tv U.S. Senate CSPAN October 26, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 313 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3113, an act to amend title 5, united states code for veterans with service-connected disablghts and so forth and for other purposes. mr. portman: i ask consent, madam president -- the presiding officer: without objection,, the petition is discharged. the senate will receive the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection.
mr. portman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator ohio. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on help be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 639 and the snad senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 639, an act to amend the controlled substances act and sphoa forth. -- and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will discharge and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask consent that the substitute amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. res. 297 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 297, congratulating the minnesota links on their strick in the 2015 women's national basketball association finals.
the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be inquired made and laid upon the table with who intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: madam president, i now ask consent that when the senates by the business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., october 27, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 754 with the time until 11:00 a.m. equally divided between the it would leaders or their d.c.s. finally, notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, there be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote and all votes after the first vote in each series be ten minutes each. the presiding officer: stwhr
objection? without objection. mr. portman: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator franken. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for, say, six minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken:ty. madam president, tomorrow we'll vote on my amendment to the cybersecurity information-sharing act or cisa. i am a proud to be joined on this amendment by senators leahy, durbin, and wyden, each of whom have has worked to try toto ensure that any cyber legislation passed by this body is effective and adequately safeguards the privacy and civil liberties of the american people. my amendment tightens the definitions of the terms
"cybersecurity threat" and cyber threat indicator" in the bill. these changes will help ensure that cisa's broad authorities are not triggered in circumstances where no real cyber threats are present. this makes the bill more privacy-protective and more likely to work effective i.ly. the amendment is supported by more thank 30 -- more than 30 civil society organizations from the american civil liberties union to prominent libertarian groups like our street. as i'll describe it, it addresses specific concerns that have been raised by security experts, major tech companies, and even the department of homeland security. under cisa, companies are authorized to monitor users' online, sharing information with
one another and with the federal government and deploy defensive measures, all to protect against -- quote -- "cybersecurity threats." and any action that may result in any unauthorized effort to adversely impact cybersecurity can be deemed a cybersecurity threat. that is, may result. that sets the lowest possible standard for determining when actions under cisa are justified, and that's a problem. it sets us up for over-sharing -- for the over-sharing of information, or worse, it jeopardizes privacy and threatens to hinder our cyber defense efforts by increasing the noise-to--to-signal are ratio. my amendment would clarify that a threat is any action at least reasonably likely -- reasonably
likely to result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact cybersecurity. that definition gives companies ample flexibility to act on threats and assures americans that cisa isn't a free pass to share people's personal information when there is no threat. cisa's definition of "cyber threat indicator" has also been criticized by companies like mozilla and, again, even by d.h.s., which has called the definition "expansive" and said that that expansive definition heightens concerns raised by the bill. my amendment addresses the two parts of the definition that experts have suggested are the most likely to open the door to the sharing of extraneous information. first, as drafted, cisa would
left companies share people's communications if they believe that the files have been harmed in a cyber attack or could potentially -- potentially be harmed by a perceived threat. the latter is especially problematic. the range of information that could be shared as evidence of potential harm is vast and, as experts have explained, unnecessary to the technical work of identifying cyber threats. my amendment continues to allow companies to share information that reveals harms caused by a cyber incident but doesn't extend this to conjecture about hypothetical potential harms, which is unnecessarily broad. finally, my amendment eliminates troubling loophole in the intiesh threat indicator
definition. in addition to letting companies share information that reveals certain specified attributes or features of cyber threats, cisa also lets them share information that reveals any other attribute of a cybersecurity threat, if the disclosure of that attribute is legal. the bill's supporters claim that this final clause adequately limits the scope of this provision, but looking at whether disclosure of a threat attribute is lawful is an unclear and really unhelpful standard. privacy law is about protecting information, not threat attributes. so my amendment clarifies that companies can share information in this catch-all category only if it is legal to share the information being provided. it is a nec technical change, bt
matters. madam president, this amendment represents a real effort to find common ground for moving forward. quite frankly, it doesn't do all the work that needs to be done to limit the definitions in this act, but it makes necessary changes, necessary changes to improve the legislation for the sake both of privacy and ultimately -- ultimately -- security. i urge my colleagues to support amendment 2612. thank you, madam president. and i would suggest the absence -- no, i wouldn't. i am not going to do that. i am going to yield the floor. the presiding officer: thank you, senator. under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
>> looking ahead to live coverage later this week, tomorrow defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs chair testify about us military strategy in the middle east. that is before the senate armed services committee live at 9:00 o'clock eastern on c-span three. on wednesday atty. gen. loretta lynch heads to capitol hill to answer questions about justice department programs live at 10:00 a.m. also on c-span three. up next, internet privacy laws and the effect of the european court of justice's nullification of the long-standing safe harbor agreement which allowed companies to legally transfer personal data between the us and european union's. this is about an hour. >> we are going to get
started. good afternoon. i am with the internet education foundation, and i want to welcome you to our briefing. think the us digital privacy safe harbor. this event is cohosted by the congressional internet caucus advisory committee in cooperation with the congressional internet caucus. we thank them for their support. a little bit of housekeeping. the twitter #is #e safe harbor. all of our twitter accounts information is on your program. weprogram. we also have upcoming events listed on your program. a brief presentation runs they've -- facebook is a platform for social good. on october 22 the congressional app challenge will kick off.
visit our website or talk to rhiannon anderson, our executive director. she is the chair of privacy information governance practice and the former chief privacy officer for the department of homeland security. >> i want to thank all of my panelists who i will briefly introduce from my far right damien leavy, head of the trade section of the delegation of the european union to the united states. adam slusser, director for the center for global regulatory cooperation at the us chamber of commerce. gail slater's vice president of legal and regulatory policy at the internet association. and us policy manager at access. i want to thank them all for coming. what are we talking about here today? we are talking about all sorts of thinking.
i we will do a little stage setting and then ask my panelists to tell me whether or not i am right and where we are going in the future. the safe harbor decision that was decided by the european court of justice on october 6, 2015, actually has its origin 20 years earlier. in 1995 the european union passed a data protection directive, which has rules and regulations and general standards by which member states have to adhere to data protection and privacy regulation. there is a prohibition and the directive about allowing the cross-border transfer of personal data, which is broadly defined and pretty much is all electronic information. you cannot have cross-border transfer unless the country to whom you are transferring the information has adequate privacy protections or alternatively there is some other source of protection. the united states has a
dictatorial approach to privacy and is not considered to be adequate. it isit is not considered adequate privacy regime. wholesale data transfer of personal data can take place. so what is a us company to do? from 1998 until 2,000, the us department of commerce negotiated with the european commission the us eu safe harbor. that is a regime basically following the eu standard on the privacy principles. if companies go and make a public proclamation, adhere to the us eu safe harbor, they are listed on the department of commerce website, which i believe is currently disabled, but they
go and make a promise and say that, i agree to adhere to these standards. the federal trade commission has the authority to investigate whether or not people have the ability to -- whether or not they are keeping that promise. they must renew the promise every year and a public statement. the list is about 4500 companies currently have safe harbor regimes. that safe harbor was considered to be an adequate legal process under the european commission, and there have been some questions and from 2,000 on they're have been questions if safe harbor is sufficient , shouldn't there be stronger eu guidance? the enforcement of safe harbor and so on. this kind of -- and by the way, the deal is an executive branch decision, so there was no congressional approval. it was the us department of commerce directly with the us commission from a legislative perspective. in 2013 we had the unauthorized disclosures of june 2013 colloquially known as snowden.
but after those disclosures, an austrian law student named max schram went to the ireland data protection commissioner and said, i think facebook is violating eu privacy law even though they are safe harbor certified. they said, i cannot decide this. the commission determines safe harbor as a vehicle was an adequate data transfer. the irish high court concurred with the irish data protection authority. it was then appealed to the european court of justice. first the advocate general came out with the decision that said based on the us systemic failures and privacy protection and particularly pointing at the june 20132013 disclosures associated with surveillance and also collection of particularly european union citizen data based off of the reporting that the
advocate general recommended and validating safe harbor. the europeanharbor. the european court of justice concurred and invalidated safe harbor as of october 6. a long way to get there, but i thought it would be helpful to have some framing. my question is, what did the court decide on,on, and what is the scope of the european court of justice's decision? >> thank you for this great summary. the court of justice was actually asked by the high court in dublin. actually, it is the 1st level court that concurred and the high court not ruled against but asked a question to the court of justice asking whether or not we have this safe harbor decision of the commission of 2,000, the irish data protection authority is telling mr. sharon's that it does not have any duty to investigate this case. is that right under eu law,
or is it the case that despite the decision of 2,000 by the commission that rules on this side or the data privacy principles are equivalent to the rules and the european side despite this 2000 decision,2,000 decision, is it the case that still national data protection authorities have a duty to investigate when a person says i think the rights of an violated. the duty to investigate the reason and also your right to privacy, protection of personal data force
compliance of that. the court comes that conclusion. but to come to that conclusion, the court also says, since there is a claim that the safe harbor decision is invalid and the high court in dublin seems to go along with that decision. i mean,, it is not -- i have not read the irish court decision. it is kind of interesting to say that the courses, yeah. i seem to go along. therefore i need to investigate this issue of validity or invalidity of the safe harbor decision under eu law and primary law.
article one article three and checks whether he considers the commission decision remains valid under law given the fact, given what has appeared since then, but also from the one it looks at how the safe harbor arrangement is constructed, not, not a commitment by the united states government, a system certification. the law protects the data privacy for individuals. how is organized and enforced in comes to the conclusion, i don't need to go into details, but basically it is not sufficient protection and therefore the rights of the citizens are not
sufficiently protected and therefore the commission decision is invalid. i mean,, i am doing a very short summary. only the answer to the irish court is, yes, you have to tell the irish data protection authority that you need to investigate this case and also, it's ruling is binding for everybody within the european union including the commission and all theall the national data protection authority. actually, that decision is not valid. >> the decision of the safe harbor is not valid, i have a question for you. do you think this is a decision related to surveillance and the unauthorized disclosures of 2013, or is it related to commercial data privacy decisions? >> i think at its heart we
have to say that this is a surveillance decision. the impetus for the entire case areof the 2013 revelations by edward snowden and the "washington post" in the guardian about surveillance conducted specifically under section 702. more specifically a program called prison. these were what really motivated them to take this case to ask for an investigation to ask for the irish national authority to look into safer. everything that has flown -- that has come out of that initial decision has come out because of surveillance. the european court of justice's opinion spends a lot of time looking at surveillance and what the us allows and what standards the us uses in order to judge was surveillance is necessary. the rest of the world really uses international human rights standards to guide their surveillance program.
it's only appropriate if it is necessary apportionment, and that is a standard that the eu uses, a standard under the eye cpr, international covenant of civil and political rights, which is a treaty that the us is a party to, and a standard that was incorporated in the safe harbor. you can, you know,can, you know, not comply with safe harbor protection for purposes of national security, but only if the surveillance conducted is necessary. with the court of justice found is the us practices are not necessary and do not ensure this very high level of protection that is adequate for european data. all of that said, the but is coming, it is a surveillance decision, but safe harbor is about commercial data practices. commercial data mechanism,
and if you read through the decision, they spend a fair amount fair amount of time talking about the inadequacies of safe harbor, self-serving mechanism so that there is no independent audit. there is not enough transparency, not enough accountability. so while it is a surveillance decision, you have to look at the entirety and realize anything that flows out of it has to meet these deficiencies that the court has identified in the safe harbor mechanism also from a commercial perspective. you really have to kind of dual consider what we need to do from a surveillance perspective to make sure the united states law and practice is an law with international standards the eu thinks it should be in line with and what we have to do from a commercial privacy perspective to make sure whatever you mechanism comes in command we will certainly talk about knew mechanisms, actually compliesmechanisms, actually complies with what the court of justice thinks it should comply with because out of the court of justice has said the national
authorities have an ability to review decisions from the european commission we can expect that any new mechanism can also go to the court of justice and go over it again. an adequate mechanism can get struck down a couple years from now. >> am going to ask you the same question. if you could let our audience no what is so important and the impact of the decision. >> first, i would like to add of.of clarification by the actual ruling by the court ofcourt of justice. there was no examination of the commercial practices. it was examination of the national security side not even based upon investigation but allegation and power points and guardian articles. it would be helpful if the european court of justice
gets them to conduct a thorough investigation examining the changes to the united states law made since 2013. the discussion and ruling was based on practices understood when safe harbor was created which brings up the.that the ruling is a process ruling. so the decision is based on the fact that when safe harbor was agreed upon the commission according to the court did not do a thorough investigation of the national security side of how the exception and safe harbor would be used in the us and what are practices were. so while safe harbor was invalidated on process grounds mother is no examination yet on the commercial side. in fact, the united states department of commerce, ftc, and the commission, have been undergoing a review and enhancement of safe harbor for the past three years. there is a report besta report thus put out by the commission two years ago, and both decide they have been working hard to satisfy the commissions.
to your question whether it is surveillance or commercial decision, it was a surveillance decision which hopefully answers that. on the commercial side the united states is a really strong system of enforcement. if you violate your self yourself certification, the ftc will carry out an enforcement action. there is nothing like that anywhere else in the world. and the european commission: they connect adequacy determinations often do not take the enforcement side into account. so while in the united states our commercial privacy practices are not exactly in line with the european rules on paper, and words, and many areas we go above and beyond with the europeans do. in fact, some of the other governments deemed adequate include argentina command i am sure that they have a robust system of enforcement in there own way, but i am
willing to bet in the united states we are stronger privacy practices. is the backbone of the trans-atlantic economy. energy companies, manufacturing, consumer goods, hospitality, every company you can think of relies upon the internet today. you need to be able to transfer data. in the business of consumer area something very tangible and easy is credit cards. you travel around the world, go to europe, they can use the credit card. back to the bank this is you have money in your account that goes to other companies to verify that you have a use in fraud and that purchases satisfied within mere seconds.
on the business decision side any multinational company that has employees around the world is transferring the data. airplane manufacturing business having data on their engines will the plane is in the sky being able to troubleshoot and fix problems on-the-fly literally. so an unlimited amount of reasons why it is essential. >> thank you very much, and we will get back to how the safe harbor decision is impacting companies. adam raised the question about whether or not the decision adequately describe the us surveillance and national security procedures both and 2,000, 2013, and today. tell us your opinion? >> sure. so there have been significant changes made in
us surveillance practices since 2013,2013, and i think that you have to start with recognizing that. earlier this year we passed the usa freedom act which most of the other groups that we work with were in support of. it was a tremendous step forward, the biggest restriction placed upon the nsa and surveillance since the 1970s, so it was a huge when. one of the things that did not speak to is section 702 and other sections of the fisa amendment acts with this case was filed under. it had small steps forward on transparency, but it does not really change any of the practices or have any real substantive modification of the surveillance authority. big wayne,authority. big win, but does not touch what we are talking about in this case. the question was, does the case accurately describes surveillance? so, actually, the european court of justice decision
only mentioned prison once, but what they mention is this discriminate type of surveillance that is happening in the us, and so from a perspective that you are not looking at aa specific program but 702, executive order 120003, yes, that is happening. they say that it was exactly technically proper with regard to 702, there were some inaccuracies as regard to how surveillances conducted, but the overall general programs they are describing in the court order can happen, are happening, and it is because the us does not recognize any rights for people outside the us. and discriminate surveillance that they really key into absolutely is going on. >> i may take a little bit of the moderators liberty here. executive order 12 3330 quake called 12 triple12
triple three makes a decision between domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence. that distinction is that there are different types and more robust types of intelligence gathering activities that can take place outside the us as well as against foreign citizens, and so section 702 that amy is talking about has that same within it, and section 702 talks about foreign residence controls, the privacy and civil liberties oversight board did a report on 702, so i.you to those. i want to ask you a question damien did aa great job of summarizing the decision and what it was talking about. it talks a lot about in broad strokes consistent with us surveillance activities, but i do think that the court should have
looked at eu surveillance and national security issues as well as a comparison. >> thank you. first of all, -- >> is your micmike on? >> yes. >> i want to thank tim gordon for having me here today. light is on. let me just -- >> just a moment, folks. can you hear me now? to reiterate, thanks for having me here today. my name is gail slater from the internet association. so to answer your question, i think absolutely yes is the short answer. i can explain command i think i would like to invoke a cliché to explain why i think that the court absolutely should have looked at eu surveillance at the time of the opinion, and the cliché is, peopleis, people in glass houses should
not quote -- should not throw stones. we talked about this decision. and as i see it, it is based on various snapshots. us surveillance and 2013 at that moment in time that the snowden revelations happened another snapshot is us commercial privacy enforcement, i think, i think at the moment in time when the 1st safe harbor was entered into in the year 2,000. and so that is the 2nd snapshot. and then they did not take a 3rd. that was a snapshot of eu surveillance through the member state intelligence agencies in 2013 also around the time of the snowden revelations. and so i think these are important because they all go to this question of adequacy. a safe harbor foundation is a decision taken that the us system of privacy was
inadequate andin the year 2,000 versus the eu system. okay? and then they have made some incremental changes, agreed to make incremental changes to the us privacy regime sets that they could close the gap between the eu system and the us system. that was done back in the year 2,000. and then the decision comes along and the courses that because of mass surveillance in the us as revealed by edward snowden and 2013, the safe harbor was no longer valid because of its inadequacy, but you have to ask yourself, inadequate compared to what? and so the comparison here, if we are looking both of surveillance and commercial privacy has to be to use surveillance. and so we also know from edward snowden, also in 2013
, that many eu member states, intelligence agencies were engaged in mass surveillance of there own citizens at the time. a list is pretty extensive. extensive. my computer just turned off, so i'm going to have to log back in. so the list includes the germans, french, spanish, swedish, and british intelligence agencies. ironically, i did not include the irish intelligence agency. i am from ireland, so i can tell you with all candor, not even sure there is an irish intelligence agency flow but it is significant because it is where the case originated from. so, what the snowden revelations with regard to the eu member states said was that it was extensive, mass surveillance going on also in 2013 of internet traffic and phone traffic of eu citizens. and so with the guardian did was revealed documents, particularly one priest by
gc hq, the british intelligence agency which essentially was a scorecarda scorecard across a number of dimensions of her sister intelligence agencies and just to give you some context, in my experience, the british are never likely to give the french a complement unless they really deserve it command here is what gc hq had to say about the french describing them as highly motivated, technically competent partner to have shown great willingness to engage in internet protocol issues and to work with gc hq and cooperate and share with us. >> both internet and telephony data. so i think this is important. it is also important the 2nd snapshot i talked about which was surveillance in this country posts
snowden revelations and the significant reforms that have been put in place since 2013 were not taken into account by the court. again, this goes to the adequacy finding. and ii think, had the court taken into account both eu surveillance and us reforms post 2013 and also the sort of market-based solution to surveillance which is increased adoption of encryption technologies by internet association members but also other technology companies and the delta, the inadequacy delta between the us and eu systems would, i think come have declined significantly. with that have that have changed the court's opinion? i don't know. i do think it is important to have this conversation because ii think it is important in terms of finding a solution to the issue. government see the reality on the ground, and the other
snapshot, if i might, the court the court did not take, which i believe would also be significant and should be significant in the future conversations and negotiations around safe harbor number two is the increased and robust commercial privacy enforcement by the federal trade commission in this country, and i think when maryellen testifies to this and you look back at the year 2000, the2,000, the ftc was really finding his legs and privacy enforcement space. it has come leaps and bounds since then. the leading privacy enforcement agency in the world and has a track record that is very significant. >> sure. >> system new line why gail said, it is the national
security practices on the eu at the federal level but also the member state level, so there are two pieces. the member state has a competency for national security and law enforcement largely in the european union. also below that, that'sthat, that's really important. one example of how that works in practice, last year the court of justice reached a decision on a daily retention directive. the rules written violate a fundamental right of privacy much like the outcome of the saint -- safe harbor case. so some states get rid of their retention overrules. some states expanded it. so that is why it is important to examine the practices as they stand today on the member state level and anecdotally when
we travel internationally there are several countries are we have to give special phones because of security concerns. one is france. it is interesting, the state of play today. >> turning to you next. >> next. >> i think we are reading too much into the judgment. i think that we need to step back and understand what rules the european court of justice has following this procedure. this procedure in front of the national court in ireland where the high court has a doubt on the validity of eu law here, the safe harbor decision of 2,000, and it is only answering a question from the high court , and it is relying upon the fact as explained were summarized in the high court decision. i would note that no americans took part in that judicial proceeding.
facebook did not participate, nor anyone else. so that is the reason why they are relying on what is here from the high court. and it does not decide. fundamentally it is about the judges in luxembourg seeing an austrian student who does not have the right of her dress. he wants to have a court listening to his case basically and saying, i think my rights of been violated. the decision was denying a request. so i think it is more than that. >> we will talk about redress in a little bit, but i have a follow-up question, and this is for you, damien. so, as you pointed out, the european court of justice decided that individual member state dbas have the authority to investigate adequacy or whether or not there is sufficient protection in each of these
scenarios. do those same member state data protection authorities have the oversight authority over member states surveillance and national security issues as adam pointed out, national security is actually a member state competency or authority. do they have that authority in there own right vis-à-vis their own member states? >> it depends. in some countries it is the case, but in some countries it is not. after this judgment they will review their own laws and practices to make sure they are complying with the new judgment. >> for the member states, and there are a handful that do have authority, oversight authority, dps oversight authority on national security, have there been any enforcement action in those scenarios, do you know? >> i don't know. you would need to check country by country. >> that is great. thank you. so, adam, damien was saying
we are reading too much into the judgment. i guess my question is, regardless of what we are reading into the judgment, what is happening on the ground? what are companies doing as a result of the judgment? could you tell us a little bit about that? >> my policy standpoint it is fun to read the judgments, but the company that we work with has a legal department that complies. is there job to make sure that they are company follows the law. they have to read the judgment and read the tea leaves about what is happening around the rest of europe, and the reaction to the judgment. so, the 1st order of business is to just do a data mapping exercise, what type type of data we have that is being transmitted, what were the safe harbor agreements being used for. in many companies, if they are a large multinational,a large multinational, they have hundreds of vendors. they have hotels in every single member state, often
multiple ones. they have staff, restaurant staff, foo the supplies the restaurant, reservation lists. you are looking at hundreds of individual agreements for hundreds of different entities within the one company, so it is an extensive and time-consuming process to figure out what we are using the safe harbor program for now and what we can use as a substitute. some of the suggestions are actually complex and difficult. one was binding corporate rules which could take over million dollars, up to 18 months, and it was over 18 months prior to the decision when they're would now be hundreds of companies seeking out approval. another mechanism was something called model contract clauses, like it sounds, clauses approved by data protection authorities that companies can use to prove they are in compliance with the law. recently there was one german state that said, we may not think these are valid anymore. >> that is up to five now. five german state data protection authorities.
thethe equivalent of our united states have said that they are questioning whether any data transfer to the us is sufficient in light of the decision from last week. >> and without a thorough investigation which is something that would be helpful, whichever direction it goes in. what do you do? you have customers that rely upon you, employees that rely upon you.you. the decision is not just about us companies. it is about companies and consumers and in users in europe, in the united states, and that is something important to consider as we move forward on this issue. >> how is this affecting transborder data flows right now? >> so, again, short answer to that question is, we are still in the early stages. it is fair to say people including yourself for absorbing this opinion and canceling clients as quickly as possible and steering them in the state direction. in many cases, that is the eu known to have good
processes in place with regard to reviewing and giving their approval to binding corporate rules. and also,rules. and also, as adam said, people are doing audits. how is this affecting transborder data flow? it is too soon to say, but what we can say with certainty is there is great legal uncertainty and we can also say that this is impacting, we believe, small businesses, medium-size businesses more than large companies, which include the large companies that would include members of the internet association. the larger companies could see the writing of the wall and were able to take steps and contingency plans for this outcome. many of them already have in place binding corporate rules and have resorted to model contracts.
they don't have the resources to spend a million dollars and invest 18 months of man-hours in getting a binding corporate rule through. i think we can say that much. and i think there are also depending upon business models, scenarios where they literally is no alternative to the safe harbor.harbor. so that is not every data transfer, but one data transfer we have heard about is, for example, there are not model clauses that apply to an eu -based processor of the data transmitting to a non-eu-based sub processor. there is an example of where there is a gap in the mortal all right there. i'm sure you're being asked questions about the scenario. what businesses are looking for is obviously legal certainty, looking for quickly, turning to the
european in particular to a group known as the article 29 working party which is kind of the trade associationassociation of european dbas and they are looking for that group, turning to them for federal guidance because right now we have a scenario where you could have 28 different interpretations depending upon the dbas and in addition a plethora of germans at the local level in interpreting the opinion in there own different ways which would obviously splinter the european dataflow before you even get to transatlantic dataflow which is a concern. so the companies are looking for guidance from all of that dba through the article 29 working party and looking for it in a timely way. >> the article 29 working party is meeting right now trying to figure out how to deal with this, what advice to give them all you have a de facto time of transition,
gentleman's agreement was another phrase that i heard abouti heard about doing a transition command as of the time we started the session they had not come out with guidance but may come out while we are here. so, that is the trade association for the data protection authority. in terms of giving guidance on what they think. separately, the european commission has made general statements in terms of looking at this and trying to figure out what to do. the secretary of commerce said that obviously not surprisingly the secretary was disappointed with the decision in this looking to work with the decision to figure out whether it can work, but my question to the panelists, i would love to hear from each of the panelists, what can congress to? >> one of the things that congress should be looking at is the fact that it was mentioned that the uk,uk, the eu data retention directive was also struck
down recently. the uk tests another data retention law, the investigatory retention act in order to fill the void. recently that also was struck down. theydown. they attempted to pass a law that would fill the void left by an eu court action and very quickly got struck down and then now they are back at the drawing board having to write another data protection provision. what they should be trying to avoid is being in the same situation where we take action and are told that the action is similarly not sufficient and that we have to go back again. i no yesterday, several members of congress and the letter to the ftc and department of, asking for them to enter into a knew safe harbor quickly. that may be the wrong path to take because until the u.s. congress passes comprehensive surveillance reform when the act is set
to sunset. wiesel and more surveillance reform until the sunset two years from now. we should not wait those two years. we should be engaging substantively on the amendment right now and on executive order 12 trouble three and trying to figure out what limitations and protections we can put in the place for that authority as well try to make sure that we are complying with international standards that every other country complies with in regards to necessity and proportionality of surveillance.
in the final thing we should look at is trying to -- and there is some necessity and reading the tea leaves about what the court was saying on the commercial aspect of safe harbor and looking toward potentially a comprehensive privacy law and the us, something that many civil society groups have been pushing for for a long time and trying to put in the place protections so that the next time the court of justice revisits this opinion they do not strike it down under the consumer protection elements as well. well. congress has a huge role to play here, i think. >> going to turn to adam and gail. i figure you do not want to give guidance, so i will give you a pass. other thoughts on how congress can help this role, particularly given our audience today? >> i would just go back and respond to amy's position. i feel strongly that regardless -- and they
and that's something that we understand what go to the florida house. what it would do is extend to the e.u. citizens the privacy act of 1974 and that is a significant step forward as we understand it from the commission but also from the epa themselves in a step forward in the right direction. cement the chamber association and several associations around town all signed a letter supporting the judicial read dress act calling to come for a vote soon and one piece as they see it reported in the press all the time is not just the company and not just technology coalition hits all businesses
broad spectrum of businesses and if we had a bit more time, if there is more time to send a letter know there are plenty of companies who would have joined in as well. when it comes to any other changes in congress there are things that we should do for americans for ourselves not just for the europeans. it makes sense to look at a privacy bill that maybe simplifies the rules out there and has the right balance between innovation and privacy so we could do for americans not just for europeans so i think the immediate step to answer the court's ruling would be the redress act in anything beyond that is for the united states i think it should be to borrow a word from my european colleagues proportional whatever that might be. >> thank you. gail and adam have mentioned the judicial re-add -- judicial act would provide all citizens the
right to redress in terms under the 1974 privacy act. in the 1974 privacy act is near and dear to my heart rate when i was at homeland security i had to enforce them what it was was the government's collection and use of information that you had to say what you do and have a recommendation or policy. two u.s. citizens and legal department of residence so why was that carved out as a question that my colleagues and i ask all the time and it could be that we didn't have the data flow that gail and adam had and spoke so passionately about. it could be they wanted to have redress for people who are asking for visas to come to the u.s.. it could be a whole bunch of different things that could be when you think about filing cabinets it's different than when he think about the internet of things. fiducia show redress act that a
skill set is moving through the house with her through -- redress to foreign indices as long as they have adequate information. given the judicial redirect act as gail and i have described it only addresses governments use of first-line information and even in the privacy act there is an exception for national security, does the judicial redress act solve this problem? >> i think we all agree that the current situation in legal in uncertainty and the judicial redress act would be a big step forward in reducing that in certainty so from your perspective. >> damien you have been saying that for six years since i have been negotiating with the european commission. >> i think it would be very important.
i wanted to intervene and say what government is doing on the european side. first of all it's for national authorities to address and they meet at the trade association a group of government officials representing states and the european commission have them come to a single step point of view and that's what we have been doing last week, yesterday and today. everybody realized we need to guide companies but also reassure citizens in what's going on with their data. three years ago we proposed parliamentary overall our regime to have a much better regime with less diverse and see so we really hope council and parliament and legislators
are --. >> amy do you think there judicial redress act would solve this problem? >> we absolutely support the judicial redress act but it's an incremental step forward and i want to be very clear it's a small step forward. and not necessarily against certain countries who are certified by u.s. authorities so those countries are not named it is not necessarily countries in the e.u. or only countries in the e.u.. certain rights under the press but as mary ellen pointed out there are certain exceptions to it and many the programs we are talking about here are going to be covered by judicial redress and i would at add that we send the senate it has been proposed as an amendment to the cybersecurity information sharing acts which many groups both in the u.s. and abroad have outright opposed because it creates huge new surveillance loopholes for more personal
information to go to the government which i think actually runs directly contrary to the court opinion we are looking at now so attaching a law that gives a small incremental step forward to a bill that actually takes a huge step backwards is a net loss. >> i was wondering if you thought damien's redress issue. it's something i've thought about when i was at homeland security. is redress a panacea for the transport of data flow from your perspective on the commercial side? >> to step in the right direction but at this point it's unclear what a panacea would look like on the european side. again it would be extremely helpful if there were was some sort of self-examination done to see where the current right is not just in practice at the european level and a the member state level because the united states should provide, or should only be asked to provide it
equivalent rights to those of the europeans. we shouldn't be asked to go above and beyond what is actually the practice on the ground over there and just real quick on the cyber information sharing act we think it's very useful in helping deter bad act theirs. we don't see it as a loophole for more surveillance. it's a case where distances and other entities can share information with those who deter the bad actors. so if there is a breach in one area companies and those charge of information security can work together to stop the breach from happening again. >> i'm going to ask the panel to look in their crystal ball and dual gazing and talk about what's next for safe harbor. there's a safe harbor to point out that a saddam said is being negotiated between the
department of commerce and the european commission. is that dead on arrival? what do we think is going to go on with that and what about the u.s. relationship? where we thinking we are going with this and i would ask you to think bo short term, what's going to happen as we all work out this legal uncertainty and then secondly a medium-term what do we think the relationship should try and toward in the future? i think i will start with amy closest to me and work down the line please. >> again i don't know if any new mechanism is going to to work and little of surveillance reform. i just don't know if we can find a mechanism that complies with this court's opinion in blue of changing the standard under which the united states conduct surveillance and i agree with gail is a problem with surveillance around the world. there is just a problem with surveillance. every country tries to get as
much authority as a classically cantu conducted and we need to look seriously and holistically at all the countries but right now we need to look at the united states because that's what's standing in the way of a new mechanism. access has supported the model contract clauses that were mentioned earlier that we call it model contract clauses because we think they also need to include more robust mechanisms for transparency and more data security in order to protect against unauthorized data such as what's happening for example in the nsa was tapping into the back loan between google or yahoo! data centers which is not necessarily a good thing for surveillance agencies to be doing so we think data needs to be protected more robustly so we are looking forward to engaging more thoroughly at least in the short-term combat is the new mechanism and looking longer-term have to engage in protecting the privacy.
>> a question in just a point. the model contract proposed by the commission can be edited so it is a pretty frustrating contract if i could have a little discretion to say that and it's very rigid in terms of the opportunities. gail what do you think is next for safe harbor in the trans-atlantic relationship? >> so, first of all i have to say for the record the internet association supports surveillance reform but we are where the congress has a law in place that we have to be realistic in this context. the other thing i would say about the relationship of the e.u. some elder statesmen used to say it's a problem with the e.u. is because there's no one phone line. you have to pick up the phone and talk to the e.u. and in this scenario we have many different stakeholders within the e.u..
in talking to the commission damien is representing the commission and he can speak for them. i think there's a sense in which the commission must to do the right thing here but their decision was invalidated. a they have been negotiating in good faith with the department here. they were close to signing safe harbor, safer harbor 2.0 and let's hope that comes to pass him by people within the commission first have to look at this opinion and take a close look and decide what the new parameters they are operating under our lead we also have a parliament that's very vocal depending on where you go in the e.u. parliament on this issue. that is a constraint on the commission and we have to be mindful of the parliament and the epa they are all going to have to want to say something about the safer harbor 2.0 and these are all checks and balances that the commission has to be mindful of going forward.
and so that is the e.u.. that is a lot of different stakeholders that play and i don't intend to speak for others but they are all different voices. in the meantime we are looking to the e.u. epa will working through their association in the 29 work he -- working parties to issue guidance is helpful to businesses and businesses to sign up for safe harbor are reporting 500 of them, they could apply with safe harbor for the most part. they didn't the fcc one after them. and so they are now looking at this legal vacuum where they don't feel like they have done anything wrong. they need guidance. >> matta more do you think is next? >> the relationship between the united states and the european union is too important. we transferred 15 terabytes of information a second, a gigantic number.
we have really trillions of investment numbers going back and forth in the safe harbor decision goes beyond the one program. if we can't share information, they can't monitor our investments that's a gigantic loss around the globe. two pair of eyes -- paraphrase a quote by vice president biden -. >> what does espaillat on? >> it's really important for governments on both sides of a plan to get and work on finding a solution quickly not delaying. we need to preserve the relationship going forward and what we need is responsible governments having a conversation to build connections not to tear them down. the senate congress in a letter taking quick action. i would like to see more in the congress getting involved with their counterparts on the other
side of atlantic. overall really encouraging a swift resolution to the issue at hand. >> thank you and damien what do you think is next? >> what is next i hope. [inaudible] and together we are working on new safe harbor arrangements. nobody has an interest in having a new safe harbor 2.0 within a couple of months time so deep breath and make sure a new arrangement is made. >> with that said we are at the top of the hour. i want to thank our panelists for an excellent discussion and thank all of you. have a good night. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> all persons having business
before the honorable supreme court of the united states call and give their attention. >> we have not seen a court overturned a law that was passed by congress on economic issues like health care. >> the case in lochner is whether majority rule, state legislature can take away life and liberty without due process in the court ruled no. i think it's a wonderful decision.
congressional leaders in the white house are nearing a deal on a two-year budget agreement that would increase military in domestic spending in exchange for long-term spending cuts to programs like social security and medicare. on tomorrow's "washington journal" congressman tom cole of oklahoma will talk about the house speaker elections, the budget in upcoming fiscal deadlines.
>> our regular your money segment we are looking at what's going on over the federal budget specifically how it affects or could affect weapons programs at the department of defense. joining us for that conversation our global business reporter. good morning. how was the deity looking at current budget negotiations going on? >> guest: they want a budget deal quickly right now the big problem for them is that there are 15 resolution happening in the program set to to continue after 2015 level so what does that mean? it means they can't up production of the f-35 controversial plane and a plain that has been very much over budget depending on it needs to
start buying more of to get the price down so common these of scale and whatnot so you have issues like that. it's like an apache helicopter around 65 and 2016 and those are actually being used in afghanistan and iraq. so very much needed. you have that aspect of the economy of scale and the other big problem is acquisition reform trying to get present at obama's veto. last week that's more of a hill change to senator mccain to push that through. >> host: been used to acquisition that means what? >> guest: that means policy. that means how the acquisition system works at the pentagon. it has been very much criticized for everything from being over budget and behind schedule rapist takes away a lot of the
bureaucracy instead of being pushed through but essentially none of the goes through in the status quo remains in place. >> host: how much of the defense department currently covered come prices come if you at weapons how much of the dod is budgeted? >> guest: the pentagon budget as a whole for 16 in the budget it hasn't been passed yet is around $600 billion and a lot of that is what's called operations and maintenance. that's fighting wars in iraq and of them stand in airstrikes in syria. for acquisition about $100 billion enough for stuff like buying planes and ships and tanks and trucks. >> host: so that is only ships that are currently being manufactured with those that have to be upgraded? does that fall into that one pot? >> guest: at all falls into that one pot and the groundwork for the future programs as for not having a budget for dod hurts them. a lot of groundwork for these
future programs are starting to be laid now so it may not need that you need an actual tank that you buy the equipment this year and it takes multiple years to get to the point where you actually buy the full tanker the full fighter jet or the full show. >> host: this future purchase is it brand-new equipment to replace outgoing equipment or does it work outside of the? >> guest: it's both. you want to buy new up and to prepare for the future but a lot of what the pentagon has been doing over the last 10 years of war is improving the stuff that has. it's been taking fighter jets for example from an f-16, an f-15 stuff that's been around since the 70s and 80s and upgrading them and putting in new engines and sensors so they can see more in them. >> host: all that depends on long-term budget that possibly have to pass on capitol hill. >> guest: without that budget the pentagon will be forced to tread water. >> host: i guess we'll be with us to talk about that on the
budget and how it affects programs for specific projects with a program preview and test questions about the process (202)748-8001 for republicans to 027-48-7000 for democrats. you can't tweet us and send e-mail at journal at c-span.org. you brought up the f-35. first of all are probably some of these question what is it and why said the controversial project? >> guest: the f-35 is the fighter jet of the future for the military. the military operates all different sorts of plans. right now the air force has asked 15, f-16s and f-22's, f-18s. what the f-35 will do is basically the same plane. it's very common. they're not identical that they are being purchased by the air force and navy and the marine corps and they do different things. and maybe one can land on ships. the marine one can take off from a short runway and lanford way.
basically this is the most complicated fighter jet ever built because of the type of sensors and cameras and types of spy equipment if you will embedded inside of it. planes over the years that have this type of stuff added if you will but this is a big problem with this one. everything is being built in us from the beginning. the problem is it's never been done before and there are very optimistic projections for this plane and it's had a lot of trouble with development. in recent years it's gotten better. it's still pentagon people on the hill and elsewhere would say it still has a long ways to go. >> host: in some cases the term would be used in the development of the plane was the opposite of something called fly before you buy. if that's a case can explain that? >> guest: the big thing now is just that. fly it before you buy it.
you need to do a test drive and see if this stuff works or do a prototype thing. the air force has the most expensive programs. they are about to buy a new bomber. they haven't bothered balmer and 30 years after the b-32. that plane never going to buy 100 of them and they ended up dying 21. what happened is that cost $2 billion each so the big thing with that program, this new bomber is the classified program and the pentagon claims it hasn't grown a plane yet -- flown the plane yet but is tested a lot of the systems it will be on that plane to keep it on track. >> host: what is the price tag for the f-35? >> guest: we are looking at a $400 million that includes and this is way out projected on buying 2500 of these for the united states military and bats of the 2030, 2040s and we are
looking at 400 billion that includes development and production of the planes. >> host: if there is no long-term budget deals does that affect how much are purchased, those plane to get purchased? >> guest: undoubtedly it does. in 2015 the department had budget for 38 planes. it was supposed to ramp up to 57 and again with the economy of scale you ramp up the price goes down. there is a continuing resolution for the whole year. (202)748-8000 for democrats, (202)748-2001 for republicans. make those calls on those lines and post on our facebook and twitter page as well. let's start with maryanne and south carolina, lyman south
carolina honor independents line. >> caller: good morning. i was wondering, i had heard that snowden had leaked the plans for our new jets to china. i was wondering if that is true and also i'm just hoping that we are going to build up our military because i feel like we are right now in the cold war. i'm really worried about china and korea and i just feel like we need more defense. >> host: marianas at your thought that we don't have enough weapons to meet those challenges? >> caller: yes, it feel my -- everything is really old. my son was a navy man and he told me long ago our military, our ships everything are so outdated and i feel like we are in great danger right now. i think everybody knows that about us. >> host: mr. weisgerber. >> guest: to the point of the
f-35 it's more believed that cut it's been acknowledge that china has asked the defense contractor to get some of those plans and you see it. the chinese are testing a fighter jet of their own that looks very much like the f-35. the big thing with china is as they reverse engineer a lot of our stuff a lot of corporate espionage if you will listen being able to penetrate to the pentagon network getting into the contractor network. now for what they are both to do very rapidly and building they apparently have a lot of trouble with making engines and types of sensors basically what's under the hood of the jet. so yes they -- it does very much concerned the pentagon. >> host: jason from washington d.c. you are on with our guest. >> caller: a lot of us military procurement stuff seems a little backwards to me. it seems in places where we are
are battling isis the a-10's would be the best cost-effective solution that the military has been trying to kill the best way that we have in combating these types of situations. over and over again i think the idea is there a number of people that keep coming out every year trying to keep the a-10 out of existence whereas maybe like 10 or 15 of these things would equal one of these advanced systems. the other thing is the future of avionics has to do with not having a man in a plane. let's be honest here. what we can do with a 10,000-dollar drone or a billion-dollar drone is really going to be the future of aviation and we are pouring money into a lot of the systems that for all intents and purposes you can do with robotics. >> guest: you brought up the a-10 and that's a great point. >> host: you may want to explain what the a-10 is. >> guest: the a-10 is a 1970s vintage plane that can
fly low and slow towards the battlefield. they can take a shot at and take bullets with the pilots protected by a titanium bathtub is the way it's been described to me so the poet can't get into the cockpit if it's being shot at. its main role is to help soldiers on the battlefield fly around and if they need somebody, they need a plane if they're being shot at and to fire at the bad guys if you will be a-10 does that better than any plane out there to the controversial thing is it's been around and we love this plane that we can afford it anymore. we need to go and we need to take that money. we are under the sequestration and we are under budget caps so we need to take the money and invest in the future because we haven't been buying lots of new equipment to the previous caller's point. we have to buy high-tech type equipment. right now congress will not let
them retire the a-10. the a-10's are flying to turkey to conduct airstrikes against isis so it's still very very much used in the current war so you can see why it's controversial that they want to get rid of it. the point about avionics and unmanned aircraft is very much a debate right now in the military. especially in the air force and navy. you have the navy secretary in the past day. he doesn't do any plane after the f-35 being manned and there are people out there who say he knows you still need to have a mint platform because nothing can replicate an actual pilot in the cot pit. in reality what you are probably going to see you will see a shift towards unmanned aircraft more types of stealthy aircraft like something like your b-2 bomber which can invade the enemy on the ground at stake upon them so you'll see more stuff like that. you're probably still going to see manned aircraft for a long time. >> host: key largo florida. >> caller: the budget, how
much of it is labor? the cost for these future present and past? what is the true cost in social security and this in back? is that going to be the biggest part of the budget, the labor costs? >> you are right and the personnel costs in the budget are huge costs. a quarter of the defense budget right now and the big thing is that keeps, the cost of personnel and the cost of better health care just taking care of soldiers and troops set up and constantly supplying, that number has been going up. at the same time the number for buying new equipment in a picture him an account that's been going down and getting
crowded up particularly with the budget caps so a very good point. personal points -- costs keep going up with more than 10 years of continuous war. >> host: i be your own -- she sites and aaa is the most recent example. >> guest: there's infighting over amendments and there really hasn't been too controversial things in this budget right now. the reason why president obama vetoed it is because like i said earlier the budget control act everybody knows about that and congress took the money that the pentagon had requested which the obama administration requested which is above those senate put it in this war budget. the war budget is not subject to sequestration and not subject to budget caps and $38 billion put it over there. the obama administration said no you have to come up with a plan to fix the whole federal budget
not just the defense department also the administration was angry that they weren't given legislation to close the military prison at guantánamo bay. >> host: so but i guess, walter up next from new orleans. hello. >> caller: hello? i appreciate you taking my call. my question is how about this military weapons industry and the fact that the united states right now with the f-35, if we don't buy those, are they eligible to be sold to other countries? can and bowing in those companies, if we don't buy them in a very well sell them to china? >> guest: they can't sell them to china but for example a plane like the f-35 is being purchased by number of allies. the plane was designed to be
exported from the beginning so there are a dozen nations that are going to buy the f-35. there aren't a lot of f-35's around so if that program was canceled they are not going to sell the ones that they have too someone else but that doesn't mean they can't sell something you have now nasa stuff like f-15s and f-16s planes, the u.s. military will retire them and they are old but they might be useful for other countries. more than 30 countries around the world flight f-16 so you could take a plane like that and you could export it but you can't, the u.s. military can't and the united states as a whole can't sell weapons to places like china russia north korea or iran.
hello. i love you too. thank you. have a seat, have a seat. some of you don't so -- it is so good to be with all of you. [applause] look, i like eating in a room with democrats generally. i especially like being in a room of democratic women. [applause] let me begin by saying that nobody works harder to strengthen this party up and down the ballot in all 50 states then our chair debbie wasserman schultz. [applause]
debbie couldn't be here today because she's working to build up our party. she is relentless. she has got incredible partners and the ceo of the dnc. it gives amie at big round of applause for organizing and the women's leadership form co-founder cynthia freedom -- cynthia freeman. [applause] it is good to see all of you. many of you have been friends for a long time and there are some of you who were for when i first ran for the president. she is like no, i was five. the point though is that all of you are working hard to make sure that our party and our country moves forward and for
the younger people here let me refresh your memory. [applause] when we came together seven years ago we did so not just to elect a president but to reaffirm our faith in that most fundamental basic american ideal , but people love this country can change it. a lot of people were involved in that movement. a lot of people have been about the% sent that has sometimes been tested by war, recession and politics and by obstruction and by a lot of cynics have said it was naïve for us to keep on trying but thanks to folks like you, thanks to americans like you this country is moving forward. just think about the path we have traveled. [applause] when i took office we were losing 800,000 jobs a month.
an employment was on its way to 10%. today during the course of the longest streak of job growth on record our businesses have created 13.2 million new jobs. unemployment is now 5.1%. [applause] when i took office more than 15% of americans were without the security of health insurance. today we have covered another 17 million americans for the first time on record. more than 90% of americans have coverage. [applause] and for everybody who aren't covered insurance can't be terminated because of pre-existing conditions or charge a woman more just for being a woman. when i took office who are hopelessly addicted to oil and we have cut our oil imports by. we have double production of clean energy triple the amount
of one per week generate. 20 times more solar energy is created that when i came into office and all that is generating good jobs that can't be outsourced and helping the environment. when i took office our influence around the world was diminished. today americans leaving the world in confronting the threats making sure iran does not get a nuclear weapon. americans are leading the world in global action on climate change. american fleet in the world to write smarter and stronger trade rules. we have begun to engage with the cuban people and brought thousands of our brave troops home to be with their brave families. so we have made incredible progress on just about every front. you can't find part of our economic life where we haven't seen significant progress but we come here today because we know we still have work to do.
we can't just be complacent. we can't rest on our laurels. when cynics told us we can change this country they were wrong. but we know we have still got work to do. marriage equality is now a reality. [applause] but we have so got work to do to make sure our lgbt community is getting fair. and on the job. high school graduation rates are up, college graduation rates are up but we still have to help young people be able to go to college without being burdened by a mountain of debt. [applause] manufacturing is up but we still have to do more to make sure we are training our folks to get new manufacturing jobs. our deficits are down but we have got to make sure that we are making the investments that
we need to grow in the future. our carbon pollution is down but we are not moving as fast as we need to to control climate change. teen pregnancy rates are down but we have got a lot of folks who are attacking the rights of women just to have basic health care in this country and to be able to make decisions about reproductive freedom without having some member of congress or some governor or some other elected official try to intrude. now the point is overall we are making enormous progress and does make you wonder why republican politicians are so down on america. [laughter] have you noticed those? [applause] i mean they are gloomy. [laughter] they are like grumpy cat. [laughter]
[applause] everything is terrible according to them. we are doomed. i know it's political season that you listen to them and they have constructed this entire separate reality like the twilight zone and according to their story, their narrative everything was terrific back in 2008 when unemployment was skyrocketing and uninsured rates were rising and folks were losing their homes and their jobs. we were engaged in two wars and bin laden was still at large. if you were listening to them those who like the good old days. the golden years and then i came in --
[applause] but according to them that's when everything all went to hack. it's a hard argument to make. there was an article in "the new york times" today or maybe it was yesterday when they pointed out that it's very hard for them to make it. the arguments they make about the wealthy and doing the same stuff that they're promoting and limit regulations on big banks and all that when the empirical evidence shows that when democrats controlled the white house and we have a democratic congress economy does better and when they are in charge it does worse. just look at the facts. don't take my word for it. go back and take a look.
here is bill clinton's presidency and bush presidency and my presidency. take a look. and you have got to feel bad for the fact checkers for the republicans because they have got to spend hours trying to keep up for some of the crazy stuff that their candidates are claiming and the reason they have to make up stuff is because they don't have a record to run on. they are offering the same policies that cause problems in the first place. they ran on them in 2008 and they ran on them in 2012 and they are running on that now. more tax cuts for folks at the top although there's no economic evidence to show that would grow the economy. they say it that is going to grow the economy. nobody believes it. no economist think it but they insist on it. fewer investments in things like education. even though there is no evidence
that would improve the lives of the american people there is a lot of evidence that would make it worse. they want to repeal the affordable care act which i know is a shocking development. [laughter] millions of hard-working americans off of their health insurance. they have been promised since we passed the affordable care act that they would replace it with something better except they can't come up with anything. [applause] they want to gut wall string -- wall street reform and risk another crisis. they want to strip away regulations on pollution saying that these are job killers despite the fact as i pointed out -- did i point out that job growth happened under democratic administrations and was worse
under their administrations? and they even deny that the planet is getting warmer and that our climate is more dangerous. and this is despite evidence to the contrary. they are fighting tooth and nail to unravel new rails two protect the air that our kids breathe and protect carbon emissions. the way they pose climate change is a good illustration of the problems they are having. let's just take an example. if you went to 100 doctors and 99 of them said you are really sick, you have got let's say high cholesterol what would you do? would you say those 99 doctors
are crazy and part of a wild-eyed socialist plot? [laughter] to prevent you from eating cheese? or would you say you know what what i hope that those doctors know what they are talking about. i have got to modify my diet a little bit. we laughed but that is essentially how they are approaching an existential threat to our future. and the truth is a majority of republican voters disagree with their own party on this. washington republicans are alone on their own shrinking island so the point is number one we have got a lot of things to feel good about in this country. it's a shame when politicians spend all their time trying to make people feel bad or more typically trying to make them feel scared.
talking down the country all the time because it serves your politics. we don't have time for that. we have got more work to do. democrats have the right ideas in the right plans to get the job done. [applause] we have got an optimistic vision we have an optimistic vision about where this country can go deaf, it is the politics of distraction and fear-mongering are set aside and if we start working together as a country. there's no problem we can't solve. you have heard from some of our outstanding candidates. i'm going to be supporting whoever the nominee is and i'm confident -- [laughter] >> what are you laughing about? we have got some great candidates but when you watch the debates between the
democrats, it was logical and civilian people didn't agree with everything but they were saying crazy stuff. and they were dividing the country between us and them and tapping into people's worst impulses. it made me proud because it said we have a party that's inclusive of wants everybody to join and get involved and showed that we can disagree without being disagreeable. as democrats are economic plan would grow the economy for everybody, not just for folks at the top. we should not even be thinking about something as ridiculous as shutting down our government over planned parenthood. we should be talking about opening up new opportunities and
vesting in our schools and rebuilding the infrastructure to create jobs and testing of research to alleviate hunger or cure cancer once and for all liked vice president joe biden said. [applause] as democrats we are spending time thinking about the concrete challenges that families have. we have family leave plans that would guarantee family leave. we have plans to raise people's wages rather than trying to suppress people's wages. our plants make sure that women are paid fairly for doing the same work. [applause] which is why we vote for not against the law that would make sure women are paid fairly for doing the same work as men. as democrats are planned to combat climate change actually
recognize the existence of climate change and it's not just a matter of trying to solve a danger. it's opportunity and jobs and moving to a clean energy economy. we want to be america to be out first. we embrace our responsibilities to leave her kids with this safe habitable planet. as democrats we are proud that our plan to fix our broken immigration system are not rooted in anti-immigration sentiment. [applause] they are rooted in mind we know to be our own immigrant stories. we understand that american greatness doesn't come from building, it comes from building opportunity. [applause] now the good news is that there's a broad consensus within our party about what needs to
happen and what is also good news is the majority of the american people agree with us. but there is a danger coming up and it's something we are going to have to address and that is complacency. a lot of times it seems like her politics don't reflect the common sense that we see in our neighbors are community and our friends and it gets frustrating. we have got a system that too often rewards short-term thinking rewards people for saying the most outrageous thing even though everybody knows they are not true but we think of it as entertainment somehow. so attention grabbing and controversy is rewarded rather than folks who are rolling up their sleeves and dealing with sometimes really complicated issues that don't lend themselves to a sound bite.
sometimes folks just throw up their hands and say washington doesn't work. it's your job. your job more important is to condense friends and neighbors and your community and your state's. we can't afford that. we have got too much work to do. our system only works when we realize that government is not some alien thing. government is not some conspiracy or plot. it's not something to oppress you. the government is us in a democracy. the government is us. the most important office in democracy is the office of the citizen. that's you. and this has been the premise of
my politics since we got to know each other. i always have to remind people when i ran for office i didn't say i got this, go home. i didn't say yes i can. i said yes we can. [applause] yes we can. yes we can. we the people. yes we can. [applause] so moving forward getting business done does not depend on me. or congress or the democratic president that we intend to elect next year alone. it depends on all of us. it depends on what we the people
do together. that's why i'm so glad to see these young people here. i want the young people here to remind us that are getting gray hair, i want you to remind us of that possibility. if you care about all the things that we fight for you are going to have to be active and involved. you are going to be passionate and it's not just at that events like this. this is easy. coming to a fancy ballroom and schmoozing and listening to the president traded. [laughter] we need you to go out and organize. we need you to go out and mobilize. we need you to knock on doors. we need to work on referendums. we needed to work at the local
level and at the state level. we need you to inform people and a ball people. you need to turn out the vote. we have got to make sure your friends across the country know where their leaders stand and if they don't know that inform them and make sure they are doing the right thing and hold them accountable. if they're not doing the right thing we have got to vote them out. [applause] so democrats we are at our best and america is at its best when we assume the best in us. when we are willing to try to recognize their own struggles in other people. and when we seek some kid struggling to pay for college. i remember how i had to struggle when you see an immigrant hoping to contribute that's my parent
or grandparent or great grandparent. [applause] for you see the african-american denied the right to vote you understand my democracy is at stake when that happens. when a worker is tonight a living wage for equal pay for her efforts that hurts everybody their there are stories may not be exactly like ours but we are in the same fight. we care about the same thing. we believe in each other and that's what makes me proud to be a democrat. we are right on most policy issues. our arguments are the right ones but at our core what i'm really proud of is the fact that we believe in this country that everybody has a fair shot, that everybody has got to be able to get ahead. [applause] that we have a responsibility to uphold those highest values to fight for everybody to have the
change -- the same chances that we had and lead the country toward kids that no matter who you are what you look like or who you loved you can make it if you try. that's what we stand for as democrats. that is what we stand for us americans. that is what is at stake in next years election. that is why i need you to go out and get to work. thank you everybody. god bless you. [applause] [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪