tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN October 6, 2014 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
at the same time that that has happened though, there's just been this explosion of alternative media sites, digitally and cable and native advertising. if you've got great skills and great passion, the things that i talked about earlier in terms of content is king and making sure you know how to produce it and you love to tell stories, you're going to find a job. i really believe that. it might be tougher to get in certain newspapers just by virtue of where things are headed with staffing levels, but, you know, mark and mikey, it's just a big, big market in a lot of different places that are just nontraditional that are exploding here. again, everybody wants to talk about the demise of newspaper content. well, you go to so many websites and social media in particular, that's content that we are funneling there. it's found on facebook. it's on twitter, in all those different places. you have great passion for story telling, great commitment to understanding the fundamentals
of writing, making things come alive in a fair, relevant way, you're going to find a position. >> thank you. >> you bet. thanks for being here. >> real quickly. >> yes or no, michael, is that it? just yes or no. >> i'm kelly mcgowan. i have another ethics question. what do you do to get everybody on your staff on the same page ethically? >> get everybody on the same page ethically? >> like what do you do to ensure your staff is all on the same page -- >> constant coaching, transparency. here is what is expected if you want to work for me, and if you can't live by those rules, you won't. >> okay. >> let's face it, ethics is a nonnegotiable thing, okay? it's not. michael, you know that certainly in your classes and what it is you're teaching. it's nonnegotiable conversations related to the ethics. you want to be in this business, to be credible, relevant to the readers and advertisers i serve,
you don't play by the ethics game, you're not going to work for us. >> thank you. >> my name is nicole. i'm in a research class and our little pseudoclient for this semester is the daily and we've been talking about hypothetically of cutting the paper to three days a week instead of five and beefing up more of the online and mobile. so what would be your opinion on that? >> so it's twofold and obviously you're going to know more specifically about how your audience is intersecting with your content on different devices and platforms. the tail end of that conversation, if you're not owning the digital space, you're leaving yourself wide open and you're vulnerable. you have to own the digital space. comes back to what i said earlier in the conversation. content is king. then how you leverage that. the matters of frequency, i think there are a lot of media companies that are really giving that strong consideration right now. is the monday newspaper as relevant for more readers than -- for as many readers as it used to be. is it the same kind of marketing device and tool for certain advertisers as what it once was? those are the kind of
conversations that are i think unfolding. there are some companies certainly advanced publications, you have seen reduced services in places like new orleans and detroit -- i'm sorry, new orleans and cleveland, where their strategy has been to reduce days of frequency and home delivery. we're not considering that. you know, with he stiwe still h strong conviction about the prominence of print. it's an important conversation. >> so my name is tricia cook, and my question is when there's a story where there's two sides, how does a journalist -- like what does a journalist do to get to persuade the reader to read both sides of the story? >> well, you got to make sure that in your story you're representing both sides. it is so easy to be duped, misled, and to have folks on one side -- let me really tell you what is meant by hillary
clinton's appearance in iowa from this viewpoint. well, then others are going to say, well, no, no, no that's not the right opinion. it's this perspective. your job as a reporter, right, all looped up here, as a reporter, you report. you present both sides. you let the readers decide, right? but your story has to make sure that you've got both sides of the argument and often there are more sides than just those two. right? >> yeah. >> good. >> hello. my name is jonathan north. i have another ethics question. i eventually want to be a photojournalist, and i was just wondering what kind of ethical dilemmas might come up for a photojournalist and how you deal with them. >> good question. really good. what was your name? >> jonathan north. >> jonathan. there's an incredible tool called photo shop.
are you familiar with it? >> yes. >> be very judicious about how you use photo shop. there are mechanical means in which images can be altered. we've seen it in several high profile cases where multimedia photographers have taken the liberty of adjusting images and doing things that are not right at all. i go back to what we've talked about, about your ethics, the north star and doing the right thing. be smart, be honest with the reader, give your reader credit. be thoughtful about how you're using these different devices. don't change the quality or the characteristics of your image just for the sake of, man, if i just got rid of this behind them or eliminated this it's going to be a killer image, an even better image. don't do that. your readers will give you discredit for it. >> thank you. >> you bet. good luck.
>> am i next? >> yes, ma'am. >> my name is fern bonamie. >> fern, are you here for extra credit tonight? >> am i what? my significant years in newspapering were spent in cedar rapids. >> yes, ma'am. >> i'll tell you another story when i applied to "the register." my question comes from my -- i'm asking you to emphasize a point. i'm speak being a woman who teaches here on this campus, and when she sends somebody out to do an interview, what they want to do is stand on the back here and e-mail the guy or the woman and conduct the interview at long distance. i would not have been allowed to do that. of course, when i was a reporter and an editor, that didn't exist. >> right. >> but i'm hoping you will speak about the need to be face-to-face interview. >> boy, you know what? so i'm old enough to know the power of relationships, right?
and when we were talking earlier about what are the tools that you need to be a successful journalist, successful writer, was being able to earn the trust of your best sources and that includes to me looking at them across the table and having a great understanding of who they are, what makes them tick, what motivates them, so i have my meters up and i'm sensitive to all of that. technology has changed. i mean, so now you will have reporters that will text sources about certain issue that is are unfolding or certain questions. i want the story at all costs as long as it's an ethical means, it's a fair means, we're not breaking any laws, and we're doing the right thing for our readers, and if in some cases the only way to get that story is through unconventional means, through texting or e-mailing, a case that you mentioned, then let's do whatever it is we need to do to get the story, right? i've got to serve my readers,
and i can't cheat my readers because i find it to be in an unorthodox way of being able to get a source who is a coward for not picking up the phone and talking to you or talking to you face to face in my mind. does that help? good. >> one last question. >> i want -- i applaud "the des moines register" for its persistence in fighting for openness in our -- and transparency in our government. could you talk a little bit about -- and i know emily has written several columns about that, but could you talk about why "the des moines register" thinks it's so important to fight that battle time and time again and i'm setting you up for a softy question but i'm serious about why is that so important? >> do you know why, spoon? do you want me to answer that question for you?
because iowa thinks it's important. it's not just because of "the des moines register." it's because we're upholding the beliefs of iowans who expect a government that is fair, that is open, that is accessible. is that a strong belief in the foundation of what we do? absolutely. it comes down to defending the first amendment. that's exactly what i said in terms of our central mission of doing things that perhaps others might not take the good fight. i have a fantastic editor in emily nash. you know about our commitment to first amendment journalism and openness in government and working with chris and bill and trying to do the right things for taxpayers as well as our readers. i think the primary mission in this is that this is the expectation our readers have of us. >> okay. so if that's the expectation of people of iowans, why do we continue to have exemptions in our open records laws? why do we continue to have city councils that meet in private? why is the government not getting that message? >> don't do it, rick?
>> boy, it's right there. >> don't do it. >> there are elected officials, public officials, there are bureaucrats who don't have the same conviction and understanding of the law in which they should and it's our job to illuminate, to bang them over the head when it's necessary in whatever means possible on ink and paper or digital with editorials, to be able to say here is the law, here is what you're doing. here are the expectations of iowans. here is what you're doing. change your act or we go to court. i mean, you know that we've not been afraid to do that, and i have no problem at all trying to send a very strong signal from an editorial standpoint about what it is that you do, and here is the other thing. whenever it becomes public, oh, my god, the reade erers and the voters and residents, they swoop in and they jump on that. it's not just "the register" that will pile on, it's the constituents whose lives intersect with that official or
agency. it's a big deal for us because it's a big deal for iowa. is that a good, bill? thank you all, very, very much. i really appreciate it. [ applause ] >> i want to thank all the students here. you were patient and you asked brilliant questions. this man is a natural zealot reporter. thanks again, rick. thanks for coming. [ applause ] this afternoon watch
c-span's campaign 2014 coverage from arkansas where former president bill clinton attends a rally for senator mark pryor. the two-term senator is running for re-election in a race that's listed as a tossup by the cook political report. we'll have live coverage at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. live at 1:30 p.m. eastern, i g gor ivanov will talk about the u.s./russian relations. tonight on "the communicators," jeremy grant, whose agency promotes more internet security, talks about ways to increase data protection with alternatives to passwords and basic security. >> the government is not looking to endorse any particular solution but rather describe at a high level the attributes of what the solution should look like, that they have to be secure, they have to be privacy
enhancing, easy to use, and interoperable and let that then be a bit of a guide post to industry to start developing solutions around it. just looking at the pilots we have, we have some that are looking at smartphone based apps, which will basically be used in lieu of a password to log in at different sites. others are testing different types of biometrics, fingerprint, face, voice recognition. not to say every one of these is going to be the solution or even the solution for everybody, but they're the kind of things we're testing out. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of september 11th, 2001, congressman mike rogers and senator saxby chambliss reviewed how the world has changed since 9/11 and what the government should do to address current threats. hosted by the ripon society, this is just under an hour.
good morning, all. good morning. we're going to get started since time is not our friend this morning. we thank you all so much for coming out on this thursday morning. i'm jim conzelman, president and ceo of the ripon society. for those of you that this is your first time to attend a ripon society event, we're a public policy organization established in 1962 by one of congress' own, tom petri of wisconsin. we take our name from that small town where the republican party was established in 1854, ripon. one of the main goals of our troupe is to promote the ideas and principiples we believe mad our nation and our party great,
keeping our nation secure, our taxes low, and having a federal government that's not only smaller but smarter and more accountable to its people. we promote these goals in a number of ways. for instance, four times a year we promote this through the journal of thought and opinion called "the ripon forum." we also host a daily news site called "the ripon advance." do you see the thread here? the advance is focused on solutions for america and those leaders who are trying to make a difference not only in their communities but here in washington as well. the site can be found at riponadvance.com. we hope you will visit the site, and if there's anything that we are not following, please let us know. we would love to try to promote it. in addition, we hold a regular series of breakfasts, lunches, and dinners geared around the events of the day and the challenge that we face all the time, and this is one of these events. but before i begin, i'd like to take a moment to reflect upon the events 13 years ago today that changed the lives of
everyone here and everyone here in our country. would you please join me in a moment of silence to remember those folks who lost their lives on 9/11 as well as those who sacrifice and continue to risk their lives in the defense of our nation. thank you. some housekeeping details, everyone. i'd like to recognize several of our guests this morning. first and foremost, congresswoman from pennsylvania three, the honorable mike kelly. mike? [ applause ] we also have the commissioner of the u.s. international trade commission, scott keith. scott? [ applause ] from governor rick snyder's d.c. office for the great state of
michigan, bill mcbride. bill? [ applause ] from the european parliament office, the director antoine ripole. there you are. [ applause ] and from the australian embassy congressional liaison officer tim roberts. tim? welcome. [ applause ] also we have a number of staffers here and as you all know, we would not be here today without their great help, and so let me go through them and please hold your applause until the end or we'll be here until 9:00. tyler stevens with senator saxby chambliss, chris cogar with tim scott. di arn renaldo with mike rogers. david stern with andy barr. jesse walls with steve stivers. bobby fredrick with rodney davis. grant gardner formerly with speaker boehner and now with the republican national committee. susan fehlen also with mike
rogers. eric landis with andy barr. audra hill with mr. chambliss. derian flowers at homeland security and with rob portman. martha scott poindexter with the senate select committee on intelligence and tim butler with mike kelly. welcome. [ applause ] i'd like to call your attention to a number of events that we have coming up. next wednesday we will be hosting a breakfast with ed goes who is a great pollster who will be discussing the november elections and the landscape that we'll be seeing very, very soon. then on september 23rd we have senator rob portman. we will not be here. we'll be over at the monocle. so don't forget that. a number of you, i'm here, where is the party? september 23rd at the monocle. then on september 25th back here at the capitol hill club. we're proud to host the senior
leadership staff from team leader -- or majority leader kevin mccarthy. so we'll have all of his senior staff here. this will be a lunch event. so don't miss that. as for this morning, we're so honored to be blessed with these two guys. i'm already sad and already miss them and they haven't even left yet but they continue to fight to keep america securie and the greatest thing about both of them, i have traveled with mike rogers, senator chambliss i knew when he was in the house and used to hang out with mike oxley. the greatest thing about both these guys is they never forgot from wednesdhence they came. the apples don't fall far from the tree and they're always very accessible. we're pleased to have you here this morning especially on this special day. to introduce them it is my pleasure to bring to the podium the senior vice president for federal affairs of the exelon corporation, david brown, and at this point we'd like to have both mr. rogers and senator
chambliss come and take your seats here. please welcome them. [ applause ] >> thank you, jim. as usual your timing is impeccable. there's not a better time to hear from our guests today. senator saxby chambliss of georgia joins us today in his final term in congress after nearly 20 years on capitol hill. he spanned both chambers and during that time he's provided tireless leadership for his georgia constituents. born in north carolina and raised in louisiana, the senator would go on to graduate from the university of georgia and then attend law school at the university of tennessee. soon thereafter he began practicing agricultural law, a passion that would prove instrumental during his time served in key roles on both the agriculture and select intelligence committees while in congress. his congressional record over the next two decades reflect a man of independent-minded solutions who shows a willingness to work across the
aisle and together these attributes have helped forge a long and distinguished legacy for this true american statesman. senator chambliss serves as a member of the senate armed services committee as well as the agriculture committee and vice chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence. joining the senator this morning is congressman mike rogers, chairman of the house intelligence committee. also in his final term in congress. chairman rogers is the kind of leader who believes national security issues should be bipartisan or even nonpartisan. in fact, "the washington post" has called his leadership of the house intelligence committee a rare example of bipartisanship which is sorely needed today. along with his ranking member the democrat from maryland, he's worked to get four intelligence bills signed into law with strong bipartisan support. he's also taken the lead on critical cyber security legislation getting an information sharing bill passed in the house with an
overwhelming bipartisan vote. chairman rogers was a commissioned officer in the united states army and he continued to serve his country as a special agent with the fbi in chicago where he fought organized crime and public corruption. after being elected to the michigan senate in 1995, he was elected to congress in 2000 and represents mid-michigan's eighth congressional district. please join me in welcoming our guests this morning. [ applause ] >> thanks very much, david, and if anybody can't hear, let me know and i'm happy to pick up this microphone. i'll try to shout loud enough where maybe you can. it's a privilege to be here this morning with my long-time dear friend jim conzelman who has provided get leadership of this organization and it's not my first time to be here. i know the makeup of the audience and thank you for your great support and your commitment to america and to
what's good about washington and our government. it's also good to be back with my buddy mike rogers. it's been 24 hours since we were on the platform together, and i have missed him all day yesterday. mike and i are -- have been dear friends since our days in the house together, and we have shared a few drinks of whiskey every now and then and solved lots of problems between ourselves, and i want -- i can't be here with mike without saying that i was on the house intel committee my last two years in the house, and that was a great experience in 2001 and 2002, a critical time obviously, but the relationship between the house intel committee and the senate intel committee has not always been the best, but under the leadership of mike rogers and dianne feinstein, we've made a real dedication to not just
making that relationship better, but to making it a very smooth operation between the two committees. we visit regularly, and i was talking earlier to a couple folks about cyber security, which is what we were talking about yesterday. the four of us have been talking about cyber security and how we're going to ultimately come out of a conference on a bill for two years now. that's the extent to which we've gone to as bicameral committees, and make has been a dear friend but a great leader, too. i think it's fair and appropriate that we are here today on the 13th anniversary of september 11. it's one of those seminal moments that all of us remember where we were. i was the chairman of the house subcommittee on intelligence on terrorism and homeland security, and immediately after september 11 my subcommittee was charged with the responsibility of doing
the first investigation, and jane harman and i in a bipartisan way worked very closely together to produce a report on that, and it kind of set the stage for me with respect to what i was going to be doing for the next 12 years in the senate. the al qaeda that we knew in 2001 was a narrow band of renegades and killers, numbered in 2001 when they so brutally attacked us on our homeland about 1,000 fighters. today, lord knows, we're looking at thousands and thousands of not just al qaeda but obviously offshoots of al qaeda that are scattered around the world that present a greater threat to us today than al qaeda presented in 2001. when the president talked about
we have eliminated core al qaeda, well, guess what? we have -- now we've got al qaeda in the maghreb, al qaeda in iraq, we have al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and just in the last 30 days we've seen the creation or the announcement of al qaeda in india, in bangladesh, in burma, and other parts of that part of the world. so we have not struck al qaeda in a way that we're going to have to continue to fight and continue to strike them. we've got to destroy them just like the president has been talking about destroying isil. isil is not an isolated terrorist group, but they are the most vicious of the terrorist groups that are out there today as we have seen exhibited on tv over the last several months, but particularly the last several weeks.
they are committed to a caliphate in the middle east part of the world that now stretches from syria into iraq. they want to stretch that in jordan and lebanon and into gaza. if we don't eliminate their capability by destroying them and killing those individuals, then they may have the capability to do that, and that's why it's so important that we use the only thing they recognize and understand, force, deadly force, to counteract them and to destroy them. with respect to what the president said last night, we've been in conversation, they've called mike, they've called me over the last several days and couple of weeks regarding our thoughts and opinions, and i'm very appreciative that the white house has reached out to both sides of the aisle for where
they think we need to go with respect to this immediate conflict, and the president didn't answer all the questions last night, but, look, this is not a partisan issue, and we've got to -- it's not about giving him the benefit of the doubt as much as it is joining as americans to solidify the offensive action that needs to be taken to kill this group of nasty terrorists. so i was pleased to hear some things the president said. obviously i'd like for him to have been stronger on some things, but there are just some things he couldn't talk about that are going to happen. the thing that has pleased me the most about this as mike and i have been around the world together talking to our friends in the arab world, they have always encouraged the united states to do what we're doing. they're pleased to have us in their countries fighting
terrorists, but they never really step up to the plate like we've needed them to do. well, the president has put the ball in their court with his comments last night and the strategy that he outlined. so the challenge is there to the arab world. america's willing to do its part. we'll do more than our part. we always do. but the challenge to the arab world to really come forward and to confront these guys in a forceful way will have more meaning to it than all the action that america can take. so i'm very encouraged by the fact that the arab world is joining hands with us in this effort. our european friends are also joining hands, and we've got issues there off the battle field that we're going to have to address. i just got back from a ten-day trip to europe with several of my colleagues, and one of the issue that is we talked to our
nato friends about is the visa waiver program that we have with every one of those countries, and it is a very serious situation that we have gotten ourselves into, obviously a very unintended consequence of a program that has worked very well. we used to never have concern about anybody coming to the united states who was a german citizen soror a french citizen from the uk, but today with all the foreign fighters that are going to syria, going to iraq, and now coming back to their native lands and having the capability with their british passpo passport, french passport, whatever it may be and hopping on an airplane and coming to the united states, they're presenting a different threat in that respect than we've ever seen. so we do need to join hands with the president and make sure that we exhibit the right kind of forceful action to destroy isis,
isil, but at the same time we need to make sure that we're giving the tools to our intelligence community and our law enforcement community to make sure that they have the capability to keep these bad guys out or if somehow they get by, that we're able to monitor them and control them and keep an eye on them while they're here. we're going to be hopefully debating some of that as we go forward between now and the end of the year. may go into next year and somebody other than mike and i will have to be making those decisions, but our intelligence community is composed of a lot of brave men and women who are doing a wonderful job. our military is composed of brave men and women who are doing a wonderful job, but if we don't give them the right kind of support from a policy standpoint, they're not going to be able to continue to do that. so i look forward to working with mike between now and the
end of the year to make sure that we continue to accomplish some policy matters that keep those tools in place and hopefully give our folks more tools, but to make sure that the table is set as we go forward into this long enduring fight against isil and our other threats out there around the world. thanks very much for letting me be here. [ applause ] >> well, thank you very much. you know, i was flattered that jim counsnzelman would invite u today of all days and then i found out he just wanted to see if we showed up. if we didn't, he was going to get into the car and go back home so thanks, jim, for that. thanks to the ripon society for being part of the dialogue that tries to get this town right. that is so important. it's going to be even more important as we move forward and get through some, i think, some very tough times. i want to go back for a minute and talk a little bit about some
history. when you look at this, there's so much debate today that i think we don't look back far enough to understand how we got here. and we think that because of 9/11, last year was when this fight started with al qaeda or jihadists or extremists, and it just clearly isn't the case. if you remember the bombing in germany that killed our soldiers, that was designed -- that was a radical jihadist movement in the 1980s. 1993, they tried to blow up the world trade center. if you remember that, they pulled that vehicle down in the basement. their engineers got it wrong. if they hadn't got it wrong, that building would have come down then, too. and then you look at the cole bombings, the east african bombings of the '90s. the "cole" bombing happened late 1998 and just a couple years later 9/11 happens here on our soil that slaughtered 3,000 americans. they were at war with us long before we ever noticed as americans. that was part of the problem. and one of the 9/11 commission
reports said something interesting, because we never really engaged them, they believed that they could get more emboldened. they could do more bold efforts. they could do something like 9/11. and one of the things that they also said was that we lacked imagination because we had bits and pieces of information, but nobody had the imagination to put that information together to say somebody is going to -- we knew they were taking pilot lessons. we knew they were jihadists. we knew they were committed to acts of terror, acts of violence, but somebody said we can't quite put it together. nobody said, you know what, what if they got on our airplanes and flew them into buildings? nobody had that bit of imagination to put that puzzle together. and so 9/11 happened and now we've fast forward to where we are today. and so when you look at the threat as you see it and notice it today, somebody said, oh, this whole episode of the last decade created all of these new
jihadists, created new people to the fight. you know, i'm going to dispute that for several reasons. the one reason that al qaeda was able to spread its wings, if you recall, osama bin laden had to move around a lot. he couldn't find a home. he was in africa for a long time, got a little unfriendly. he left. he's been moving around for a long time before his demise. finally he found a home. he found time and space in afghanistan. he found a government that was willing to absolutely tolerate him, that was absolutely going to support his efforts, that said you don't mess with us, we're not going to mess with you. we're busy stoning women in the soccer stadium, summarily executing people who are convicted of adultery. they went back to the stone age. they banned all music in afghanistan. they made it illegal for girls to read. you could not teach your girls to read. this wasn't 50 years ago, 100
years ago, that wasn't 200 years ago. that was in the '90s, the '90s. as a matter of fact, when we got there, i was the first congressional delegation with dave hobson, you remember dave hobson, we were the first congressional delegation, it was still against the law to teach girls how to read in afghanistan. and so if we don't kind of take a step back as americans and maybe pull ourselves out of the kardashian reality world that we so live in today and start understanding who they are and what the threats are, maybe you wouldn't have statements like, my god, it's the 21st century, people don't act like that. i got bad news for you and for america and for the rest of the world. yes, they do. and what you see happening now with isis is you had a group take an opportunity for gaining safe haven in eastern syria, further radicalizing their individuals, employing their harsh version of sharia law that includes beheadings, cutting
hands off, summary executions, burning churches, killing christians, killing people of the muslim faith who don't agree with their version of the muslim faith, and they took that opportunity to grow. they found oil refinery, took over oil refineries and were able to sell it on the black market, 1 million bucks a day. we think they have $1 billion in cash and precious metals to sustain their operations. once they got strong enough, they go over the berm, now they're in iraq. and so some notion we can call any of these teams jv or any of these teams -- or these al qaeda operations as less than serious is a serious mistake. we're getting ready to make that mistake again. i'm very, very proud of the president candidly that he decided to change his path. he stood up last night and said, all right, we have to do something about it. that's a good start, it's a good day. i'm with saxby who has been, by the way, a great leader in the united states senate on these issues. he's very humble as the southern
gentleman, as you would expect, but he has been very key in all of those authorization bills, all of the cyber fight that we had, and all of this comity we have been able to find between the house and the senate, he has been a leader and really the point man for a lot of that. so thank you for doing that, saxby. we appreciate it. what is that saying, thanks for doing it, and now get out? >> he still wants me to do his radio show. >> yeah, exactly. so i just hope we take a second to stand back, and i'll tell you why we do that. because for those of us who study national security issues and spent all of our time doing this and reading on it and understanding the threats, there's about 20 d well, 21 now with this new announcement of al qaeda of this -- new al qaeda affiliate in india and we think that's just to get them on the board. remember, they're a little jealous isis is getting all the attention. so some notion that isis is more brutal than them, remember, they slit people's throats to overtake an airplane to fly them into buildings. pretty hard to argue who is more
brutal in my mind or you would be less brougutal or more tolere than one organization over another. you have this competition between al qaeda saying we have to get on the board so we can show the rest of the world that we're the strongest jihadist organization and you have isis holding ground, calling the caliphate, recruiting foreigners. now they have recruiting offices around the world. they have recruiting offices around the world. they have pamphlets made up recruiting jihadists from all over the world to come to fight and be part of the caliphate. when they show up, a lot of them have western passports. when you look at what happened over the last year, american politi politics, we got so soft, so removed from this threat, we decide, oh, well, the thannsa m be a bad and horrible organization. the whole reason some of these programs got put in place after 9/11 is we did a thorough bipartisan study and said what did we miss? what pieces of this puzzle were missing that would allow us to
miss somebody to be able to kill 19 people killing 3,000 americans? one of them was a phone call from a safe house overseas, and al qaeda safe house, to san diego that said, hey, operation is a go, and we missed it. why? because we didn't want to have those kind of communications from a foreign country and a foreigner into the united states. so think about the debate we've had in the last year. well, we've got to get out of afghanistan. they're gaining ground. the taliban is gaining ground, and with that comes al qaeda. we're saying let's dismantle our ability for the nsa to track foreigners overseas and even watch a phone call from a foreigner overseas into the united states. we have thousands of individuals who have western passports who are coming home. somebody overseas is going to pick up the phone and call them. do we really want to be blind in that circumstance?
do we? america, the debate, the political debate is i'm not sure i'm going to take the time to understand that problem, but it sounds kind of hard and maybe they might call me. this notion is ridiculous. and so what we worry about, i know i worry about, is this threat is as real as it's ever been. out of the 20, now 21 al qaeda affiliates, over half of them have pledged some affiliation to isis because they believe that they have to get in on this notion of a caliphate, which now you have an organization big and strong and well financed. you have this dabbling of these al qaeda affiliates around the world who are saying, well, maybe they're the ones. i'm not sure. i still pledge allegiance to al qaeda but i want to express my support. you plug into their ability to conduct operations and now you worry -- saxby is only 25 years old. look at what this job has done to him. now you know what happens when we sit in those dark rooms and
go through all -- pore over all this intelligence. this threat is as serious i think as i have ever seen it. and i really don't think america is ready in the place to debate the real threat so that we can meet this threat with reasonable expectations and using america's diplomatic and soft power and military power to bring this thing -- these things to a conclusion and disrupt their activities enough that we could keep america safe. it is to me a critical time and i just want to tell this last quick story because on that trip to afghanistan with dave hobson, i asked to go down -- there was a children's hospital in kabul, and so i went down to that hospital, and it was in you can imagine pretty rough shape. the indian government had run it and when the taliban pulled out, they took everything with them. this hospital had no air conditioning, no hv/ac at all candidly, and for their infectious diseases ward, what they would do is close the windows and close the door to
stop the spread to the rest of the hospital. so when they opened that door to give us the tour, you can imagine. it was, a, overcrowded. b, they had to nurses because they wouldn't allow their women to be nurses. they sent them home when the taliban took over so they had parents, mothers who were there trying to take care of their kids in a closed room about half this size with about 45 people in it, all of them sick. it was the most god awful thing i had ever seen, and the woman who met me at the door was running it, was a doctor, trained in the united states. when the fighting started, she had been -- let me back up. when the taliban got there, they sent her home. she's a trained orthopedic surgeon. they sent her home, said you can't do that here in afghanistan under the taliban. she goes home, six years later she hears the bombing starting. she walks out, she takes off her burqa, she walks nine miles through some pretty tough
territory without her burqa, gets to the hospital, and she said i knew i had to be here because this is where i could do the most good. so she was the one giving me this tour in this hospital. so we get up, and by the way, each hospital bed had more than one child in it. because they didn't have enough hospital beds. so you can imagine, they don't have any way to clean the sheets. this is not a place that was -- you might make it there, you might not make it out. and i asked her at the end of it after she gave me this tour and we were up in the ward where the children had just had surgery. so amputations and other things. and i asked her, i said, is this important for the united states to be here? and i'll never forget it because she turned and put her hand on my shoulder, and said yesterday i had to amputate the arm and a leg of a young boy that stepped on a soviet mine. their parents threw him in a cart with a donkey. it took them two days to get him to the hospital. they kept him alive. she said i didn't have the right an septic.
i didn't even have the right medical tools but if it isn't for the united states, none of us will have a chance at life, neither will he. and you could still hear the bombing in the mountain ranges in the distance. so think about what america is getting ready to do today. the president even announced it last night. i liked a lot of what he said except he's going to end the war in afghanistan. we have asked these women to come out of the back of their houses, to take their burqas off, to join society so they could temper this problem of the taliban and al qaeda coming back. and we are going to pull out like we just pulled out of iraq and the difference between iraq and afghanistan is afghanistan will happen in about 1/100th of the time. and we will slaughter thousands of women who had the courage to stand up for something bigger than themselves, democracy, engagement, temperament. i hope that america stops for a
minute and shakes themselves out of this notion that we are war weary. less than 3% of the population has ever even been asked to do anything in the war. you didn't have to give up sugar. you didn't have to give up your tires. you didn't have to stop eating eggs. you didn't have to stop -- we didn't ration flour. we did all that in this country one time. those people were war weary. they had to give up a lot of their lives in order to win the fight. we have to give up a little kardashian tv, right? if that's who we have become, then we will suffer the problem of terrorism for generations to come. i hope this is our moment. i hope this is the president's moment. i know saxby and i and dianne feinstein and dutch are going to go through the details at least in our space on this plan to get this right. i hope america rallies around, candidly, the president, bucks him up a little bit. we do this together, republicans and democrats and say we're not going to tolerate this. we won't tolerate the spread of radical jihadism around the world, and we will not tolerate
them threatening the united states in any way wherever we find you. if we don't, you're going to have this conversation with two more members next year on the 9/11 date wondering why this is taking so long. anyway w that uplifting note, let's go get some of that whiskey we talked about. [ applause ] >> we have a little time for questions. anyone? yes, anne. >> anne canfield. i watched an interview with an islamic leader -- [ inaudible ]. the next number of years that over 50% of the citizens [ inaudible ]. and they hope to oppose sharia law there. so i wonder what are your observations about europe because it's really changed and
changing. >> i was in belgium on our first stop on the recent tour we took visiting general breedlove and the other leadership at nato, and this is a real problem all over europe. muslims are the fastest growing population in a number of countries like france, the uk, and in belgium, and obviously the more of that population you get -- and you have to remember that 99% of muslims are the right thinking kind of people, but it doesn't take many of them to really wreak havoc in any country. and in most european countries there is the opportunity that we don't necessarily have in the united states for jihadism to be created. there are a lot more radical
imams in that part of the worl , than we see over here. there is a free flow in europe, in all the european union. there's no need for a visa or a passport. you can go wherever you want to go. so there's a definite trend not just towards an increase in muslim population but in that small percentage of jihadists there's also a very trend toward seeing that increase. now, i don't know about the projections on what the population in belgium, which is a very small country to start with, may be, but let me tell you, there is an active group of jihadists within that community, within that part of the world that is very capable today, and they're just going to get stronger. so our european friends are now
understanding that they've got to do a better job of monitoring those folks and trying to make sure that at least from a public standpoint that jihadists are not able to recruit and train right under the recruit and tra right under the nose of their law enforcement agencies. i hope it works for them. that's the folks who have the ability to come to the united states once they are radicalized. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, thank you for your fine analysis. you said earlier today is president's plan requires some affirmative action on the part of congress. what does that mean? is that conceivable? >> well, i think it's the congressional responsibility to be affirmative because it the does go beyond the bounds of the authorization to use military force established in iraq. you are talking another country.
this is hard. i hope congress shows strength and shows america that we can do hard things. we should affirm what the president talked about last night. we are going to have to do some language to the funding portion. i happen to believe we should also do an outright affirmative affirmation of what he's doing. give the congressional approval for him to do this. i think it does a couple of things. it shows america, yes, this is serious. it shows the rest of the world, yes, america is finally serious. it shows our enemy that we are taking it serious, which means someone will knock on your door soon. i think without that, we lose our coalition partners' commitment in a way that it should be at the level it should be. i love my nato partners. they need a little encouragement. this can give encouragement for them to participate in this. they are likely to be the first
receiving end of the westerners going home. it's likely easier to get the first strike in europe than in the united states. this coalition building is going to mean something. and this affirmation by congress shows we can do hard things and we are together on it. i don't know if you may have a difference of opinion on that. >> i agree. i think there may be requirements for participation and training under title x that requires congressional approval and we should give that to the administration and allow them to move forward on that. it's not going to be without heavy debate, but it should be done. >> i was going to say, you mentioned the waiver program and that makes it easier to come in without visa. is there contemplation of
changing that or is there a view that the tsa and passport people coming into the country can use more vigilance? >> we do a good job today of putting the bad guys we know about on no-fly lists. even if they hold american passports, if they are out of the no fly list they can't get back into the united states. there is always the potential for somebody slipping through the crack. should we change visa waiver? i don't know. i think this is a time in our history when we ought to review this policy. our european friends are close associates and they are our friends for the most part. when somebody gets radicalized and europe has the ability to come to the united states, you better believe the extremists are recruiting them. you know they have the ability to come to the united states. we've got to be ever more
vigilant with respect to the no-fly list and keeping bad guys out of the country. but at the same time i think it presents the opportunity that we need to review the program and see if changes need to be made or additional tools given to tsa to do a better job of enforcing if they need it. >> one of the things we have done after 9/11. we have done a better job establishing homeland security in a way to catch bad folks coming if in. the problem with this case sven if they tell you, yeah, we know x number of folks with u.s. passports and we'll do everything we can to make sure when they come back, they will get a welcome. the problem is they are using cut out countries to get into the country. you may fly somewhere in europe and end up in country x and from country x you get over land transported. that part we wouldn't know. u.s. citizens have a higher
legal standard for surveillance. nobody is saying we should change that. that creates a huge gap in our ability to know. if you're talk thing between 3,000 and 7,000 western passport holders you can start getting nervous in a hurry knowing we probably don't know all 3,000 to 7,000 people. we are not sure if that's a light number or a heavy number. many the intelligence community believe it is a light number. we think the number is getting bigger which is why quick action has to happen. to stop the pipeline of recruiting take action now. we need to make sure this doesn't look like disneyland to anybody in cleveland wondering if the jihad thing looks like a good idea. we need to nip it in the bud now. that's a concern. other countries have different privacy rights and requirements that may not travel in the same way other countries might in europe. canada is a great example.
they have a different cultural approach to the issue. once you get into canada you're a toll away from getting into the united states without a visa, a government check or anything. they may not have any idea in the world you were in syria or iraq. that's the challenge. that's why saying this is an urgent problem we need to get in front of and i'm encouraged that the president got there last night. >> 9/11 commission had an update on where we are today after the first report was issued. basically the bottom was they thought they were on september 10 right now.
i wonder about your comments on that. >> oh, look at the time. [ laughter ] you have 20 affiliates around the country. trust me. they were there. they had different names and mission sets. we should stop this argument about when they got here. it's a waste of time. they were there. they were committed to political jihad. now they just expanded it against the west. so you have 21 groups now. they all have an interest at some level of committing an act of terror against foreigners. some have the capability to do it locally and nowhere else. some have the aspiration to do it in the west. all of them have the aspiration to do it here. so i think they are saying are we configured in the right way to get the best information to protect us in a way that i think we would be able to sleep better at night?
i argue the answer is no. because we have engaged p in this ideology that wants to pull. you can't put a nice face on terrorist disruption activities. let me be blunt. that's a hard end of this business. it is what it is. they are cutting people's heads off. you can imagine you are not going to sit down and have tea and talk it over. that's not going to happen. so are we configured right in africa and the middle east and other places in southeast asia to make sure we are doing it exactly right and trying to remove a chance of a terrorist attack. that's what they are talking about. you may want to think about the configuration that we can handle the problem. nothing is perfect. you want to get as close to never making a mistake as you can. we're not there yet.
>> i don't think there is anything in the report we disagree with. we understand the world is more dangerous today. many in the last five years the state department already on the terrorist list. just the sheer numbers make the world a much more dangerous place today. >> fred and then -- [ inaudible [ inaudible ] >> -- send troops to address the issue. those countries have different political systems but have to be cognizant of what the common man thinks of a muslim nation taking on a muslim organization the.
what do we know about that dynamic in some of those countries and how it may affect their ability to fully participate in trying to address the problem. >> well, the culture in that part of the world is different from the standpoint of anythi anything -- not just in the united states, but in any other part of the world. it's something difficult for americans to understand. you have an uphill battle. just from the start. the fact of the matter is this group named isil is different from any other group of terrorists we have seen. we do want to establish a caliphate in the middle east part of the world which means sharia law, not just violent activity but the women who gained all the rights other the
last several years. they would immediately lose those rights and children won't be going to school again. i think there is a large segment of the arab world that doesn't want to revert to that type of system they had been living under in some countries. there is more inclination to join the fight. they know it's their backyard. they've got more to lose than anybody else . but they have never really been challenged to step up to the plate. that's what i was pleased to see the president do last night. given that challenge to say we are going to be there. you have to join us. we need them to be boots on the ground. we have lots of assets from an air power, intelligence, logistics standpoint.
we need them in the fight in a big way. we have been briefed on the behind-the-scenes investigation. i'm encouraged about where we are. we have to see what happens over the next several weeks here. >> i would agree. when they went the to mosul they took some of the leaders they thought wouldn't be compliant, chopped their heads off and put it on spike. they call it motivation for the other arab leaders in other countries. they have no respect for law, for anything other than their strict interpretation of their islamic faith. that's not consistent with the rulers of the other arab league countries. they get it.
they have as much to lose as anyone and are eeg er to disrupt this organization. those countries will go home. it's easier to get there. they have a problem and they understand it's a problem. they want to get on with this as quickly as they can. >> there is a working record to overcome and get important legislation through. as you wrap up your careers on the hill what advice or guidance do you have for your successors? >> it was easy in the senate. for the most part we still can't do anything but get a nominee from the bench to the administration through without getting 60 votes. neither one of us have 60 votes. it's imperative that you work across the aisle.
our committees are an example of the positive things that can happen when reasonable republicans and reasonable democrats sit down together. and check our partisan hats at the door and agree we have a goal that has to be accomplished. we have to talk through our differences and reach that goal. i know there are lots of democrats that have good ideas. lots of republicans that have good ideas. nobody has a patent on that. so i'm looking forward to seeing what the makeup of the next congress will be. a lot can happen there. with the right leadership at the top, you will see more bipartisan efforts in the senate for sure. >> it takes work. we have all gotten together.
i don't want them to think we close the door, giggle and come toon agreement. some have been fairly emotional and heated discussions on how to come to the right goal. at the end it was done. it was an issue we had to get through. we came to it with the same goal and worked it out. i don't think we had one we couldn't get there. it takes the commitment to sit down and understand that we have a goal. if you don't accomplish the mission talking about it for a hundred meetings, it means nothing. we came to the agreement earlier that we were going to do it. national security was important. there is the outside influence on congress that says if you sit down with someone who believes something different from yourself that's somehow a violation of the oath and your credibility and principles. i say nonsense. this is a place where you bring principles to the table and work
out to the best of your ability to get something moved forward. we need to get back to it. we need to have more people come with the notion to help solve a problem versus telling you no to a problem. there's been a lot of political profit made from being against everything. if you want $80 in cuts they won't support you unless it's $81. if you give them 2k4r8z 1 they wanted $85. it's disrupted the senate, the house and governance in america. we are paying a price for that internationally. we don't do it in a vacuum. the world watch it is united states. we have leaders like saxby, and they understand we are allowed to disagree. i'll take the 80% deal and work for the other 20%. we lost it somewhere.
i think we'll have to get back to it. the only other way is the american public pushes congress to do it. the environment now is you have to disagree with everything. no person on the other party has a good idea on anything ever. if you say it's blue, i've got to say it's red. that's not helpful. i don't know how long it's been there. a few years. seems to be getting worse. in a case like this, we travel overseas and meet with our foreign leaders. it shows and it's wearing on the world. people are starting to ask question ifs america will make it. when you get questions overseas i get a lump in my throat. to think on our watch we'll get the greatest nation on the face of the earth who's been the greatest force for good just go away, melt away into mediocrity. it takes organizations like this who believe in sitting down and having dialogue and imparting it
on members of congress that it's okay to negotiate so you don't get anything you want. >> chairman mike, thank you for your time this morning. your remarks and for giving us a lot of reassurance. >> this is tough stuff. there is so much information that they are all picking up at different points. you brought it all together. we know how much both of you love our country. on behalf of the society we have to present you with the history in america in 101 objects with our thanks. we think once you leave you will come back and give us more thoughts on where this country is going. we know how much you love it. i hope you will not go away far. you have a lot of friends in town and you will continue to have friends.
join me in thanking our speaker. [ applause ] tuesday, watch c-span's coverage of the west virginia senate debate. shelly moore capitau faces natalie tenant to fill the seat of jay rockefeller. watch live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. also tomorrow, live coverage of the virginia senate debate. democratic incouple benlt mark warner against ed gillespie at
7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. connecticut incumbent governor dan malloy debated tom foley at the university of connecticut. the political report lists it as leans democrat while the rotherburg report listed as pure toss-up. here is a look at the debate. >> as someone who takes the safety of citizens seriously, i am proud that the changes made with respect to gun laws are making people safer. i'm proud we'll have background checks and we limit the size of the capacity of a weapon to get 94 shots off in just a few minutes. that's what happened at sandy hook school. we said we don't want in the future additional weapons of mass destruction to be sold in our state.
i believe in all of that. i believe we need to invest in mental health and we're doing that as well. my opponent tom foley is telling you he would repeal the law that allowed us to lower homicides in connecticut by 32% in 2013. that law that's making children safer in schools and on the streets of bridge port, hartford and new haven. the law that came together on a bipartisan basis, the minority leader of the state senate championed the information. coming from an urban environment he championed it as well. tom foley will repeal it. i will never do that. >> mr. foley? >> governor malloy is, again not telling the truth. i never said i would repeal the
gun law. i won't. the gun law passed has not made people in connecticut any safer. we had a terrible tragedy in newtown. i said it through the media, not personally. but let's fix the problem. let's address that. the source of the problem at newtown was a mental health problem. there was an opportunity to address mental health problems which i would like to address. we don't have enough care for certain people with certain mental health problems. he had an opportunity to take a good policy direction as a result on newtown. he went off in a direction that was unnecessary. he took away rights of people who consider the rights
important. you recognized in the debate tuesday night that the rights exist. there was no beneficial effect. we are not safer. this bill inconvenienced a lot of people. i haven't said i will repeal it. i i want to address jobs, economy and getting control of spending in the state. >> your rebuff? >> mr. foley, i have had a lot of respect for you over the years. . tonight you just told somebody, everybody in the state something that's not true. you have said you would sign a repeal of the gun laws. you have said it month after month after month. and now that you understand that people are catching on to what you would do to their children, their streets and urban environments, what you would do to the laws, now you want to fishtail around and flop back and forth and have it both ways.
>> continue to watch c-span as we broadcast over a hundred debates for the control of congress. tonight on the communicators, jeremy grant whose agency promotes more internet security talks about ways to increase data protection with alternatives to passwords and basic security. >> the government is not looking to endorse any particular solution but rather describe that they have to be secure, privacy enhancing, easy to use and let that be a bit of a guide post to start developing solutions around it. just looking at the pilots we have. some are looking at smartphone apps which will basically be used in lieu of a positive word. others testing on fingerprint, face, voice recognition.
enough that. >> here on c-span3 we are live at the canadian house of commons. stephen harper last friday announced a measure that calls for air strikes against the militant and islamic group isis in iraq. today he and members of the cabinet take questions from lawmakers in the house of commons during question period. it should get under way shortly. this is courtesy of cpac. >> clearly the prime minister learned nothing from the past as he leads us into the quagmire of a new iraq war. he is misleading canadians to convince them to go along with his war. he argues that combat is the only way to contribute to fight against isil. even though that's what allies
such as italy and germany are doing. he is asking for a six-month mandate though his defense minister has opened the door already to a longer mission. he refers to a u.n. resolution even though the u.n. has not approved a combat mission. it is sad to see the prime minister lead canada into the quagmire of a new iraq war. at the ndp we believe it is possible to contribute by concentrating on what canada does best. the conservatives are wrong. there is a choice between dropping bombs and doing nothing. >> understand the importance of living within your means. they expect the government to do the same. we are making sure every single tax dollar is being spent efficiently and why they will balance the budget in 2015. our approach has been so successful that the prime minister was able to announce we
cut the deficit by over two-thirds. that's very good news for calgarians and all canadians. balanced budgets are good for the economy. they keep taxes low and make sure we are able to sustain those important government services that people rely on. while the ndp and liberals keep demanding reckless spending our conservative government is making sure we value each and every tax dollar and it's spent efficiently. unlike the liberal leader our conservative government knows the budget will not balance itself. >> exactly. >> the leader of the opposition. [ cheers and applause ] >> mr. speaker, this weekend thousands of canadians in cities from coast to coast to coast gathered to demand that the government launch a full public
inquiry into 1,200 murdered, missing indigenous women. make no mistake, one day when we form government there will be an inquiry. [ cheers and applause ] there is no reason to wait when we know that lives are at risk. why won't the government call a full inquiry now and help save lives? >> hear, hear! [ cheers and applause ] >> unlike the opposition, we are not waiting. we are moving forward with an action plan to make sure -- [ cheers and applause ] >> now is the time to act. now is the time that our government is acting. unlike the this happened who want to propose let's do another study, we have 40. let's be clear. these victims of crime need action today and now. that's what we are delivering on. i encourage them to get on board
to headache sure these women have an opportunity to make sure they as victims of crime, they are actually listened to. [ cheers and applause ] >> the leader of the opposition. >> mr. speaker, we have learned that even before the holding of the vote canadian forces members have been deployed to support the cf-18s in iraq. by deploying these troops before consulting parliament the prime minister is breaking the word he gave to canadians on many occasions. why have the canadian forces been deployed before. >> we have been clear in the announcement by the prime minister that we'll be sending over military equipment in the
way of planes, cf-18s, refuelers with the support of the royal canadian air force. we'll continue our humanitarian assistance if that area. it will have a six-month timeline. we'll work with allies to get the job done. >> the leader of the opposition. >> whether or not we would be sending over after a vote. the question is what are they doing sending them over prior to a vote? >> the prime minister stated that he wanted to bombard the forces in syria but he would not do so without the permission of the murderous regime. we are talking about a regime that drops chemical weapons on its own people. why take advice from a dictator like that?
>> the position of the ndp is clear no matter what the individuals or groups do. mr. speaker, isil has been committing mass atrocities. the most unspeakable ways. we take exception. and to go against the individuals making direct threats to canada. >> the question is why is the government giving credibility to a dictator who murders, tortures and uses chemical weapons against his own population by saying his request will be responded to by a positive answer from canada's brave women and men in uniform. that's the question. over the weekend, both the defense minister and the foreign affairs minister said there would be a second extension in six months. why are they already contemplating a future extension of the mission?
>> that's not the case whatsoever. we have indicated that after a 30-day deployment we are proposing a six-month mission on behalf of the royal canadian air force. those that support the rcaf. we are going after individuals committing mass atrocities. they are making a direct threat to this country. i want to know why it doesn't have the support of the ndp for a change. >> michael isikoff of nbc news is reporting that the united states is lowering standards for air strikes in iraq and syria, abandoning the, quote, near certainty, unquote, of no civilian casualties standard they have been using in afghanistan and pakistan. what are the rules of engagement for canadian air forces to revent civilian casualties? are we held to a higher standard
or in lock step with the americans? >> isil has been carrying out a murder rampage seizing territory and killing children. you can be assured that the rcaf lived up to the highest standards in the world. that's the record. it has been and will be. >> the honorable member -- >> mr. speaker, turkey, one of our allies is currently facing a syria humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of people crossing its border, fleeing isil. winter is coming quickly. that will make the situation worse with. the does canada plan to play a roll in helping in the huen man tarn crisis. mr. speaker, canada is already
very active on this crisis. we are the 7th largest donor in importance. clearly what we have succeeded in doing to date is to ensure people in need have access to basic necessities -- food, shelter, hygiene kits and access to drinking water. we are very active on the file. we are talking about thousands of people benefitting at this point. >> mr. speaker, syria is experiencing a humanitarian crisis and has been for four years. millions of civilians are in desperate need of assistance. i had the opportunity to visit the camp in northern jordan in may. they are waiting for up to $5 billion pledged totem. with a actions is canada taking to address this humanitarian crisis? >> minister. >> mr. speaker i can tell my colleague that we have been very
active with the support for the initiative in that area. also, we went out with support for basic needs such as now, 16 million people have access to clean water. 4.1 million syrians inside the country as well as emergency assistance to assist refugees have now access to food. mr. speaker these are actions we have been there for a while. one of the leading donor countries in this. >> mr. speak, on friday, the prime minister said in this house that canada will participate in air strikes against isil. only in country where is the national government gives us permission to do so as is the case in iraq. he said if that were to be the case in syria canada would participate in air strikes
within syrian borders. under what circumstances will the prime minister negotiate with bashar al assad. >> the prime minister was clear in question period on friday. he said we would go where we have clear support of the government of the country in question. that's only true in iraq. if that were the case we would participate in that country as well. isil knows no boundaries, to borders. they are a threat to everyone in that area. they are a direct threat to canada. >> the minister says the combat is it's just not true. germany, japan, italy -- >> order, order. >> the honorable member has the floor.
members need to allow the question. >> touchy today, mr. speaker. the problem is it's not true what the government is saying. germany, japan, italy are helping to the coalition without joining someone in combat. italy won't take part in air strikes. they will support humanitarian support which is a priority. why is the minister devaluing our g-7 allies. >> we have deployed individual there is for tactical advice. we have been delivering over a million and a half pounds to this area. we are 7th in the world with respect to humanitarian assistance. this combat role is one more effort on this country's behalf to do what's right for the people of the area and do what's right for canada. >> one of the thing it is government is repeating is the
united nations pass unanimously with respect to the situation in iraq implying that the security council endorsed air strikes. the minister knows full well that security council resolutions about isil aren't about a combat mission. but about deplorable human rights abuses occurring and the need to tackle the issue of foreign fighters. the united nations has not endorsed a combat mission in iraq. can he answer that question? >> the deplorable human rights record of these individuals, beheadings, mass atrocities. we have indicated that this is completely unacceptable. in addition to the other actions we have taken as a government we have put this motion before parliament to support our efforts for strikes against isis. it's the right thing to do.
>> on friday the prime minister stated he would bomb country where is we have the clear support of the government of the country. apparently syria falls into that category. can the minister of defense confirm he plans to participate in air strikes in syria if the assad regime that has committed the worst atrocities against its own people gives its consent? >> sounds like the ndp is making that a suggestion that because of the record in syria. we have been clear that the focus is iraq, mr. speaker. it's a six-month mission sending first class equipment, first class individuals to members of the rcaf to get the job. we have been clear about what our objectives are to degrade the capabilities of isil. that should have the support of everyone in the house. >> mr. speaker, even the united
states are still working on the details of the military mission in iraq and syria. john alan was in iraq last week to meet with officials and local partners to work on a strategy. that shows the situation is evolving quickly and there are a number of details to be worked out. why is the government so insistent upon having canada participate in air strikes without knowing what the american strategy is? >> the situation is developing quickly. this is why we have to do this. i have indicated over the next few weeks we'll be working with our allies for the floimt of the members of the rcaf. >> mr. speaker, according to the international crisis group air strikes are counter productive because they alienate local populations we are attempting to save. in the case of syria it's
worse. air strikes would be beneficial to the bloody assad regime. what assessment have the conservatives done of the counter productive consequences of air strikes in their comprehensive strategy for iraq and potentially syria. >> i disagree with the honorable member for her comments about air strikes. what we are proposing in implementing mr. speaker is one more step in our effort to go against this terrible organization that has brutalized and dehumanized people in the area committing mass atrocities that were a direct threat to canada. i have indicated already the military equipment we have sent. the humanitarian aid, advice we were giving for strategic advice to members of the iraqi forces. this is one more step and it's a step we have to take. >> mr. speaker, we see they have
been unable to keep promises to syrian refugees. we know that the cuts by the conservatives are causing delays in processing of refugee files. sweden has been able to take in 30,000 syrian refugees. how is it that the minister here can't even keep his modest promise of bringing in 1300? >> it is mixing apples and oranges. sweden received many asylum speakers because the border is close to syria. canada is fulfilling its commitment. we have already resettled more than 1500 refugees in canada. why is the opposition continuing
to ignore the fact that 18,500 iraqi refugees and we are talking about the debate on iraq have been resettled in canada. that's a record. >> mr. speaker the minister has to stop making up his numbers and acknowledge the government's failure on the issue of syrian refugees. >> after promising to bring in over 1300 last year an internal report from citizenship and immigration shows only a few hundred have arrived in canada. conservatives cutting staff and closing offices, that's just added to the backlog. will the minister keep his commitment and bring the refugeeses to canada now? >> mr. speaker we brought over
1500 to canada. brought over 18,500 iraqis to canada. that's over 20,000 from the region. 's a record for any of the countries donating. the real question is what's the ndp doing for millions more who can't be resettled. for millions displaced inside the iraq war facing genocide, facing murder, facing rape, the elimination of their community. one of the solutions is targeted military action with arab states and with our allies. why won't the ndp consider it? >> the conservatives want to get us involved in a new war when they are already having trouble taking care of oh veterans. according to an anonymous report it needs to be improved to offer more resources to veterans and families but the ministers
responses do not meet veterans expectations. a anonymous report and many, what is the minister waiting for to take action. >> the honorable parliamentary secretary. >> i would encourage the member opposite first to get his facts right. the response to the committee report. i would encourage him to take a closer look at the new veteran charter. our government since taking office has invested almost 30 billion dollars to provide benefits and services. >> under their government the careless brave men and women including veterans basically suffered a decade of darkness, not under this government.
>> the honorable member from st. johns east. >> the response to the all party committee report on the veterans charter is being panned by leading veterans groups. for example, veterans canada describe it is response as, quote, cryptically worded sud commitment to make near imperceptible changes. the minister and department are described as lack luster. why did the minister give so paltry a reply and will he reconsider his response to this important committee report? [ cheers and applause ] >> mr. speaker, we have a strong record when it comes to helping veterans. we have invested almost $30 billion since taking office. mr. speaker, that's almost $5 billion in new funds. more than what the liberals would have invested.
a veteran who is injured and received a minimum of $3500 in individual benefits each month. have it rans can receive upwards of $7,000 a month in financial support. >> the honorable member for vancouver. >> mr. speaker, the government said it would assess the results of the original noncombat mission in iraq after 30 days. now the 30 days are up. has that assessment taken place? if so, what are the results? if not, when can we expect to see the results? >> the minister of national defense. >> we have sent members of our special operations forces there for a period of 30 days. that's part of a larger effort
sending humanitarian aid, military equipment delivered to iraq and this is our next step to counter isil which poses a direct threat. a direct threat to canada and this is what we are doing today. >> this would be useful in pondering the next step. the government of australia provided information about the expected cost of iraq. this government has refused the cost or whether they would be absorbed by the steadily diminishing budget of the defense ministry or if more funding will be provided. will the government please answer these basic questions? >> i have already indicated there will be additional costs for a mission of this type.
but with respect to people analyzing what's taken place and where we are at now, i would refer to her colleague lloyd axworthy that said isil has to be whacked good. isis must be stopped and destroyed. i would suggest even if they don't want to listen to what i have to say, listen to her colleagues. they've got it right. >> we heard today that a government internal report has said staff cuts have been a big factor behind the slow pace of refugee settlement. i would ask the minister to do something unusual. instead of glory identifying alleged past successes tell us
how in the future his department will have resources that are adequate to dweel with the growing number of refugees are syria and iraq. >> i'm glad to see the member focusing on the refugees. they are growing. well over 20,000 from iraq and syria under this watch since 2009. a record without comparison among any of our allies. what we would like to see we understand. military action is important to protect millions of refugees.
>> the honorable member. >> the conservative government is breaking promise after promise and appears to be unable to learn from past mistakes. justice gascon is finally taking the vacant seat on the supreme court. we congratulate him. appointing him is deplorable. it is especially worrisome for the future. justice la belle announced his retirement a few months ago. what process does the government take to inform parliament concerning the election of the next justice of the supreme court? >> mr. speaker the appointment of justice gascon to the supreme court of canada was excellent. we congratulate him on taking the seatment when making all appointments there are broad consultations with prominent members of the community and problems from the vacancies including the justice minister,
the chief justice of the superior court. the canadian bar association and legal societies. in all of the consultations we ask for names and advice on competence and qualities for the position. thank you. >> the secretary seems to have forgotten the government promised to be more open and allow parliamentarians to get involved. we know justice la belle is retiring november 30. can we expect parliamentarians to be consulted and how they will be consulted. i understand they are consulting the entire legal planet. but parliamentarians need to be consulted, too. in quebec, will the appointment be done as soon as justice la belle leaves? >> the parliamentary secretary. >> the government will consult broadly. always continuing to be so.
>> mr. speaker, there are prescription drug costs. one in ten can't afford to fill and canada has the second highest spending on prescription drugs. it's a clear priority to have drug coverage. this is missing in action. why is the federal government failed so much to reduce prescription drug costs. >> i was very pleased to discuss it at the health ministers meeting. for the last year i have been asking to have the federal government at the table to use our lerj and expertise to help with bulk drug purchasing plans. the council, the federation and the provinces have seen hundreds of hls to use the leverage to find more. >> the honorable member.
a report by the canadian federation of nurses unions says a national pharma care program could lead to potential savings of $11 billion. pooled purchases on prescription drugs alone could save $642 million. will the minister learn or continue to do nothing as she has as minister of health? >> as i indicated just now, mr. speaker, over the last year i have asked to be at the table with the provinces and territories to discuss using our expertise and leverage to be able to get more value and better savings for canadian taxpayers on the bulk drug purchasing plans. we hope to save taxpayers money. >> mr. speaker, i have been very encouraged to see canada take a leadership role in the global fight against the ebola outbreak
in west africa. canadian expertise is a valued commodity and the government is ensuring the supplies and resources are being provided where they are most need ed including the protective gowns, masks, and gloves that front line workers need to stay safe. can the minister of health please update the house on the latest developments in shipping canada's donated equipment? >> the honorable minister of health. >> i thank my colleague for the question and agree that canada is at the forefront. it's only because we are able to do this because of our investments by our government in our armed forces including buying four c-17s and 17
hercules aircraft. i'm thinkful we got the equipment so it can be used immediately. >> honorable member for dr drummond. parks canada cut more than 1100 permanent jobs, almost one-third of employees dismissed. under the conservatives watch there was no money to hire personnel but they have money to produce videos including the wolverine hip-hop. it's absurd, mr. speaker. parks canada generates $3.3 billion in our economy. how can the conservatives claim to be acting in the interest of canadians where they are cutting our wonderful parks? >> the honorable minister of the environment. >> thank you. our government is committed to investing in national parks and connecting canadians to our rich natural heritage. our commitment is shown by significant investments in national parks and the growing networks of parks. we have created two national parks, three national wildlife areas, three marine protected
areas and have tabled the legislation to create canada's first national urban park in the rouge valley. we are making significant investments to deliver long-term improvements to infrastructure. we'll continue to support and invest in our national parks so canadians can enjoy. >> the honorable member for halifax. >> committed to cutting over 1100 jobs. the conservatives cut programs and opening hours and changed guided tours to self guided visitor activities. not only are the people who safe guard our national treasures out of work but so are people in the community who rely on the full-year operation of oh parks. why are the conservatives pretending to support jobs in canadian heritage when they are firing workers and closing park gates? >> the honorable minister of the environment. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i have just stated that we are making significant investments in creating new parks and two national parks,
three national wild life areas, three marine protected areas and we have tabled legislation to create canada's first national urban park in the rouge valley. i encourage the opposition and liberal parties to support the bill. made significant long-term investments to improving parks infrastructures. thank you, mr. speaker. >> the honorable member from halifax. >> tomorrow the environment commissioner will be tabling her report n. the past the commissioner harshly criticized conservatives for inaction with regard to climate change. again today experts told us that ice melting is limiting hunting opportunities of polar bears. that affects their fertility and birt rates. are conservatives waiting for polar bears to be extinct before acting to fight climate change? the honorable minister of health of the environment.
>> thank you mr. speaker. our government's record is clear. we have taken actions on the environment while protecting our community. everyone has to do their fair share. canada is doing its part. 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. i announced a number of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from vehicles a few weeks ago. i announced our intent to regulate hfcs one of the mostest growing greenhouse gases in the world. we are accomplishing that without a job killing carbon tax which raises the price. >> the honorable member from halifax. >> the question was about polar bears and it is an issue for debate. the research was carried out for three decades and the implications are clear. >> order.
order. the honorable member for halifax has the floor. >> thank you. it's difficult to hear but the research was carried out over three decades and the implications are clear. polar bears are bears are getti and so is their population. we know that climate change is likely a major factor. while other nations are taking action on this, our government refuses to take action. so let's put aside the question of whether or not this minster believes in climate change and ask her this. will she address the serious issue and fund polar bear research and monitoring? >> thank you, in mr. speaker. i am looking forward to releasing a support that was concluded last week. canada has one of the best polar bear management systems in the world and last week i had the pleasure of meeting all the
first nations in northern ontario to go for the plan in polar bear management in conservation. our government's position on the polar bear management and conservation is based on science and traditional knowledge that those members have ignored for years. >> mr. speaker, during today's debate on the threat of isil, not much is being said by the minster of national security about the threat to canada by those canadians returning home, suspected of terrorism acts abroad. some progress we understand was being made on a united effort by the muslim community, the rcmp and others to combat homegrown terrorism with a strategy titled united against terrorism. however the rcmp has with drawn support. why? and was the minster involved in
this decision to withdraw rcmp report from this collaborative effort? >> mr. speaker, in this critical time, i command them to reach out to communities to prevent terrorism. it's a pillar of our strategy. this being said, mr. speaker, understand they are no longer participating in the program talked about in a review of the do you means and contents found it was inconsistent with those found. mr. speaker, on this side of the house -- >> we don't bow to terrorists. >> the question was not would they fwou terrorists, but what are they doing about terrorism? according to the document the threat to canada, individuals have returned to canada after travel for suspected
terrorism-related purposes and we believe that figure to be 80. how many of those have been arrested and charged under the combatting terrorism act? a series question and i want a serious 0. >> the honorable minster of public safety. >> we have a responsibility, an important responsibility to make decisions to ensure agencies that look after canadians's national safety have the tools necessary to protect canadians. why did that member and his party vote against revoking passports and vote against removing citizenship from the terrorists who use passports. >> the member for the ka ded. >> consumers are going up and yet the profits of small
retailers are diminishing. why do cards first run out. they are the first to pay themselves. nothing has been done to reduce credit card user fees. when are the conservatives going to step in to give relief to small businesses and families and limit the appetite of credit card companies? >> minster of finance, mr. speaker? canadian consumers deserve access to credit according to clear and transparent terms and conditions. that is why we have taken measures to protect canadians who use credit cards as follows. a ban on using checks on credit cards requiring clear and simple information providing prior notice and better information for canadian consumers to make informed decisions in their best
interests. >> mr. speaker, that question was about small businesses. let's try again and see if they can understand this. small and medium sized businesses at the heart of our economy, but the government ignored skyrocketing processing fees that smes are paying. canadian businesses have been waiting too long for this government to take action. even back in the summer of 2013, the competition tribunal in a rare move called for a regulatory framework. with small business week fast approaching, will they regulate processing fees? why has this government failed to act on this find? >> mr. speaker, we have been, wooing with the credit card companies with the banks and small businesses and we are looking forward to some volunteer actions taken by the
credit card companies which will be the interest of small companies as well as consumers. >> the honorable member. >> thank you, mr. speaker. our government failed to support projects and create jobs and grow the economy and significantly reduce gas emissions. last week i had the privilege of participating in the official opening of carbon capture sequestration project. the world's first technology. representatives from nearly 20 countries came in to observe firsthand this made in canada technology. can the minster of natural resources advise us how our government helped this project along. thank you. >> thank you, mr. speaker and thank the member for his advocacy. on this world leading technological advancement going
on in saskachewan in energy city, we were proud to promote the research and development of the sequestration and see the technology develop through commercialization at the boundary dam project. the technology that will reduce emissions at that equipment by 90%. mr. speaker, we remain committed to growing the economy and reducing emissions with world leading technologies. congratulations. >> the honorable member of chicago. >> over the past week, a half dozen e crane workers and a red cross worker have been killed despite the ceasefire. germany and france are talking about deploying armed forces to monitor that ceasefire. there is cross party support for ukraine and canada has influence there. will canada therefore be joining germany and france in further supporting the osc peace keeping and monitoring mission?
>> mr. speaker, canada has been at the forefront responding to the russian aggression in ukraine and have been one of ukraine's stronger supporters. mr. speaker, although we have the fighter in place, we can't provoke while in eastern ukraine and not seen any progress for russia to get support for the militan militants. >> the honorable member. thank you, mr. speaker. we were shocked to learn on friday that the health canada office will be closing. this means 34 lot of jobs and 1.5 billion and research is paying the price for
mismanagement. why don't they have the right to economic spin offs? >> you understand this is a paid consolidation issue and this doesn't affect frontline services on health. >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, thanks to the strong leadership of our prime minister, this government is a world leader in providing support for canadians living with disabilities. they introduced the savings plan and the first plan of its kind in the world to assess canadians with disabilities and families in saving for the long-term. could the minster update this on steps that we are taking to support parents in providing for their children and disabilities. >> one of the greatest concerns facing families with
disabilities is what will happen to the children when they are gone. they created the register disability savings plan. it's a great savings vehicle and a generous grant that the government created. under the leadership of the prime minister, sadly they never supported the great initiatives. families can count on them to do the right thing. >> bruce thompson was diagnosed with aggressive terminal cancer. his doctor said he has a few months to live. because he took time off when his father was dieing to help him, he is a few hundred short of the threshold. his claim was denied and his expedited appeal has been denied. bruce won't live through the rest of th a