or control. lord as our lawmakers strive to contribute to building a better world, bless those who support them in their work.
help us all to trust you without wavering. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand there's a bill and a joint resolution at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the measures for the second time. the clerk: s. 1881 a bill to prohibit federal funding of planned parenthood federation of america. h.j. res. 61, amending the internal revenue code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage under tricare and so forth. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the measures on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i would object to further proceedings en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard the measures will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, late nights, vigorous legislating and sometimes unpredictable outcomes may make some reach for the
aspirin, but these are the hallmarks of a functioning congress. the push and pull between different parties different members and different chambers is all just part of the democratic rhythym. that's especially true when you're talking about a measure as complicated and consequential as a multiyear highway bill. i'm pleased to see republicans and democrats continue to hold together to pass the senate's bipartisan highway legislation. we're on the verge of scoring another important victory for the american people. once the senate completes its work on the bill, the house of representatives will begin its work on a multiyear measure as well. a multiyear bill is now our joint goal. that's important for our country. we know it represents the best way to provide state and local governments with the kind of certainty they need to focus on longer-term road and bridge projects. here's how kentucky's main
transportation advocacy group kentuckians for better transportation put it. a long-term bill would provide an opportunity to plan for and implement projects that are important to kentucky's citizens and to kentucky's economy and to every other state in the nation. we'll conference the legislation we pass with what the house passes and then send a unified bill to president obama. in the meantime, we'll work with our friends in the house to pass a measure that will give them the space they need to develop a multiyear highway bill. it's also a measure that would deliver some important relief to our veterans by covering unfunded requirements the administration failed to budget for. it would also extend a helping hand to heroes who need it. i can't see a reason any senator would vote against. so we'll take up that bill once the house sends it to us and
we'll continue working on the in the interim to finish our own bipartisan multiyear highway bill a bill that's fiscally responsible and won't raise taxes by a penny. now, mr. president on an entirely different matter, the ongoing revelations about planned parenthood are more than just disturbing. they literally shock the conscience. a democratic colleague called them -- quote -- "very troubling." end quote. extremely troubling and highly troubling. next week every member of this party will have a chance to join us in reaffirming the senate's commitment to genuine compassion and to women's health.
we introduced legislation last night that would ensure taxpayer dollars for women's health are spent on women's health. not a scandal-plagued political lobbying giant. it's a simple choice. senators can either vote to protect women's health or they can vote to protect subsidies for a political group mired in scandal. i know planned parenthood's entrenched lobbyists have been close allies of democrats in recent years but this moment calls for senators to rise higher and to think bigger. let's not filibuster women's health in order to protect special subsidies for one scandal-plagued political organization. why don't we join together instead to bring something positive for the american people from a terrible situation.
mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: the republican legislation to attack women's health is disguised as a way to help women. you'd have to look long and hard to find those people who are being taken care of across the country today because of programs that allow them to go to someone that knows what they're talking about when they're concerned about their fertility, concerned about birth control and the myriad of other problems that happen as women go through life. the republican bill pretends to be for women's health, but it would prohibit federal funds to go to an organization that is the health care backbone for american women during their
lives. in fact, it's the only health care that a significant number of women get. about 30% of women that's their health care. so you can disguise this by having fancy titles to the legislation any way you want. this is an attack on women's health. now it's really stunning to me that those 16 people running for president are out there they're going after, of course, as we know they're going after immigration. they're going after not only immigration generally but specifically. these young men and women who came to america and the face of this picture in nevada is a woman named astrid silva who
came here as a little girl in a boat with her mother with her little doll and rosary beads that she didn't understand. a little, little girl. she knew of no other country. and what do the republicans want to do? deport astrid silva a woman who finally, because of the courageous action of president obama, because the republicans refused to do anything on immigration, allowed this woman to get a drivers license to fly in an airplane for the first time, to be able to go to the airport without fear of being arrested. they want to do away with that. but that's not enough. they want to -- most of them want to privatize social security or change it in some significant way. led by one president's son one president's brother who basically said we've got to change medicare as he was speaking to the koch brothers.
we're working here trying to get ex-im bank that affects the lives of 165,000 working americans. most of the republicans want to get rid of that, and now the program is out of sync. it's expired. the environment don't worry about it. it is fine. we have ice caps, an ice cap melting in the arctic. don't worry about it. we have the worst fires in the history of alaska because of climate change. don't worry about it. it's only five million acres burned this summer so far. the droughts that's affecting all across america but especially in the west, it's so bad, mr. president so bad in the west that in the sierras
there are bears who don't even hibernate anymore. it's not cold enough. in new hampshire moose are dying. about a third of them are dead because of flees and ticks. why? because it's not cold enough to kill them anymore and so these little pests are ravaging these huge animals. but i could go on, but i'm going to stop other than say in addition to all that, now they're after women's health. so i hope that no one thinks that the pretty posters and the fancy words is not -- i hope they understand that it is still, no matter how you package it it's attack on women. indirectly it's an attack on my daughter my wife, my grandchildren directly. i should say my granddaughters
directly which i have a few of them. mr. president, the constitution is very clear government cannot spend a penny without an appropriation. a law dealing with appropriation. i'm so fortunate when i came to the senate i became a member of the appropriations committee. i love my work on the appropriations committee. under john stennis from mississippi and under robert byrd from west virginia, dan inouye from hawaii, it was a wonderful process. i have this job and i got off the committee, which was very hard for me to do because i love that committee. we worked very hard every year to fund every one of those 12 appropriations bills. we did it because we were legislators. we compromised.
we worked together to fund this government p. but all that is gone. all that is gone. the republicans don't work with us on appropriations bills. we don't do them anymore. and this, this season of -- this season of republicanism is more than i can hardly understand, and i certainly don't appreciate it. our job -- and no job is more important in the constitution -- is exercising the power of the purse. that's our responsibility. but that's been taken away from us by convoluted methods. now, mr. president i know my republican colleagues will get up here and say we've got to do something about this terrible debt. sure we do. but seated next to me in this
august chamber of the senate is a man who is the senior senator from illinois. i've said this before, but i'll say it again. here's why i mention his name. i know -- i knew we needed to do something about the debt, so i took a long trip -- my first job as leader -- to central and south america. and i took with me judd gregg a republican from new hampshire an expert on finances of this government and a depth counterpart, kent conrad, who was just as good. they worked in that airplane side by side for 14 hours coming up with a plan. the and they were so -- and they were so brilliant in what they came up with. they said, what we're going to do is have a plan just like base closing. the base closing commissions that were set up -- we did two rounds of them -- got rid of military bases in the country
that we were trying to get rid of prior to world warrist i. few were able -- prior to world war ii. few were able to do it, saving the country billions and billions of dollars. so they introduced legislation that said we are going to have a commission appointed, there will be legislators, there will be people a appointed. there will be no filibusters no amendments and vote up or down. a great piece of legislation. i brought that legislation to the floor. seven republican senators who cosponsored the legislation refused to vote for it and we weren't able to move forward on tflt and nowit. and now i get to my friend from illinois. i had the ability to appoint three members of my caucus to be on the bowles-simpson commission. i needed a liberal and my
friend and i are not afraid to use that term -- a progressive if it makes people feel better. he did it because it was the best thipg for sthing forbest thing nor this institution. he voted. our republicans didn't vote, to do something about the debt. i say to you mr. president and everybody within the sound of my voice -- and we've done something since then -- we've reduced debt of this country by $4 trillion. that doesn't moon mean we don't have a lot more to do. but virtually all economists tell us that we are at a point now where we have to start spending some money. my friend here from california who has worked hard on this highway bill, it was hard for her to do that because the republicans weren't allowing her to come up with any new revenue. so anyway, my point is this: the republicans are failing in their most important job and
that's helping us come up with some spending programs. we've called on republicans to get serious about budgeting. they've refused. we've pleaded with them to sit down and negotiate a long-term bipartisan plan to prevent another government shutdown. from the start it's been obvious the republicans are just not serious about governing. in the wake of mass shootings by individuals all over -- it's in every newspaper in the country every news account in the country, has been for weeks with the new deaths that have come in tennessee, colorado -- it doesn't matter. we've lost track of where they all are i'm sorry to say. and these matter shootings republicans have cut our funding for mental health services. gee-whiz how could they do that? republicans have blocked funding
for research. they're cutting funding for counseling in elementary and secondary schools. that's only one subject. they've cut funding for the bureau of alcohol and tobacco and firearms, cut funding to vital cybersecurity upgrades and financial agencies, cut funding for u.s. marshals, the brave men and women who helped catch those two murderers who escaped from that prison in new york. a partythe republicans have cut funding for the nation's electric grid by 40% leaving our utilities susceptible to cyber attacks. senate republicans have cut transit projects all across this country. they've cut funding air traffic control system. the list is endless. cuts to education women's health agriculture energy, and job training. if the republican leader and the speaker wapts to want to get serious
about governing, they would sit down with us and craft a bipartisan compromise to prevent a government shutdown. on the bill before you the -- on the bill before us, the speaker from the house of representatives has referred to that bill with a very derogatory word that starts with the letter "s." if the leader and the speaker want to get serious about governing, let's sit down with us to craft a compromise to prevent another government shutdown. -- it is a buzzword for failure -- just buzzword. it is another word for a government shutdown -- another way to close our government. by relying on a continuing resolution it leaves in place
sequester cuts. the republicans are neglecting their responsibilities. they're not showing up for work. it doesn't have to be this way. we have time to coup p with a balanced solution -- we have time to come up with a balanced solution. but a c.r. will not work. sequestration will kick in and it will harm every agency of government and especially hurt very, very much the middle class of our country. if they're serious about governing, they'll work together with us on aeption pros bills rather than ignore us. republicans need to sit down, get to work on their most important job as dictated by the constitution. mr. president, i apoll jayce to everyone for taking more time than i normally do. but it was -- i apologize to everyone for taking more time than i normally do, but it was brought about by our friend, the republican leader. i would ask the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: yoshesd the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 22 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 19,
the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i had some time reserved -- i'm halfway through that time now so i'll talk a little faster than usual because right now we have an armed services committee, and we're going to try to get to the bottom of this side agreement that was made pearpts-- thatwas made apparently with iran. i want to applaud the senate for taking another step, and that's what we're going to be doing in just a few minutes here in the drive act in congress with these votes and we expect that tomorrow we'll see a final vote for passage to send to the house. this will be my sixth reauthorization over the past quite a number of years and i can tell you these bills are all about compromise. it is hard to do. there are a lot of members in this body who didn't think they got what they wanted in this bill. i have to tell you, i didn't get what i wanted, and i suspect that the occupier of the chair didn't get what he wanted and
senator boxer didn't get what she wanted. that's not thethat's the way this works. because this is a bill to get us away from the short-term extensions. so there -- it has been obvious that members of this body are opposed to moving a six-year reauthorization bill and are willing to use any procedural means to slow it down. now, that's what happened. if we had not had our feet being dragged yesterday and if we'd yielded back some of the time, we could have had these votes that we're about to have now yesterday, and if we had done that we could have a final passage today and be sent over to the house before they leave. but they're going to leave. so that doesn't -- that doesn't mean that this is not important. what we're doing today is passing this bill and tomorrow passing this bill even though the house has gone home, they all agreed that we need a good long-term bill as soon as they get back. that's why we have a motion before us to -- for a short-term
delay so that they'll have time to do it. so we'll have a good bill for them we'ved worked on for several months -- we've worked on for several months now. every democrat, every republican voted for it. we'll have a chance to do that. and also i have right here -- let me see these. these are state sheets on every state. and i could read off how every state benefits from this six-year reauthorization bill, because it happens -- all you have to do is talk to the governors, the mayors, the departments of transportation in the country who are expected to only deliver piecemeal extensions, as we have done in the past. you have to keep in mind, the last reauthorization bill that we had was 2005, and i remember that vividly because i was the author of the bill. and we passed it. everyone rejoiced. yesterday the senator from minnesota was talking about the
tragedy of the fallen bridge up in minnesota an minnesota and people dying. 13 people dying. i've told the story of the bridge in oklahoma city where a chunk of concrete fell off hit at lady, mother of three children and killed her. you don't want to wait until this happens. we have bridges in this country -- and we've talked about each one of them on the senate floor during the discussion of this bill that are deteriorating and we have to do something about it. the so if any member -- and the staff of any member. we have any state down here right now with things that would be of benefit to them by the drive act that will be before us right now. if we don't do it there are consequences. and i have to remind you of that today as we approach a shutdown of the transit programs, i urge owour colleagues to join in voting "yes" on this procedural hurdle today. if you vote "no," you're
reinforcing current law in extensions, which is the worst possible out-kovment one ning is -- outcome. one thing is you can't do big projects with short-term extensions. we've gone through 33 short-term extensions since the safety loop bill was passed. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. inhofe: i ask that i be given five additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and so you have -- you have the problem of not having any of the big projects. anyone knows that that is a problem. and the reason is that we -- you can't -- not only big projects can't be done, but the costs. short-term extensions, and a study has been made by garry ridley, who is one of the most foremost authorities nationwide on this subject and in that study he came to the conclusion that it costs an costs an additional
30% off the top do short-term extensions. so if there is anyone who is a conservative who wants to take the conservative position in this the conservative position is to vote for a long-term reauthorization bill. and that's what is before us now. the current law funding has no growth, not even inflation. the drive act provides growth in the highway transit systems in each state. we have all this state by state for those who are interested. the current law gives states and local governments no certainty however certainty is there in the drive act. so we have every reason to do this. project delivery, we're going to be able to deliver the projects. we can't even start the projects on short-term extensions. freight, we have the freight section. we've never had a freight section before, on moving freight across the country. transparency, everything is out where everyone can see every nickel that is used, and that is