tv House Session CSPAN March 12, 2015 12:00pm-8:01pm EDT
nation. when these businesses close, u.s. emissions will decrease. indiana once held a competitive advantage due to a low cost of electricity, but not anymore. indiana's low cost of electricity advantage has slipped, and epa regulations have significantly contributed to that change. the state utility forecasting group in indiana has forecasted a 30% increase in indiana electrical costs in part from new regulations. at the 111 d proposal will add additional costs. they predict that the 111 d proposal will increase the cost of gas and the cost of camelot per hour electricity by about 10% in the next six years. furthermore, the increases hit
the poor, elderly, and most of our liberal in our society pursed -- first. at a time when indiana is doing all it can to grow its economy the epa proposal proposed -- that it will slow our economic progress in raise people's utility bills. in indiana, we are obviously concerned about the economic impact of the proposed rules on business and consumers, but we have also filed that he one pages of technical comments. we want to make sure the rule does not result in unintended consequences such as reduced reliability resulting in ground outs. or not yet having all the necessary infrastructure in place to convert from coal to natural gas. for purposes of due diligence, indiana is evaluating all available responses to the proposed regulations from submitting estate plan to participating in original approach, or simply refusing to apply at all.
however, the fact that this misguided policy will affect hoosiers and other people in this country while actually increasing the worldwide level of the very emissions it is designed to decrease compels indiana to oppose the proposed regulations. thanks for the opportunity to share our views. chairman inhofe: the director of the wyoming department of environmental quality, you are recognized. mr. parfitt: i think the committee for inviting the state of wyoming to share its perspective of the clean power plan. the state of wyoming has provided extensive comments to the environmental protection agency on its proposed rule. we take great pride and how we
manage our natural resources providing for environmental stewardship in energy production. as our governor has stated, it is a false question to ask -- do we want energy production or environmental stewardship? we must have both. wyoming sends electricity to both the eastern and western power grids, reaching from iowa to washington. wyoming generated 49.6 million megawatts hours of electricity in 2012 with 66% of the electricity consumed beyond our borders. this electricity generation includes 88% coal and 9% wind. the epa's proposal impacts states differently. each state has unique characteristics that drive the application of the building blocks. for wyoming, the proposed goal is unrealistic to achieve.
each state has unique characteristics in energy portfolios that drive the application of each of the four building blocks. for wyoming, the proposed goal is automatic and unrealistic to achieve. the epa is proposing a compressed timeline in which states are asked to submit state plans. considering the perplexities of the proposal and developing a compliance plan along with needed legislation, the timelines are problematic if not unrealistic. wyoming's emission reduction requirement by 2020 is far greater. this disparity is referred to as the cliff. wyoming's evaluation identified data errors or incorrect assumptions. a focus on key concerns with renewable energy, since it has the largest impact on the proposed goal. 100% of co2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants regardless of end user, will be attributed to the energy producing states. 66% of electricity generated in wyoming is consumed outside its borders. according to the epa, renewable energy credits will be contributed to the consuming state, not the producing state.
85% of 4.3 million megawatts hours of wind energy generated in wyoming is consumed outside its borders. yet when epa calculated the state goal, they applied the 6% escalation factor to all 4.3 million megawatts hours generated in wyoming. more than half the land in wyoming is owned and managed by the federal government. subjecting many renewable projects. while the intent is good, the process is slow. the blm high-priority wind project took over four years. now the fish and wildlife service requires an additional decision. two federal fast-track transmission projects in wyoming are in their eighth year of the process. both are still awaiting a final decision. finally, the epa's assessment of available land in wyoming for wind development failed to
consider environmental conflicts such as greater sage grouse habitat, other critical habitats, and protected areas of cultural and historical significance. factoring in these considerations reduces lands for renewables, as proposed by 83%. all of these factors lead to an unrealistic goal for wyoming. now directing your attention to the graphs. graphs one depicts wyoming's path as proposed by the epa. senator inhofe: which one? mr. parfitt: it is on the right. graph one depicts a bar graph of wyoming's path as proposed by the epa. one can observe the dominant influence of the renewable's component as shown in green.
after review, wyoming determined what is practically achievable given epa's proposed avenues. this is shown in graph two. the colored bars were derived through extensive analysis by the state, representing what may be possible in wyoming. as can be seen, there is a wide gap between the analysis. based on the proposed goal and with limited options, the simplest illustration to meet the goal is to consider how many coal-fired power plants must a -- be closed. this would result in four plants closing, representing nearly 4200 megawatts of the states total coal fleet of over 6700 megawatts. strengthened investment would be nearly $1.5 billion and does not include the cost of replacement power.
we look forward to continued dialogue with the epa and other states as the epa considers our comments and reconsiders their proposal. thank you for allowing me to provide for the committee. senator inhofe: thank you. the commissioner of the service commission of wisconsin is recognized. ms. nowak: good morning, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak and provide you with a summary of our state assessment. i am the chairperson for the public service commission of wisconsin. last fall i was intimately involved with what the state of wisconsin submitted to the epa and i submitted those comments together with my written testimony for the record. wisconsin is a manufacturing heavy state with customers representing over one third of sales and over 60% of our state's power generation comes
from coal. if the problems are not remedied, the work wisconsin has come from coal. if the problems are not remedied the work wisconsin has done will be threatened. i also remain concerned about the reliability of the grid, considering the fast shift in energy production required by this proposal. with that background and because of the far-reaching impacts of the epa's clean power plan, we brought together an interdisciplinary team. this team consisted of public service experts and utility rate modeling, economics, environmental regulation, and engineering, along with department of natural resources experts in environmental regulation. using a standard modeling program, we forecast the cost of this regulation under a number of scenarios about the future. candidly, our team felt that taking into account the impacts of these regulations is a kind of analysis that should have been done by the epa before
making such a proposal. the result of our analysis have been provided to the committee. here are two highlights. this regulation will cost ratepayers between $3.1 billion and $13.4 billion. this is only a production cost increase. these costs are on top of what ratepayers have paid for since 2000. not only do we not receive credit, but the proposal actually penalizes wisconsin for being an early actor. as our assumptions about the
rule became more realistic, the costs rose. would you assume this reliance on natural gas would drive natural gas prices higher? that real assumption raises the cost of this. we question the very foundation of this proposal. the epa constructed four building blocks, each of which was evaluated independently. then to determine the foundation for the target reduction, the best system for emission reduction, they added the carbon dioxide reductions resulting from each of those building blocks. unfortunately, the epa eight >> the epa ignored how the building blocks would affect each other when all four were implemented together. increasing reliance on natural gas would severely decrease too far below the 6% required. epa used indiscriminate and unsupportable approaches to determine the building blocks. building block one applies a
heat rate to each plant regardless of the ability to realize those gains. in contrast, building block three takes a regional approach and is driven by portfolio standards found in states arbitrarily grouped together. as currently written, under any previous interpretation, the system proposed by the epa is actually not a system at all. first, the building blocks are outside the control of the omission owner or operator. second, they are not recognizable systems that can be applied to an emission unit, and they cannot guarantee certain greenhouse gas emission reduction when implemented as a whole. to further highlight this point engineers of the public service commission concluded the
building blocks would deliver a 15.6% reduction in carbon diooxide emissions. this is a far cry from the 34% the epa claims is necessary for wisconsin to comply. the timelines are unrealistic and unworkable. the lead time required for permitting and construction will require the full proposed compliance period through the end of 2030. i sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak to this committee today. you will find my submitted written testimony delves much deeper into the issues and the technical aspects we find troubling. we can agree on the need to protect our environment, but this proposed rule does not strike the right balance in protecting public health reliability of the grid, and economic security. thank you very much. senator inhofe: thank you. the first question i was going to ask, the problem you
submitted in compliance with building block one and they say they have to fit the federal program, would that create a problem? you adequately answered that. similarly, i would like to ask you -- north carolina proposed to delay a clean power plant until a final ruling. the administrator of the epa talked about 3.5 million dollars to hire a bunch of new attorneys because of all the lawsuits. i would ask you in your state of wisconsin, you could end up taking steps to comply with the clean power plan the state came back and found it was out of compliance. what kind of problem would that be for wisconsin?
ms. nowak: it creates a lot of uncertainty. as a regulator the ratepayers want certainty about what we may do. when we become commissioners they don't give us crystal balls. we cannot look into the future but we have to make the best decisions based on the information before us. we ran into a similar issue with the cross-state air pollution rule, and utilities were starting to make movements to comply. we have to do the best to allow them to try to recover, and we have to be judicious in spending ratepayer dollars. we will work closely to monitor legal proceedings that wisconsin is involved in so we do not unnecessarily pay ratepayer dollars. senator inhofe: mr. easterly
in your written testimony you elaborated a little bit more about how the clean power plant proposal could actually increase the cost -- increase the amount of emissions. this is a position i have held ever since lisa jackson said doing something unilaterally in the united states is not going to affect it because this is not where the problems are, as you saw in the chart. did you want to elaborate any more on the concept about the increase instead of decrease in emissions? mr. easterly: most of our businesses the basic bottom of our economy, the steel industry and the auto industry rely on energy costs, and they are internationally competitive. you can buy steel from brazil and india and russia and use it. why would you bother to bring the steel to the united states? you bring the finished product here. the emissions will happen in those countries.
some of those countries have decided -- i understand china signed an agreement to consider stopping the growth of their emissions by about 2030, but between now and 2030, those emissions are much higher. so our businesses have to maintain internationally competitive, i am concerned total emissions will go up. senator inhofe: thank you very much. ms. novak, have you done an >> ms. -- ms. nowak have you done an analysis as to how much of a rate increase would the psc have to approve to implement this plan? ms. nowak: we expected to be in the double digits, depending on which method of compliance we use. it could be in the upper 20% of an increase. right now we have more of an
aggregate number for the state to comply. how that is broken down on her ratepayer increase will be fleshed out. as they come in and ask for recovery, but this is going to be a significant increase on ratepayers all across the board. low income to large manufacturers. senator inhofe: i'm going to be asking you on the record or if there is time at the end of my six minutes, if you would agree with the position many have taken, that wouldn't it be better to wait until these controversial legal issues are cleared up before requiring them to comply? i want to hear your answer to that, so i would say to you, what parts of the clean power plan will require enactment of new laws in your state, and how long would it take to develop and implement these laws?
let's start with you. mr. parfitt: mr. chairman, as far as legislation that may need to be put into place, anything that would relate to a multistate plan if there were to be one developed would need some legislative discussion. anything dealing with a renewable portfolio standard -- basically building blocks three and four would likely require some legislation. now, the timing of that is our legislature meets for a 40-day session and a 20-day session, so alternating. our next session is a budget session. there are some timing concerns relating to when something can be brought to the legislature in a meaningful way as well. mr. easterly: in indiana our
legislature doesn't meet year-round. the next time they could consider things is 2016. we don't have authority for building blocks 2, 3, and 4. we have an 18-month rulemaking process. senator inhofe: any further comment? ms. nowak: we have at least a three-year rulemaking process on a controversial rule. we don't have authority over building blocks three and four if we were to increase or change energy efficiency standards, which adds to the timeline. senator inhofe: thank you. senator boxer? senator boxer: i am stuck with some of the states attitude. we have states during this prospering far more than your states. that is what stuns me. it's ok. i respect your view. i want to ask this question.
when you listen to mr. easterly respond to my chairman, actually these rules could mean we would be increasing carbon worldwide because some companies will leave the state. they will be so upset at these rules. have we found companies leaving california? last i checked silicon valley was booming. we have increases in manufacturing. am i wrong? ms. nichols: you are not wrong. we have experienced growth across the board. particularly in the clean energy sector in california because of our policies. we are the leading state in terms of investment in clean technology and renewable energy in the country. solar energy in particular is booming. we have samome natural advantages.
solar energy in particular is booming. there needs to be transition time for all industries in all states. when we implemented our cap on carbon emissions with a trading program, there were many who were concerned about the rising cost of electricity to our manufacturing sector. no governor can afford to take no governor can afford to take risks with lights going out. that's job one. no matter how much we care about the environment and greenhouse gases, we know our job is to make sure the lights stay on. i think it's important to recognize this proposal does have within it the flexibility and the time needed. i recognize the concerns, and i think they are legitimate concerns, but i would assert the
proposal which they will be modifying as they go forward can address those concerns. senator boxer: i think that's an important point. you make it very clear we made a transition time. i think she does get that. gina mccarthy is sensitive to the states. last year christie todd whitman testified before our clean air subcommittee that it was settled the clean air act can be used to control carbon pollution. our epa's proposed carbon standards in massachusetts in 2007, 2011, and the utility air regulatory group in 2014.
mr. myers: yes, they are. the massachusetts versus epa case recognized the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. the connecticut versus american electric power case was a case new york was involved in where we sought to get at the same emissions the epa clean power plan is going to get out. -- going to get at. the supreme court in that case told us federal common law did not apply because it speaks directly to the power plant emissions. with respect to the last decision, the decision you mentioned, the supreme court reaffirmed epa's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and found under the stationary permanent program if you're a limiting certain pollutants you have the best control technology for co2 emissions. i think all towedld, those
decisions provide sound emissions. senator boxer: last month the council which owns a dozen utilities across the country stated about the states compliance stated about the compliance with the power plant, and i would like to get your reaction, if the state wants push back against the plan, that is ok but we need to have a backup plan. because if we do not, we will be caught in a situation without any option. she also stated the clean power plan's targets are achievable and urged wyoming to collaborate with other states to achieve them. do you agree with rocky mountain power that wyoming would be best served by completing a state compliance plan?
>> i can't speak specifically to the comments of rocking on >> of rocky mountain power -- of rocky mountain power what i can say is, our evaluation, when we look at the entirety of the plan, it does not work for wyoming. as i showed in the charts, the options in building blocks presented by epa in the proposal do not work for wyoming. we would say no. we have more than one utility. senator: last question. have you told epa your concerns? have you given some options to the epa? they want to work with the states. have you let them know how you feel and what is wrong with what they are doing for wyoming? mr. parfitt: we have provided
comments and have had discussions since the comment period. senator boxer: thank you. senator inhofe: thank you, senator boxer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. during the time we were on the campaign trail, and i am new to the committee and process, one of the items we talked about a lot was the anticipated cost to the average american family with regard to an increase in their costs for electric rates. the u.s. chamber of commerce estimated the average cost to the average american family would be approximately $1400 more per year in their electric rates. i was curious, a recent statistic that comes in the case of my state, south dakota. our rates would increase probably about 20% or more as a result of the clean power plan.
this is significantly more than the 8.8 cents per kilowatt hour that we pay now. compliance costs could well exceed $50 per ton of carbon. what impacts will this have on ratepayers in wyoming and in surrounding states? i know people in south dakota receive power from wyoming. wyoming supplies power because of your location. you have been an exporter of power. could you sure about what impact this will have for the rates in other states as well. mr. parfitt: we do provide power to other states. our compliance path, taste on
the proposal, results in the premature closure of plants, it would likely result in the raising of rates for all customers, not just those in wyoming. >> what does the epa propose how do they propose you respond to those stranded costs? what is their expectation? mr. parfitt: this is an issue we raised with epa before the proposal was put out to notice. in hopes that would be taken into consideration. in our view, it has not been taken into consideration. we do not see, at this point the off ramp. we have expressed this concern in our comments. we are waiting to see how they
might respond in june with the final proposal. >> you have not have gotten a response? the places where your organization contracts to provide ongoing electoral power? those stranded costs, you don't know how they will be handled? mr. parfitt: epa has not handled >> conveyed -- conveyed how they will address this particular comment. the conversation we have had has been primarily to get clarification on some of the corrections we pointed out within the proposal. >> the epa claims the rules give states flexibility to create their own plans. it appears that it overlooks the fact that electricity transmission does not stop at state borders. many states including south dakota depend on neighboring
states. epa's modeling suggests under the proposal wyoming could cut generation by 7.5 million megawatts hours. how will you continue to power the regional economy with cuts like this? is that an accurate statement? mr. parfitt: as far as how we would continue if we are looking at closing down existing power plants, that would create a reliability issue. this is getting out of my expertise. as far is how to maintain reliability. >> thank you, i appreciate your time. i yield back.
senator inhofe: senator carper. senator carper: thank you for the work you do. presenting your thoughts and responding to our questions. i come by these issues not as a sitting senator but a recovering governor. i want to assure the perspective from the state of delaware and someone who was born in west virginia, whose father was a coal miner. we would have been out of compliance in delaware. the folks who are creating cheap electricity -- senator mcconnell: good afternoon, everyone. in the years i have been here, you would take you have seen sort of everything over the
years, but we are confronted here with a bill on the floor with the most unusual situation i can ever recall. this is a measure that went through the regular order. it was called up in committee for markup. it was reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously. senate democrats as recently as monday said it was ok to proceed to the bill without having a motion to proceed to the bill. and now they have for several days been filibustering a bill that was unanimously reported out of committee that was so noncontroversial that was -- that we went right to it, and preventing amendments at the same time. i'm going to call on the folks behind me who have been deeply involved in this issue and in particular, senator cornyn, the original author of the measure but the reason i'm here today is to mention at 2:00 i will
forward a consent agreement to allow the friends on the other side a civil up or down vote on the provision they have seen to have finally discovered that apparently causes them widespread angst and with a simple majority vote, if they have the votes, they will be able to take that provision of the bill out. that is about as fair as you could possibly be in trying to process and move forward this bill which we had hoped to have open for amendment but have been prevented from offering amendments by the tactics that have been employed by the other side. enough said about process and procedure. let me turn to senator cornyn to talk about the measure. senator cornyn: i'm sure the majority leader's bill were to month at where we find ourselves, of course, in addition to the fact that he
mention, we have 10 democratic cosponsors on the original legislation, now presumably senator reid is unwilling to let his caucus to vote to allow amendments on this legislation. this objection that came up just a couple of days ago i think it is worth noting has been called a phantom problem. the reason why it is a phantom problem is because it is basically the same provision that has been the law of the land for 39 years. and a provision which our democratic friends have routinely voted for in appropriation bills and elsewhere. sadly, i think this is a continuation of the dysfunction that we have seen under the previous majority leader in the previous majority. as you recall, on november 4 there was quite a referendum on the way things have been run here in the united states
senate and the fact that even members of the minority party could not get a majority -- majority party, excuse a could not get folks on their provisions, their amendments to legislation. all this has really masked the people who are really going to lose by this filibuster by senator reid and his colleagues on the deval patrick site. it is going to be the victims of human trafficking that are going to benefit from this legislation. senator thune and i were on the floor, among others, pointing out the fact that the average age of a victim of human trafficking is a girl between the ages of 12 and 14 and pointing out for the first time we are going to be going after the people that on the demand side and cause them to have to pay penalties and fines which will then be turned around and be redirected to help the victims heal and get on with their lives. so why our democratic friends
would choose them, these victims, to hold hostage for partisan politics and the kind of dysfunction that we rejected last november at the polls is really prepared text -- perplexing. i hope there is a change of heart. there will become a i think, if they continue to hear from their constituents around the country. there is a lot of people that are stepping up, 200 different organizations that have supported this legislation that provide services either to victims or law enforcement. so with that, i would like to turn the floor over to senator thune and then senator ernst for any comments that would like to make. senator thune: this is some that you have marshaled and work to the committee process and brought to the floor in an unprecedented way, really because we got a unanimous vote coming out of the committee democrats voting for it, and then the vote for to proceed to
the bill on the floor of the senate, all democrats voting for it. if ever there was an issue that should be above and beyond politics, this is it. we're talking about the lives of 100,000 children in this country who every single year are trafficked, bought, and sold in a way that is abhorrent and something that brutalizes the most innocent young people in this country. and the legislation before us attempts to address that in a number of ways. it does go after the traffickers, as senator cornyn mentioned, gives our law enforcement authorities the tools they need to target the traffickers, and then make them pay penalties which fund the many activities that will be helped to use to help restore the lives of the victims. so on a substance level, it is something that nobody -- there should be no disagreement about. the ironic thing about what is
evidently now in the eyes of democrats, at least, derailed seven that has such a unanimous support here in the united states senate is language, that they all voted for as recently as december of 2014. 55 democrats voted in support of the hyde land which on the omnibus spending bill that was passed last year. it is a normal practice and has been for 40 years. as senator cornyn put an, the land which is, a position that has been a consensus view around here that tax dollars should not go to support abortions. that has been the case here literally since 1976, when it comes to spending measures. this should not have surprised anyone, and the fact that it is a 68-page bill that went through regular ordered -- we talked about returning to regular order, the file was marked up in february -- the bill was filed in january, marked up in february,
went to the renderers -- rigorous process. it really is unconscionable. it is just unconscionable that the democrats would put politics in front of solving a problem in this country that is so desperately in need of a solution. and so we are where we are. there are in the wrong place. i think they know it. i think they're coming to that realization, and i hope that given the opportunity this afternoon to have that vote, as senator mcconnell has proposed, the democrats will get their chance to have that vote and hopefully we can get on with the business at hand, which is doing everything that we can to address what has become a crisis in this country and that is the trafficking of underaged young people, particularly women between ages of 12 and 14, and brutalization of the most innocent people in our society. that has got to stop.
before that can stop the politics here in united states senate has to stop and the democrats have to let this build move forward. senator ernst? senator ernst: thank you, all, for coming to the comments -- for coming today. thank you for being here. as the mother of three beautiful daughters, and as someone who as a young woman volunteered my time energy at a women's crisis shelter that dealt with many of these forms of abuse this is important legislation. this legislation is near and dear to my heart. so it is very disheartening to see that partisan politics, the political theatrics that we are seeing this week with this important legislation. human trafficking can not the allowed to continue.
it should not exist. and this is essentially modern-day slavery. we have the opportunity to do something about it, and we must do something about it. senate democrats in the judiciary committee voted unanimously to bring this will forward -- this bill forward and as my colleagues have stated, the limits that was found in this bill is nothing new. this is language that has existed for 39 years. so essentially, what they are saying is it was hidden, it was hidden. it was not hidden. this is language that again has been in existence. we're maintaining the status quo with this legislation. so senate democrats, either failed to read that bill or again they are just playing
partisan politics and political theatrics with an important issue. again, as a mother come as a grandmother, we cannot allow our children to be victimized. and now that we have the opportunity to do something about it, we must push this issue, and we must bring this will forward for a vote. -- this bill forward for a vote. senate democrats voted unanimously to bring this bill out of committee, and there were 10 cosponsors, democratic cosponsors of this bill. i am imploring arsenate democrats to stop the theatrics. let's take the opportunity to do something very important for not only our nation's children, but other children being brought into the united states. that's enforce these -- let's enforce these laws, and let's protect our children. again, thank you for being here this afternoon.
>> thank you very much. i am not sure what has already been described, but the talk about why this issue is so important. 15 years ago the house and senate passed legislation on human trafficking. i supported it when i was in the house. in the time since then, we've learned a lot more about this problem. we know that it is more endemic than any of us would wish it were. we know is everywhere, and everyone of our cities -- in every one of our cities. in ohio i got involved because schoolchildren came to me and work concerned about the -- and were concerned about the issue in the senate i have been in a caucus that was cofounded by senator blumenthal and myself. it has been not just bipartisan, it has been nonpartisan. we have been operating the last
2 1/2 years. we have monthly meetings when we bring people in from around the country, expert on the issue child welfare officials victims and selves out about what is happening so we have a better sense of what the problem is, but what some of the solutions are. and some of the legislation that is included in the bill we should be considering on the far right now instead of standing here in front of you frankly comes out of the process. and this is an urgent issue, not one where we can say because of the politics of today, let's put it off until next are, after the next election. this is about the most vulnerable among us, and it is about insuring they are protected from getting into this trap, but for the them to get out of it, and to give them the ability to get their lives back together, by providing love and support in a caring environment. it is about law enforcement
being able to identify this problem, having tools they need as prosecutors to be able to go after these cases. i will give you three examples of what is in this legislation. one is with regard to children who fall into this trap, average age between 12 and 14 years old and as a father of a daughter and someone who again has heard a lot of the stores back home, talked a lot -- the stories back home, talked to a lot of the victims, this is the most heinous crime because they are going after the most vulnerable. these kids and up getting into the criminal justice system because they are viewed as really part of the crime more as christmas. -- more as criminals. they should be viewed as victims. there is no thing as child prostitution. let's pull them out of this and given support they need.
unfortunately, i love that support is now increasingly drug treatment, in ohio, heroin is the drug of choice among these predators. they get these kids dependent on heroin. this is the element of human bondage where they are so dependent on the human trafficker because of the addiction to the drug that they get trapped. it is all the difficulties we all know about with treatment and recovery and rug addiction but is beyond that. it is about the emotional scars that come with this experience and about helping these young people get back on their feet so that they can find their ability to move ahead in life, so it is foster parents that get it and understand it, child welfare agencies that give them support, people in the community helping them. that is in this legislation. a second is increasing the penalties. this comes from 15 years of experience since we were last at this in the united states congress. in the last 15 years we know
more about it. prosecutors is an officials -- prosecutors and officials tell us this is what we want to have in terms of tools, not just to increase sentencing and also with regard to the interstate commerce which much of this is, where there is a federal role, give us better tools. there will be amendments offered here that will make it better for the cooperation between state and local and federal law enforcement. being able to find missing children before they are victimized. we know children in foster care, children who go missing, children who are abuse are more likely to be vulnerable to sex trafficking. he know this because unfortunately around the country we have more -- about it. if we can find these kids before they are found by one of these predators, it is more likely we can save them. this legislation says let's have a photograph of these children
and better information on who they are. in ohio we have had 71 kids go missing since january 1. 71 kids. we have photographs for 22 of them. for the others, it is difficult to find them when you do not have a photograph because the photograph goes to the national database, but it also goes out to law enforcement, the shelters, agencies, our communities so people can be vigilant and help. this is in this legislation. i know we do a lot of important work around here on things like budgets and taxes and energy and health care and all that is important, it really is. we all want a strong economy, we all want our country that has better institutions, that works better, that this is about the most vulnerable among us. this is one has never been partisan, at least in my experience. everyone of the bills i talked
about, my two bills in the underlying legislation, mms are all -- my amendments are all bipartisan. there are issues with that legislation that some members have on the other side of the aisle. let's debated. let's move forward. if they have a concern, offer a vote on that concern. whatever it is. that is how the senate is a postoperative, but let's not block it. if we can pass this legislation i think the house will take it up eagerly and pass this legislation, i think the president will sign this in a ceremony that will look unlike most signing ceremonies in that there will be a bipartisan group and there will be kids up front and it will be about how even in this terribly partisan environment we have in washington, we can make progress on some important issues. there are only mothers and fathers and legislators want to do the right thing by the people
they represent. >> questions? reporter: it is clear how broadly this bill is supported. it is rare. it is pretty clear that democrats, whether they -- they missed it, that the change from last year, they did not realize until the bill was already on the floor. given the fact that somebody screwed up or that the issues are way more important than that, why not take out this one little part and let the bill go? senator cornyn: senator mcconnell said he will give the democrats a chance to vote on that at 2:00. reporter: democrats will not vote for that. senator cornyn: this has been the law for 39 years. senator against is exactly right. this maintains the status quo. in order to buy this argument
that they were surprised by this, you would have to suppose that all of the professional staff for all the senate judiciary committee did not read the bill, did not know what was in the bill, and they did not advise their senator on the elements of the legislation. i'm not going to talk about e-mails between staff and that sort of thing. i think that is really beside the point. the fact of the matter is, as senator portman and senator thune have pointed out, this has always been bipartisan. it should alwayuss remain bipartisan, and to a couple of days ago, it was bipartisan. in order to think that people missed it and all of a sudden discovered it just this week, would -- really is not plausible. reporter: that somebody is not telling the truth? senator cornyn: people who'd use
this effort that this will provide for these child victims of human trafficking should be a saint -- should be ashamed of themselves if they're going to block this legislation for political purposes. reporter: this legislation has been in the public domain. was there and acknowledgment on their side before the vote that they did -- have they acknowledge that? senator cornyn: there were discussions on the staff level about the provisions of the bill, so this is not a surprise. reporter: a different subject. senator cornyn: why not let us finish the trafficking. reporter: how is the use of those funds documented? senator cornyn: this goes through the department of justice through existing grams subject to audit and other criteria. i would add that all of those
current funds come those programs that are currently in place are subject to the same funding restriction that now the democrats are objecting to, even though it has been the law of the land that senator ernest said, for 39 years. reporter: with the government know that the funds went to an abortion? senator cornyn: the prohibition has been there since 1976. except in case of the exceptions, under the hyde amendment. reporter: you say it has been the law of the land for decades. the senate will have other opportunities to renew the hyde amendment. why is it important that it is in this legislation? senator cornyn: the status quo is that no taxpayer funds will go to abortion. that has been the one aaronarea
this has been the one bipartisan consensus, no tax dollars used for that purpose. look, this is a phantom excuse. i do not believe that senate democrats do not read the legislation. i do not believe their staff did not catch this provision because it was as plain as the nose on your face, hiding in plain sight. this is more about politics, more about adding to the dysfunctional nature of this institution. you would think our colleagues would have learned something asked november when they lost the majority primarily because of senator reid and the way he ran this institution. we have tried to change things and actually passed legislation that would actually help these victims of human trafficking because that is what our constituents, the american people said they wanted. reporter: [indiscernible] this is a relatively new use of that language. senator cornyn: that is how the
money is spent on appropriation bills, but there are other authorization bills like the affordable care act act that have had some version of this. what is so crazy is i believe all senate democrats voted for an appropriation bill during the lame-duck session of congress late last year that included this same language. in fact, the reference in the underlying bill is to that legislation that they all voted for. why in the world would they find this objectionable now other than just politics? reporter: senator leahy said that the -- would be funded only from assessments for convicted criminals, and it would not necessarily add up to $30 million. why are you so inches to help these people -- [indiscernible] as he tried to get in the bill in committee?
senator cornyn: this is not illusory. when i was attorney general in texas, one of my responsibility was to manage the victims fu nd. taking the penalties and the fines that are paid by the people who commit the crimes and now using this to redirect that money to pay for services to help heal the victims of that crime. i would say that is contrary to my experience and that is contrary to the truth of the mast -- vast majority of the state to have a crimes victim compensation fund in some form or another. reporter: have you had second thoughts about the letter to the iran leaders? senator cornyn: can we come back to that? reporter: [indiscernible] senator cornyn: that has been
one of the problems. the super bowl in dallas a few years ago, i learned for the first time that unfortunately a lot of this crime travels with super bowls and all the activity associated with that. the fact of the matter is any of these victims not consider themselves victims it or because they are addicted to drugs or being coerced or otherwise held captive. many of them think that the people who are actually exploiting them care about them. so many times it is not until after it is over that they can look back and say that i was truly a victim of human trafficking. the fact is most of this happens outside of our field of vision outside of our experience, and so most people do not know about it, but it exists. it is an epidemic. it is something we have a chance to do something about if we can overcome this partisan division which has created so much disruption here. reporter: if you do not have
agreement, what are you going to do? senator cornyn: we are going to pass this legislation. is there any other question about the trafficking issue? yes, sir. reporter: does the hyde exception for rape, does that apply to the young girls who have been prostituted who became pregnant? senator cornyn: yes. rape is a crime and rate is excluded under the hyde amendment limitations. that is another reason why they should not be objecting to this. anybody -- yes sir. reporter: could i ask you as members of the home and security committee, your action to the report that secret service agents were allegedly drinking and driving and running into a barricade. does that concern you that the culture of the secret service has not changed enough with recent scandals, and does that draw to question the director's leadership?
senator ernst: it is troubling but i would like to have more facts on the situation before i have speculation on this issue. reporter: is there any expectation that you're going to >> of course i have concerns. i also have a lot of faith in two clancy. i believe he is the right person for the job at this time. he has talked about zero tolerance and i expect him to react accordingly to these reports. as you know, he has already disciplined a number of the secret service members. he will need to continue to do that, apparently, and establish the culture from the top. which is that this agency which has such a distinguished record needs to get back to its core and incredibly important
mission. i am looking for to hearing from director clancy about this incident. i'm sure he will take it very seriously and take action immediately. reporter: you have any second thoughts about signing onto the letter to iran? have you had any second thoughts? >> i send it for a very simple reason. i wanted a good agreement with iran and i think it helps to get a good agreement. it is congress that has taken the lead on sanctions. it was the administration that was reluctant and it was the sanctions that got congress to the table in the first place. letter said that congress is going to have a role.this has to be verifiable
and strong agreement that and their nuclear program and if it is not it is not going to pass muster here. i think it helps to get a good agreement. they said from the start, new agreement is better than a bad agreement. there's a third option, a good agreement. i hope with the use of leverage of congress initially being tougher lets the i iranians know we are serious. hope to see out of this process of stronger agreement, one we can all support. reporter: senator -- >> remarks from senate republican leaders on a number of topics, focusing mostly on the debate on human trafficking bill in the senate.
the senate will be voting this afternoon in an attempt to move that no a long. you can see it live on c-span2. in the meantime, a tweeted statement about the shootings of two police officers. he says in part, this heinous assault on to brave law-enforcement officers was inexcusable and are pungent. -- repugnant. he goes on to say, we continue to stand unequivocally against violence against cops. secretary holder is expected to have more on the shootings and we are planning to have that live on c-span. >> this week, c-span is in new hampshire for road to the white
house coverage as several potential republican candidates. tonight on at 8:00, we will be in manchester with lindsey graham. friday night, 7:45 p.m. live on c-span, we take you to dover, new hampshire with jeb bush. saturday, scott walker as republican party grassroots workshop in concord. sunday night, ted cruz at the annual lincoln reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016 on c-span. >> remarks from attorney general eric holder coming up at 1:15 p.m. until then, discussion on how congress votes on limited government legislation. >> we want to welcome back to
the table david mcintosh, or presenting indiana -- representing indiana in the 1990's. what is your group and your goals? what do you hope to differently? guest: it is the leading organization for limited government policies on the economic side. we support balanced budget and reduce taxes to create private sector economic growth and free trade. and a stable money supply. those are the policy that club advocates. recently we came out with ratings of all the members from last year. we do that and make that available for the public so they can see how their members stack up on key votes that relate to
economic growth. post: why do you think it has an impact? guest: it is for constituents and voters to know how their members stack up. they campaign saying that they are going to be a free market, strong supporter of policies. the scorecard tells them how consistent they were on those issues, one after another in congress. host: we're showing the top five members in the house. why these five members? guest: those numbers were at the top of the list with the highest scores. justin had a perfect 100%. he is always a progrowth vote. there were a total of 34 members
who in the house and senate who received our defenders of the economic freedom award. they scored 90% or above. we recognize that members will score differently but that is a consistent, time after time, voting for free market progress. host: the top five senators. tell our viewers, what legislation recently, high-profile registration that they supported or oppose that gave them this top rating? guest: all the scores were considered, whether or not they would be on the scorecard. loading on the keystone pipeline, for example. proving that would increase -- the budget bill, opposing the
murray budget. host: the paul ryan-murray budget? guest: yup. we did not score paul ryan well either. it did not have any support that would lead to economic growth. and the farm bill which was a huge subsidy. one of the things the club really stands firm on his -- is, don't have the government intervene on the ivan marketplace. the compensation be the watchword, not government. host: how is john boehner doing ? guest: we would like to see him move to progrowth tax cuts. legislation that would help us
overturn the new internet regulations the fcc has. they could simple make a decision not to but a bill on the floor and then it would expire because that program has been sunset. host: would you like to see a challenge? would you like to see one of them challenges speaker boehner for the pose we are not about challenging the leadership. our goal would be to have him lead in the house and for the house to pass the decision that would help the economy. we don't get involved with those types of leadership questions. host: upshot column in the new york times about the republican tax plan. they write --
should republicans shift their focus is to family-friendly tax cuts? guest: we would vote in favor of those who create economic growth. for example, we are a strong supporter of tax reform that would reduce the corporate rate both for large corporations and family businesses run by individuals. cut the individual rate as well, you will see a lot more employment and job opportunities, particularly for our young students who have been -- for our young people who have been facing a situation when they go to college and cannot find a job when they are done. those are the kinds of tax cuts we prefer. we strongly support members who advocate for those. this host: marco rubio came out with a plan that seeks to resolve the debate by giving both sides what they want.
big new tax cuts for families, like a tax credit, as well as big tax cuts for owners of capital, including a tax rate of zero on dividends and capital gains. would you support that legislation if it came to the for in the house controlled by republicans? guest: i think that is a very good bill. the parts we focus on are the progrowth elements of it. they include the middle-class family tax. -- family tax relief that will provide help for families. it will not necessarily have the economic stimulus we are looking for, but that type of bill and that creative approach is what we hoping they will send to the floor. host: let's talk more about the export and import. writing about that this morning in the washington post saying, a bank with congress in its pocket, saying both democrats and republicans support the export import bank because it benefits constituents companies in their districts and in their
state. guest: it is no different than all of the earmarking going on in the appropriations bill. members want to go home and claim credit. in order to benefit our district. our view is the private sector will provide the same financing. the companies, boeing and ge that used the export import bank, have said in their public disclosures, if it goes away, we can still finance sales of the product overseas. a direct subsidy to big corporation. a political payoff. members have told me we want to be with you on this, but we had 20 different lobbyists this week tell us we need to be for the export import bank. that is because they are representing a constituency that gets that federal subsidy, like welfare. a better, free market approach
is to say to let the private market take care of it. everybody indicates it can be done, will be done, and then as george points out, you do not have congressman putting their thumb on the scale, i want a loan for my constituent and politics does not enter into it and frankly the taxpayers should , not be paying for that. host: what have you heard from lawmakers about the debate? be authorization for the agency expires in june. guest: what we have been hearing from the chairman is that he is confident the majority of the republicans would like to see the whole program just expire. what we're hoping is that the speaker will listen to this conference and understand that is consistent with republican views of free market, we hear them campaign about it. when i was running, i campaigned on that. they all do. make the decision and say, we do not need to schedule that will. host: let's get to calls.
chuck, democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: good morning. you said you track everybody's voting record. i would wonder if you could tell me who inserted the language to get rid of the dodd frank stuff. like yesterday, they were all stating what they put into the bill for human trafficking. the inserted the part about abortion but everyone was bragging about what they put in and i did i hear nothing on the abortion thing. i was wondering if you could tell me. guest: let me take that last one and say i can't. that is not one of the issues the club has followed in the economic agenda. on the dodd frank question, you have asked a good one. the work done in the house to try to pull back onerous
regulation, there has a lot of headlines today saying the banks have struggled to deal with the bill. it ends up holding them back from creating new and innovative financing products. the main people who have been working on that are the chairman and his committee that have some -- that have done a lot of reforms. host: headlines this morning about big banks struggling. four of the biggest names struggle to pass the federal reserve 2015 stress tests. it underscores the constraints annual exercise imposes on the largest tanks more than six years after the 2008 crisis. guest: what i think this shows is that the whole program does basically does not work. investors are confident in them. instead, they have to dedicate a
lot of time and manpower and money and resources complying with a plethora of federal regulation. and capital requirements the market may or may not require. the reason the federal government was doing that is because they subsidize them in a too big to fail program. much better to let the marketplace work the way it is supposed to work and have the discipline of competition and the threat of failure and the shareholders will then demand the banks have the right risks portfolio because they do not want to lose their money. instead, we have replaced the market discipline with government regulation that wastes a lot of time, money, and effort, and has proved to be a huge burden. host: supporters of dodd frank say the space were not -- save the banks were not regulating themselves and that is what led to it. you say do away with the requirements that make thanks
make thanks think they have skin in the game and then have them fail? guest: i would set reasonable capital requirements and then let the marketplace discipline them on it, but tell them, if you fail, you fail. we will not be there to bail you out. host michael in seattle, : democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: i wonder why on god's green earth anyone would ever listen to anything this gentleman and his group ever had to say about anything ever again. their version of a trickle down ayn rand survival of the physics economics has proven to be a spectacular failure anytime it has ever been implemented. exhibit a is resident clinton president clinton came in office and increased taxes in his first budget. every republican voted against it and every republican sounded like chicken little on megadoses of acid.
everyone of them was wrong. a booming economy, 23 million jobs and left a record surplus. at the end of george bush's catastrophic reign of error, a massive chain dollar tax cut which left the economy in shambles, a surplus, and created -- squandered a surplus and created a paltry 2 million jobs. 20 million jobs for president clinton, and 2 million jobs for george bush, will go down as history as the worst president in the history of the united states and even a staunch conservative republican said like joe scarborough said that in 2010, george bush "had the worst fiscal record of any president ever." it has been a spectacular failure and will be. guest: what michael does not share with you is the rest of the story. bill clinton had a terrible economy for the first two years and in 1994, the american people said, this is not working, and senate republican congress that
actually passed tax cuts and bounced to the budget, we saw the economic growth. it is not the personality, bill clinton or no bill clinton, it is the type of policies they passed. they went from big government , higher taxes, more spending and failed economic policies to lower taxes, balanced budget deregulation to make sure the internet was not regulated. then we saw on economic boom and 23 million jobs created. host: linda, michigan, independent caller. caller: this gentleman is just espousing the same policies we have heard from republicans since reagan or trickle down more tax cuts for the wealthy, and sticking it to the middle-class as usual. it does not work. he did not work under reagan. it does not work now. we throw tax cuts at wealthy businesses.
they are not earmarked to anything. it is not earmarked to job growth. it is just "here, let's throw money at you and hope you do something for us with it are co- ." tax cuts do not create jobs. demand create jobs. people making a decent living create demand, which creates job. throwing money at wealthy people, they put it in their pocket. you basically financed our own job loss. this money, ok, we will take that money and invest in machinery here, outsource the jobs, in source the labor. it is the same old scam it has always been. guest: the middle-class have been the ones who suffered the most under obama's approach of handing out taxpayer dollars in subsidies. our view is, do not bring the money to washington and try to recycle. leave it with people with their own families and their own
businesses, and they will create their jobs. we have seen it work time and time again. we have greater prosperity when people have more of their money and are free to make decisions on how to use it, spend it, and invest it. that will be the best for the middle-class. it is a much better deal for the middle-class when you have free market forces. the people who suffered the most are not the largest corporations in america. it is the middle-class and small businesses. that is where our economic program will do the best good. host: talk about the scorecard a little more and how it translates to money for those who score high and those who score low. guest: we advocate for free market positions. we have an affiliated political action committee, and that makes decisions, looking at the scorecard, the members who score well, we support. sometimes, there are members who score badly.
if they end up having a challenger in a primary, the club for growth says, we will not only blindly support republicans. we will support members and challengers to members who would do a better job on our issues. this year, and this cycle, getting ready for 2016, we have identified as a chief priority. six of the senators we supported in the past to help them get reelected because they all scored 90% or above on our scorecard. ron johnson, mike lee, marco rubio, rand paul, tim scott, those are the six and the political action in the club will support in the election. host: here is a piece in defense of john boehner's speakership.
he wrote, the rise of groups such as club for growth ensured that house members no longer had to rely on the goodwill of the leadership to raise money. an alternative money source arose, one that some members who would not fall in line as the ideal, not a problem. as a member of congress yourself who came into the 1994 wave and worked with speaker newt gingrich, isn't there something to say about having party unity, everybody on the same page, and not working against those in your party? guest: i think the key is a -- the key to creating party unity and allows things to be done in the house is a pretty simple formula about how to govern based on an election. tell the voters what you will do. you win the election and get the majority. then you do what you told them.
the problem with republicans in this congress is they told the voters, for example on repealing obamacare, we will make that our number one priority for three elections, they told the voters that. we will see how they do. it is a big test coming up. will they use the budget process, reconciliation, to fully repeal obama care? if they do that, the voters who sent them there say yes, we are confident you will do what you promised to do. a rule of the club is to call them on it and say when you said this in the last election, you are not doing it. that is where the members we support feel emboldened to tell the leadership, get with the program this is what we tell , voters we will do. host: that is the next fight you see, the next debate, whether or not we see the process of reconciliation to do away with the affordable care act?
guest: i think that is key. we acknowledge president obama is unlikely this to sign the bill. the voters recognize that care but what they want to see his is congress doing everything it can do appear that is the next step it could do to move that along. when i was there in the 1990's, president clinton did not like welfare reform. we used the legislation process to send it to him three times and it finally passed and proved to be successful. my hope is if the republicans in congress follow the pledges they made to voters, do the hard work, it could someday change. host: anthony in massachusetts a democratic caller, you are next. caller: the first thing you said when you sat down is that tax cuts for the rich was the answer. i would like to talk to you about president herbert hoover in 1929, who made a whole lot of rich people, called the roaring
20's. we had the worst depression we have ever had in the world. 1958, president eisenhower had a crash in the economy. president nixon froze wages on people and he had the highest unemployment ever created. president reagan cut taxes on the rich in 1981 and he had a bad economy because in 1984, he ran for reelection and said the economy was really bad and he blamed it on president carter. he had the highest deficit tripled the debt. then he had the highest deficit
ever created by a single president in the united states at $2.8 trillion. he had 11% unemployment. i bought a home in texas under his regime in 1988, and i had to pay 11.2% in the interest rates on a home. president george w. bush cut taxes on rich people for three times and he created this crash, and now you claim that this president had a difficult time trying to get people back to work without your help ever? guest: actually, i did not make that claim at all, nor that i did i say taxes for the rich
. i prefer tax cuts for everybody. if you're wealthy and you invest, you should have a low tax on that investment. if you are poor and you invest you save a little money because you want to send your kids to school, you should pay low taxes on the savings you do or the investment you make. those types of programs economic -- progrowth economic taxes are for everybody and the truth is the middle-class and the lower classes benefit the most because they see economic prosperity and can have a good job for their family and save, work, and live in a society where they have got hope for a better future. we do not see that with this president's economic policy. his hope is that you can sign up for a welfare program. that is not the time just the -- that is not the type of thriving and prosperous society the club for growth is looking for. you look back on the history and herbert hoover did not cause depressions with the tax cuts . herbert hoover made it worse because he decided to increase taxes and put protection was
-less limits on free trade. it is those crisis moments when government says, we will throw out free market principles, that it becomes worse. you saw that in 2007 and 2008 when the banking policy, not the tax cuts but the banking policy created this huge bubble in real estate with artificially low interest rates and the government then turned away from free market and said we are going to have a huge bailout. that made it worse. we saw 20% loss of capital value in the marketplace as a result. the real history of these economic crises is if you turn away from free market principles, you make it worse and people suffer more and it lasts longer as we have seen in this long, anemic fall to recovery from the policies of 2008 and president obama after that. host: louisville, kentucky.
everett is watching us there. caller: yes, sir, i wanted to thank you for all the good work that you do in your organization. the club for growth is a counterweight to the george soros organizations and the liberal labor unions that spend millions of dollars against a pro free-market candidate. thank you very much. but my question was, here in louisville between 1996 and 2006, we had a program of free -- a progrowth, free enterprise republican congressperson, and we certainly would like to have one again. john yarmuth, our congressman here is far to the left and is a sort of celebrity for msnbc. i really hope that you would look into finding somebody who could be a great candidate here in louisville. it is a swing district. in my fan of question is, if obamacare will be approved by the supreme court, with the
individual mandate be repealed? thank you very much. guest: thank you. thank you for that mode of vote of confidence, and encouragement for finding a good candidate in louisville. i remember in anne northrup well, and how she serves that district well. the question about obamacare is a difficult one. as you mentioned, the supreme court is now considering a case titled king versus burwell that essentially asks the question, can the president ignore the way the law is written and extend both taxes and subsidies in states that don't set up their own obamacare state exchange? the democrats who wrote the bill in congress, every republican voted against that, purposely wrote a provision that said those type of subsidies and the taxes and mandates that go with it only apply to states that set
up an exchange. and the reason they did that if is they wanted to create an incentive for every state to set up an exchange. well, pretty quickly, whether they were red states with republican governors, or blue like oregon with democratic governors, many of them figured out this is a terrible program. oregon tried to set one up couldn't do it, and finally used had to abandon the plan. you have the majority of the state saying that we do not want to set up one of these exchanges. they're not good for people and they do not work. the whole program is flawed fundamentally. there is no marketplace. there is no ability of people to make choices of what they want. and you are having to execute these huge programs of mandates with businesses and mandates on individuals. so haven't set up the exchanges. president obama has unilaterally said, ok, we are going to ignore the law and say the taxes and
subsidies. in my program of obamacare apply if you have a federal exchange and no state exchange. the court is going to decide that. who knows how they will decide. there is a strong argument that the court will say this is a political question, we are going to follow the law as it is written. and the president needs to follow the law as written. he is not above the law. he can't just change it by himself. and then it gets tossed back to congress and the president to figure out what to do in most those states. host: if the court were to rule in your favor and city subsidies say these subsidies are not legal, should republicans allow them to stand? should they have a way for those to get subsidies to continue to get subsidies until there is an alternative put in place? guest: what i would suggest they do is have a, you know temporary measure that basically says to the insurance companies
who written these policies, he you took the risk, you are committed to these insurance policies. keep them in place. then that would give time for congress and the president to pass hopefully free-market health care legislation. i saw an article by governor jindal in louisiana, and he said the best thing to do is for the congress and the president to stay out of this. let us in the states set up a program that works based on free-market principles, the privity between a doctor and his patients so that individuals can choose the best health care for their families, and we don't have the federal government coming in with these mandates and regulations that make the health care policies so expensive to begin with. so, my hope is that what will happen is congress will say this didn't work, but let's free up those states who chose not to have an exchange. they don't have to be a part of obamacare anymore.
they can set up their own health care system. host: john in new jersey. an independent. thanks for hanging on the line. caller: yeah, thank you. i just wanted to comment. i take it back to when clinton was in office and passed the everybody should own a home act bill, they work at mcdonald's but can't afford a $350,000 house. but they were giving these mortgages, and that what crashed -- is what crashed our economy. everybody likes to blame george
when you try to defeat those principles, everything gives and they took those mortgages and they created security out of them. they package them up and started selling them to investors. investors thought mortgages are very safe. everybody wants to repay the mortgage to pay their home. what they fail to do was a examined the risk systemically when you have these types of regulations when you are making loans to somebody who would not be able to repay them.
this eventually piles up and we all pay for it when the economy lapses the way it did then. host: good morning. caller: i have a question for mr. mcintosh that deals with the transpacific partnership. tpp. the president at this point is asking professed check authority from congress for the tpp. aside from the trade aspects there is something else inserted that disturbs me. i can tell you how much. i would like a comment from him. i would like a comment from him. specifically, its enforcement. i will give you the, you know, the publication where i found this. if a multinational corporation feels that it will lose money by virtue of a particular piece of
legislation, and that could be legislation at the local, state, or federal level, then they essentially can demand that the legislation be reversed. in other words, we are losing much of our democracy. the criteria is multinationals losing money or claiming to lose or to profits. host: stephen, we are running out of time here with our guest, so let me have him respond. caller: stephen, thank you for mentioning that whole issue of trade authority or fast-track, as it used to be called. this is an issue where the club for growth, because we are strongly supportive of free trade, disagrees with some republicans who say we shouldn't give any authority to president obama. we don't trust him, we don't think you should get it. our view is he is committed to free trade agreements. we think that is the right economic policy.
and so we actually support congress giving him that fast track authority. that would be good for economic growth. your question is a provision that i am not as familiar with but my view is the way these free trade agreements work should work, is without , particular subsidies to businesses or, as you are describing it, ability for private corporations to say state or local laws will be removed if they interfere with our profits on that. now, if the state or local laws try to impose trade barriers then the trade agreements traditionally have said this is the national law agreement between the countries approved by congress, and those trade barriers at the state and local level will not survive.
so if it is removing something that prevents free trade, we would support that. if it is simply saying that the business can get a subsidy by trumping these various local laws, we would be opposed to that. but we are very strongly in favor of the free trade agreement. host: let's get in one last call. douglas, old hill, oregon. a republican. caller: good morning. would you take the last couple of minute and talk about the national debt and what is going to happen when the interest rates go up. guest: thank you, douglas. you are absolutely right. it is already at $18.1 trillion. a huge burden on the future and a huge overhang in the economy. your point specifically is what is going to happen when we
return to normal interest rates. and the federal reserve is signaling they are going to and end the quantitative easing and gradually get us back to a more normal interest rate structure. at that point, there is a huge liability for the united states. basically, a requirement to pay a much higher interest than they do now. as we return to normal interest rates in a matter of five years or so, the interest portion just hang on what we have borrowed in the past exceeds the united states military. and a huge number of other domestic programs that congress supports. so, it has become suddenly this looming burden on the future. our view is you should only extend the debt ceiling if you have the way boehner approached it last time -- an equal amount of spending reduction so that we
start to get the whole budget under control and don't continue to add that. eventually, you need to start paying down that debt. host: mr. mcintosh, 2016 around the corner here. who will you target, what republicans will you target that are up in 2016? specifically, "the hill" newspaper with a question. will you take on the congresswoman from alaska? guest: we don't target anyone in senators. we wait and see if the race develops. we have not seen a credible challenger to lisa murkowski. we are hoping that her score will improve. she was the lowest ranking republican on our scorecard last year. host: 27% guest: 20 -- 27%. we are hoping that she will support a repeal of obamacare, a balance of budget, a lot of things that would raise her score.
we don't target them. we wait to see a race develop, and we don't see one developing at this point. host: "political" says you'll get involved in the presidential race. what now do see as the hopefuls? guest: we typically do not get traditionally do not get more involved for this candidate or not. we have pointed out all the records. i would love to come back and share those with you. we have pointed out when a republican says they are conservative, but increases taxes and really unconservative -- are not conservative on the economy. this year it is different. we have a great field out there. three of them are people that the club supported in the race for senate. thinking about it, at least. marco rubio, rand paul, and ted cruz. the club is thinking about you we are going to talk to our members. if it comes down to a point that
one of the good guys -- and you have some governors who look very appealing on our issues, as well -- if it comes down to somebody really good like that should we consider being involved in the race? my job is to make sure we as the -- use the members and the donors money wisely. not just to make a headline. so if we can make a difference i would love to support good candidates. but if other people are already doing that job, we will stick to our knitting in the senate and house. host: former congressman from indiana. the current president for club for growth. guest: great to be here. >> coming up at 2 p.m. eastern, live at the pentagon with everything. we have that in 15 minutes. until then, a segment from this morning's washington journal recent policy statement issued by the houses in democrat
coalition, a group of house members who describe themselves as the fiscally responsible wing of the democratic party. host: will marshall is back at our table this morning. the founder and president of the progressive policy institute. the role of democratic interests centrists in 2016. let's start with what is pbi -- ppi. guest: the progressive policy institute is a think tank. we have been around for quite a while in washington. we were once known as bill clinton's idea mill back in the day. we were close to him through the connection to the democratic leadership council ppi is a . progressive think tank that is focused on developing because of ideas we think can expand the progressive coalition and make it more successful. host: what is a new democrat? guest: a new democrat was really a term coined back in the 1990's around the bill clinton presidency.
it really meant trying to update what was seen at the time is a very old and tired stale agenda. kind of tax and spend an interest group driven priorities that defined the democratic party. and clinton and the new democrat said, no, we need to reserve is the party on economic growth upward mobility into the middle class, while government reform , a theme that has unfortunately fallen by the wayside recently but this is as important now as it was then. a kind of commitment commitment to internationalism. american leadership for an open rules-based trading system and for liberal democracy. defending it around the world. host: pro trade. guest: definitely. that has always been an important plank. it continues to be, today. host: and a debate that could heat up in the capitol hill during the 114th congress as the
president tries to negotiate trade deals. guest: that is a very safe -- we are going to hear about the ancient trade agreement called nafta, now more than 20 years ago, but some people never tire fighting the battle over. but yes, the president has a very ambitious trade agenda. the transpacific partnership agreement and a big transatlantic agreement. he needs his party's support to get that over. but he has some work to do. host: supposedly the paper's reporting recently that there is a war room on a capitol hill to try and persuade -- war room up the democrats. the new democratic coalition on capitol hill. our strong is that coalition ? guest: there are about 40 new members.
that is obviously down from what it was before these two big wipeouts and midterm elections in 2010 and 2012. we saw lots of pragmatic democrats in competitive swing districts lost in these republican suites. so the pragmatic center, if you will, of the democratic party has diminished, but still feisty and focused on how we get those seats back. host: how do you differ from the warren wing of the party at the guest: i would say that the new dems have a more growth oriented outlook. they are interested in seeing how do we get this economy which has been stuck around 2% growth. they would like to see us get back to something more like the robust growth which we saw in the late 1990's. the last time our economy really
worked for everybody in this country. we are talking about 4% gdp growth a year. doubling the basic rate that we have had in the past 15 years. economy is turning the corner and we are beginning to see some robust growth, thank god. the unemployed numbers are coming down, but it hasn't yet worked its magic on wages. we really need to see sustained robust growth in order to get upward pressure on media -- medium wages. and see people start to get ahead again. host: t a headline from "the hill." centrist dems are ready to strike against the warren wing for months, many have kept silent as elizabeth one -- -- moran but with the race for the white house at the begin, they are
moving to seize back the agenda. the new democratic coalition earlier this month outlining proposing a new policy platform for democrats. what did it say? guest: well, they put as an american prosperity plan. one, it shows that these pragmatic democrats are determined to reassert their intellectual and political leadership in the party. they are leading with ideas. this is, in fact, with the new democrats did in the 1990's. the house democrats, to their credit, understand that the party needs a more inspiring and energizing message. in order to win back a lot of these competitive district. the suburban swing districts. without which, democrats are never going to get back into the majority in the house. the best way to understand this -- there is a lot of drama in newspaper headlines -- but the best way to understand this is that democrats in the house and also the senate do not want to be in the permanent minority. they want to know how democrats can win congress back again, in -- unite both the executive
branch and congress and break this impasse that is holding us back. they are thinking strategically about the kind of ideas that expand the democratic party's appeal, win back the seat, and take back the majority. host: does hillary clinton represent the best candidate to put forth that agenda? guest: she certainly is running way ahead of everybody else. until somebody else comes along to challenge that, i think it seems highly likely she will be the standardbearer. she has one foot in the experiences of bill clinton, her husband, and a new democratic policies of the 1990's. and she has served in the obama administration. so she has broad support across the breath of this very diverse coalition. i want to stress that because there are a lot of people who want to make a big fight out of this. the warren wing versus the
pragmatic democrats. there is going to be some creative tension there, but the important point is that unlike the republicans, the democrats are a diverse coalition. a heterogeneous coalition. we have about 37% liberals, 37% to 38% moderate. a large percentage of democrats actually call themselves conservatives. so we have to have a governing agenda and philosophy that encompasses more diversity than the republicans, who are much more a purely conservative party. it is not that one side or the other has to defeat one of the other, it is the important thing to create and bring everybody in and broaden the coalition. host: given the headlines recently about the private e-mails that the foreign secretary of state used, the "washington post," is clinton ready? some in the democratic party are having doubts. how do you answer that?
is hillary clinton ready. guest: i think she is. 90% of american voters could care less about it. it doesn't keep me awake at night. bureaucratic infractions around e-mails come if there was even an infraction around here -- but they are going to get more attention than i think they deserve. host: the "new york times" this morning. the story says democrats are not just excited about hillary clinton, they are desperate for her. saying that congressional democrats are counting on a strong clinton campaign to help lift them back into the majority. they want her fund-raising help and demographic appeal. from the top of its party to the grassroots, mrs. clinton's
pseudo-incumbency is taking over -- papering over significant disadvantages. many say she is simply too big to fail. guest: well, this is an unusual situation for democrats. usually we have a big, rambunctious primary we have a lot of different candidates representing the diverse city in -- the diversity of opinion in this party and battling it out. usually it is the republicans who have one big air apparent. but i would say that this is unusual for democrats. we are not sure of what to make of it. it is very unusual for the media, which -- again, i think you are going to hear a lot of anonymous sources about is hillary ready? is she rusty? all these kind of things. there is no race there.
host: should she and out early -- announce early and come out in strong support of these trade deals? guest: well, i hope she will. she is always been a supporter of trading spansion as far as i know and the president's goal of doubling u.s. exports abroad, so i cannot imagine she would not . it was her husband that fought a losing battle over nafta back in 1994. but it wasn't just nafta, it was a whole array of trade expansion agreements that played into that prosperity in the late 1990's. the very robust growth that benefited our economy. host: with that for our viewers to ponder, let's get the calls. mark in georgia. an independent caller. caller: good morning. we were at a meeting last tuesday in atlanta, and the man that talked at this meeting said -- talked about iran and said it
was the lance chance to make an alpha state in the middle east. and about hillary and how much of the information is on there. dr. foley was there speaking. he is a present of a seaport cities project and leaders group. and he is really in a panic. if this fails and there is not a state out of iran, who will be because the muslim brotherhood failed. do you think hillary will let out the whole agenda and everybody will see everything about the rio trio? guest: well we have been wallowing in this pseudo-event pseudo-scandal about e-mails , something really important happened. which is 47 united states senators, all republicans, sent a letter to iran that undercuts the foreign policy of united states. president obama's attempt to avert a war with iran.
you could say that the shape of this deal, which we don't even know the details of this yet you can say that you do not like it, that is legitimate, but when 47 senators decide to go around the president and sabotage his diplomacy by saying whatever deal he agrees to with the iranians will not be honored by the congress. that is an unprecedented violation of the old principle that america should show unity when it works abroad. while we are all obsessed, at least some people are obsessed by the e-mails, one thing that is important is the breakdown against a very serious threat is something we ought to be focused on. host: where does your group come down on foreign policy? what should be the agenda in your terms? do you align with liberals on that. guest: we are internationalists. we think that the liberal international system built up
since world war ii has made the world a safer place, a more prosperous place, a more just place with a whole articulation of international laws, protocols, and institutions that help us solve common, global problems. and that this didn't happen by accident. it is a creation of american leadership. so the united states, more than in a substantial degree. so the united states, more than any other country, built the system. we think our leadership in maintaining it and defending it is still actually critical. in the post-iraq, afghanistan period there has been a feeling -- the neorealism, a desire to disengage and lay down the burdens of global leadership. you hear it sometimes on the american left. sometimes you hear it on the american right. the rand paul right that wants to say the world is a messy place, let's pull back from it. that is not our view. american leadership is important. host: andre. texas. a democratic caller. caller: yes, i would like to ask you a question.
during the clinton administration, we had what was known as a dot com boom. which created jobs and stimulated the economy. but what can we do now besides these electric cars that really they thought was the best thing since the wheel, what can we do now in order to stimulate the economy? do think we need to do some deregulation like we did back during the clinton administration? guest: that is a great question. we did have a dot com boom ended but america in the forefront of this whole digital revolution. we see today what is the hottest , product in america? it is ipads and cell phones. we have done research at ppi that shows that most of the investment is going into the digital sector. to the internet, the basic infrastructure, all the devices and social media, search engines, all of this is an incredible source of dynamism and growth in america. and we have to nurture that,
that economy. we're also seeing the same thing happen in the energy sector. the shale, oil, and gas boom has been a tremendous windfall for the united dates. again, lots of investment in the energy sector. a lot of good job creation. we are talking about good jobs. that is where they are being created and one of the messages from the new democrats, is this is understanding this is good for america, not pertaining as some on the environmental fringe says keep the energy in the ground, let's use it, but put it in a broader framework which says we have two reduce green house gases. host: does that mean you are for the keystone xl pipeline? guest: we cannot even find
places to store oil. public and say the most thing facing america is to import canadian oil, when we have more to handle in the united states does not make any sense. the big question is not how we are going to get canadian oil into the united states, that how we will take this american oil and gas and export it. host: republicans say keystone would be used for shale in the united states. guest: a small percentage would be devoted to moving shale. it would be devoted to moving oil from canada. this is an issue publican's push because it has nothing to do with our energy public. if i could address the question about energy regulation, a difference democrats bring to the table, and if you are for grows, want to see the economy
take off, you have to understand the accumulation of regulations over decades -- when you have impediments for oxford doors -- >> it is my pleasure to introduce and most of you know him general john kelly commander of u.s. southern command. general kelly: thanks. to those of you that i know hello, and great to see you again, and two new friends hopefully we will have a great relationship that starts now. i just came from my hearing on -- and i appeared there with the
north calm commander. -- northcom commander. topics were russia, gitmo venezuela. they are fascinated when we talk about this network that leads from around the world of into the western hemisphere and into the united states, mostly now through mexico, but the isthmus. and then the bright shiny object is islamic terrorism and extremism. that came up as well, and -- took all the questions that had to do with northcom. but half an hour, i guess, and here we go. reporter: one clarification from what you said earlier today, and then a question on extremism. you said you expect to interdict
20% of the drugs coming in? general kelly: the collective is supposed to get 40%. somewhere in the past someone said if you took 40% of the cocaine flow that something would happen. i do not know what. i was not here then. i do not know what is supposed to happen at 40%. a good number. we're worried about 15% to 20%. it is hard to -- dea and cia do the best they can to reduce the amounts produced, but it is a decentralized production operation, and i think you know this, but we get all of our cocaine from colombia and they do heroic things to fight that battle for us. their number three used to be number one. number one is peru, number two
is bolivia. peru is to trip in terms of their cooperation with us, and we help them go after the cocaine. we get zero cooperation of any kind from bolivia and that is too bad because we would like to help them deal with the problem that they have, because even though these countries are not user countries for the most part the amount of money used for intimidation, death, is astronomical. as cocaine lose up moves up and her win moves up to the isthmus it is violent and it has impacted these countries terribly in terms of the legal justice, police cannot violence against anyone women, kids. it is really horrible. reporter: you made a comment about -- think people have gone from the caribbean to syria. can you give us a little it more depth on where they are coming
from what you think they are doing, and have have you seen any indications these have tried to come back? general kelly: a small number reportedly that have radicalized one way or another in the united states, much larger numbers in western europe going to the fight, and syria, i would expect while they are in syria they will get good at killing and pick up some real job skills in terms of explosives and the headings and things i bet. -- beheadings and things like that did if they went over radicalized, you would expect they would come back at least that rag allies, but with good job skills they picked up in the fight. to have any indication now of any scheme to attack the united states? no but the smaller countries they do not -- we take for
granted in the united states that we have a functioning legal justice system, and fbi, layers of clean policemen and women. a lot of these countries do not have that. so when these people return, or when they return, where we can monitor them, check them, know when they might be coming back to the united states, if they were from the united states, trinidad jamaica, places like that sir nine, small numbers -- surinam, they do not have the ability to take those folks. from a recruiting point of view like our country in western europe, some get recruited or radicalized off the net, the homepages and whatnot but there are a couple of pretty radical
mosques in the region. some of the places i just mentioned. that is how -- radical mosques in the region. 100 is not seem like a lot, and is not come up the little countries they come from a total inability to do with that, that is what their concern is. reporter: those countries are the main ones -- general kelly: jamaica, trinidad and theobago, venezuela surinam. reporter: if the u.s. is helping those countries in your hearing you said if and when those guys could come through the same networks that come through the border, we are talking at the isi at the border threat? general kelly: in general, the countries in the western hemisphere do not have nearly the ability to attract people like we do, fbi, homeland
security, databases and that kind of thing. when you are in this part of the world, you travel freely between countries. there are legal ways to do it, but there are simply people walking across borders, and as i've described many times, the network that comes through the isthmus and mexico that carries anything on it -- not to take anything away from the department of homeland security men and women, at the at, they do an immaculate job, but the amount of movement is what i think overwhelms our ability -- and sophistication of the network overwhelms our ability to stop everything. so i think if they get back to some of these countries that i have described, it is easy for them to move around. reporter: as far as how the u.s. -- general kelly: depending what country is, we share a great deal of either intelligence or information. we have worked out some ways as
an example to share information with some of these countries that then interdict drug movements, as an example. it is not technically intel, but information. there are other countries we share information with. i do some of that, but some of our intelligence agencies -- law enforcement is huge in -- we think of dea agents working the streets of boston or something like that, itbut there they have networks that they work with, very cooperative police institutions that work with dea and fbi and other countries like appeared other countries, they are pretty much on our side in the drug fight and any -- of terrorism. reporter: this morning you said sequestration would eviscerate your capacity.
i was one of personal -- general kelly: "eviscerate"? general kelly:reporter: i got "he this rate." == "eviscerate." general kelly: we have navy p3's that fly over the caribbean. we periodically get j-stars. j-stars is a game changer because it can see the entire caribbean and into the pacific. j-stars, we use b-52 sorties that are carrying sensor packages, and we have contract isr that we simply pay for and try to fill in the gaps. we do not get an awful lot of -- reporter: where would you lose the most capability and how would you make up with that
t sequestration -- general kelly: we would lose if the percent of the isr we have not, but we would lose the navyp3's that would be hit pre-heart. they would have to prioritize within their own agency to decide what they are going to keep doing. the same would apply to the coast guard cutters. the coast guard the commitment is doubled, but that only takes it to five. if he was hit by sequestration. he would have to make it his own priorities, could he make it the drug fight, does he focus more on -- how are you doing -- is he focusing closer in? the contract isr takes money to
contract if you do not have the money. that would fall through quickly. reporter: you talked about -- i was wondering if you could walk to the process and once that would be resolved, what steps will be taken next? general kelly: we have two judges that put temporary orders in place that restricted the use of female guards because they are female. call me crazy, sounds like gender discrimination, but i am not a lawyers why cannot make that determination, nor am i a judge. under certain circumstances. when we move them to do certain things, we cannot use female guiaards. when we move them to do other thing, they are fine with the female guards.
you can see they are master manipulators, and in a very real sense we are part -- we open ourselves to this. anyways, we had two judges, two separate orders, so they can study the problem. in the meantime, the guards follow the order, even though i feel that i am almost ashamed that i am doing it because i am discriminated against, my soldiers, because they are female. they are trained, capable, ready. so the first group, they turned over in december, and ironically a number of the women that worked at that particular camp were national guard and they were prison guards in their other life. the thing they could understand was in the prisons we work in, we work with men on the time muslim men all the time. there is -- apparently, i am
told there is all sorts of case law that allows exacting what we were doing with the women. long story short, we were restricted. this happened about november. one of the judges, military judges, lifted the temporary order, but we still have one in the case of of some other -- and i misspoke this morning. i said there was a 9/11 five and another one. then 15 of the soldiers then come in the normal equal opportunity process anyone for any reason if they feel they have been disseminated against can register a complaint, and 15 of the guards did that. seven or eight of them were men, and the rest were women. the governing document for us is the army regulation 600-20, and it requires an investigation. it then requires to try to
settle the issue so we sent down a on-e-star because the judges are kernels and the tenants, we had to send an investigating officer that is more senior to those two. so we sent the one-star navy admiral down. we kept the complaint informed and briefed up at which is part of the process. the commander at gitmo signed off on it. it was found to be discriminatory. cannot be do anything about it. we hope that the second judge lifts the order, and we are just back to normal. but we do not know. reporter: if the judge does not lift that, what is the process going forward? general kelly: i understand there is an appeal process. reporter: [indiscernible] general kelly: it is out of my
hands if it goes to that point. reporter: i am from french television. what is your view on the 9/11 trial -- to the thinking that this trial is never going to happen? that is my first question. my second question, do you think guantanamo will close mone day? general kelly: i wish you had not asked any of those questions. i do not run the commissions. i support them. the commissions -- there is a commissions process, a law, you know that. i know they are frustrated. all i can tell you is once again my defense is always another look -- i am not a lawyer, i am is simple marine, i know right from wrong, but i do not know what the contributions are, so i should not comment on the length of time that commission is taking because i do not know
what the process is in that courtroom. mark martin is the head prosecutor. i'm confident mark is doing whatever he needs to do to push this thing along. the families are very frustrated. the other question is about closing gitmo. guantanamo naval bases a hugely useful facility to the united states. and one of the big things -- i have a mission in mass migration type scenarios, and this happened before, and it happens pretty regularly where we pick up either haitians that are trying to go somewhere else they are brought to gitmo and they are under dhs authority at that point, and they repatriate. i listen to their stories and make a decision if they go to
haiti or back to the united states. when that process gets overwhelmed, and the last time it got really overwhelmed was in the mid-1990's when 47,000 haitians and who knows how many died, the u.s. coast guard navy saved all of these lives, move them to guantanamo, and then the military then does not take responsibility for it, but houses them, takes care of them. hs is still in charge. that's dhs is still in charge. we feed them in the way that you and particularly has got guidelines for refugees, and then we assist at dhs and repatriate them. it is a very useful base. if you are talking about guantanamo in terms of detention ops, i do not know. the president wants to close it, and until that happens, i will take care of those prisoners
in a dignified way that sees to their every need. reporter: in talking earlier about the situation with female guards, the second judge is the holder. general kelly: these are commission judges. this is not an federal system, but the commissions. reporter: also this one, talking about guantanamo, you mentioned some of the pretty abusive behavior of some of the hard-core types toward the guards frick you mentioned -- toward the guards. what happens when one of them is abusive? general kelly: splashing, if you do not know, they concoct a cocktail, usually feces, urine sperm, fromvomit, and when the guard comes to take their trash or move them debt each one of the guards, -- each one of the
detainees, whether in the communal setting, living ats a group, or in individual cells but in the individual cells they have to get recreation time every day, have to get -- go out to the playground -- playground -- the rec field, they go to that. when the guard moves them to watch a mover, they will splash them. that is a form, and it is a vile. they can also assault the guards. that is when we move them we move them, and there is a certain way -- the department federal bureau of prisons has the guidelines for this. it is the same way they are moved if they are in the state prison. the state prison in any state in the union can federal prison system, leavenworth, what a coke -- leavenworth quantico birig,
there is an accepted practice, and i will not act off from protecting them. if one of my trips gets killed or seriously injured, loses an eye, that is mission failure for me down there. and so we sometimes will have a detainee be very corporative for a long time, and the first opportunity he gets, he will try to scratch an eye out or assaulted. i will not back off on the common procedures for movement of these guys from one point when other. that said, the folks in communal, they live in a week communal pod. they have individual cells that they go in and out of, but they have about 22 hours and day where they can walk outside on their own into the that the brick ration field, play soccer, read a book, and it is very much -- it is nothing like prison. it is everything like a detention facility that is well run. we lock them down -- they go
into their cells and night and for about two hours, and then we have like the preventive medicine people come in, making sure their cleaning the place up and there is no -- make sure the place is sanitary enough to live in. we just randomly search cells for contraband of one kind or another. i do not know if i have answered your question, but the assault is usually from the detainees who are in the single cells. in the communal setting, which is what we prefer, because it is in a the guard force and we're the good guys and we would like to see them at least in the minimal setting in terms of restriction, but if they go after one of my guards or do something like assault a guard then we will move them to a single cell for a period of time. and that varies.
reporter: [indiscernible] you saw the country was imploding. could you address what do you think of some of these accusations that have been launched against united states recently the apprehension of what they said was the u.s. pilot? general kelly: the air force pilot. reporter: what is going on there, and the country has experienced coups before. what you think the risks are that it could degenerate into that? general kelly: the first thing i would say about venezuela, it is really sad because they are sitting atop the largest oil reserves on the planet. they have nothing but fiscal potential. but over the years, due to a number of decisions made eye the government -- by the government
the has atrophied to the point now where you have unbelievable inflation rate of 65, 75, 80%. anyone who tells you -- the charging of the country says now it has gotten to the point like in the old soviet union, if you see a line, you get in the line because you do not know what is in the line, but something must be at the end of the lung so you get in the line and it might be bread, no, toilet paper that is a critical eye demand. everybody talks about the lack of toilet paper in the country. that is where the place is economically. where the place is from a political point of view, and obviously he has cut down pretty well on the newspapers, on the media, there is a fair number of people being arrested that are in the opposition. i think the opposition it has gone from being a political opposition to an enemy now. real restrictions on them.
coup? i do not know anyone who would want to take that mess over, but it might be that we see whether at the end of his term or wherever, i would not say a coup but -- the same ruling party makes some arrangement to change leadership. i am not involved in any way shape, or form with coup planning. i do not know of anyone that is. i would probably know if someone was, and as far as the air force -- they claimed it was a air force pilot. this would be a question for the state department. but i believe it was a u.s. pilot spirit you have to remember all of the drug flights come out of venezuela. a lot of people in cahoots with this whole thing, because it cannot possibly operate without -- and those rug flights are to believe making their way up the island chain, trying to get to
puerto rico, maybe the dominican republic, or they were going in august exclusively into honduras. these are drug strips or roads where they land, offload, and then they take off again or just destroy the airplane. that we see them now going deeper further, as the hondurans, with no military help from us, but some advice and some encouragement, have started to occupy -- they have moved their military -- and these are very remote areas of honduras on the caribbean side -- they have moved their military out there, and the drug traffickers know they are there, and they have started to deflect the drug so in another direction. reporter: that is a civilian -- general kelly: an air force pilot, and the chances are he was on his way -- i do not know what he was doing. all the drug flights that come out of venezuela.
tony? reporter: you alluded to the old soviet union. you said that putin's policies are leading to a return to cold war tactics. help concerned are -- how concerned are you that the tactics could translate into a confrontation between the u.s. vessels and a soviet -- russian reconnaissance vessel as you talked about, or bomber patrol if in fact they have not? how concerned are you that a confrontation could escalate not like the missiles of october type of scale, but another jfk -- but on a lower level? general kelly: i do not think much at all. i think they are just a nuisance to me. we watch them come, we watch them go. very little possibility of than actually having a confrontation with u.s. ships or airplanes because i do not have any down there. i do not mean it cannot like
that -- [laughter] general kelly: pastor we saw for the first time since 2008, we saw a three-ship task force cruiser, destroyer top ships and then a military ships, came to the caribbean they stop that venezuela once or twice, went to cuba once or twice, went to nicaragua, steamed around a little bit and went back to russia. we had a long-range bomber mission, come down, spend a few days there finally did some airspace, not ours but another country's, and then it went home -- there is reportedly nicaragua and a few of those other countries, entered into discussions of agreements, with the russian so that they could land refuel, but not bases or
anything like that. i do not think there is an issue. reporter: are you concerned that russia in a somewhat tipped for tap would become more of a nuisance in your part of the world just to show they are there? general kelly: i think so, but more of a nuisance, not a threat. none since 2008 or something. you ratchet it up with a few more bomber missions that gets people's attention, obviously navy ship operations that kind of thing. he has making his point that they can come into our hemisphere, but there's very little support -- the vast majorities of countries like the united states want to associate with us, like the fact we are equal partners, want to trade with us. so nuisance would be the word i would use. reporter: hi, general.
was of america. i had a follow-up on the statement about history mists you mentioned. now that you have identified a potential weakness, what are you recommended as the solution? are you recommending more funding to countries that would include venezuela to help them track people where they know they arrest political prisoners? greece suggesting we do more isr sharing with these countries? what is the solution to stop the islamic state from using this loophole to kind of get to the united states? general kelly: really, the solution -- i think in many ways they are in place. that is our cia fbi, and the way they interact with their counterparts in various countries. a willingness for all the countries in the western hemisphere, pretty much all of them to cooperate with the united states and other nations. so i think -- you got to watch
them. the cia and the fbi and people like that to a really good job of the network, but it only takes -- there is a lot of people coming and going and it only takes one to cause you problems. but for me, i continue to agree -- to the degree that i can to partner with countries that want to partner with the united states, which is most of them. i very good relationships. my intelligence officer has great relationships with all of their command intelligence officers. my intelligence officer, my navy component commander, he has close relations with all of the naval cno's. my army component out of san antonio, same thing. we have very good friends. mill to mill, as well as directly to presidents and military's -- ministers of
defense and foreign affairs. that is the solution, the cooperation piece. this is the last question. reporter: [indiscernible] the united states in joining exercises going on in south korea -- navy helicopter sensors during these exercises -- could you please -- general kelly: i know absolutely nothing about that. i really do not know anything about that issue. i do know that the various ships and vessels that are produced in south korea are considered to be very high quality and the south american countries who are in talks with purchasing some of the smaller naval vessels. the reputation of your naval shipyards is very, very high in the region. one more?
reporter: the russian thing general, you will know that we have had quite a lot of flybys around the u.k. one of the things that has come out of that is as aircraft have refused to communicate in any way. have your people made any attempt to communicate any of these aircraft were ships that have been in the caribbean? general kelly: not in the southern command. that would be a question for the noraad folks. once they have entered the air of operations i response before, we do not try to -- and they did not do anything hazardous. they just landed where they landed. one country got a little concerned. they have just been off course a little bit. but, nope -- and one question more. reporter: my question is about one of the units the national
defense university. my organization published yesterday findings that the center -- two professors that have been -- in coluoombia, and what is now teaching at the national defense university. i am wondering if you have any thoughts on that and if you have any thoughts about the vetting process. general kelly: i wish it didn't work for me, but i did not hear about the chilean. i do not know about the colombian and i do not know how they vet the professors. i am very heavily involved in human rights. i meet with the human rights groups here in washington about
every three or four months, and spend a couple or three hours talking to them. they share their concerns. sometimes they will ask me about specific cases. i can pick up a defense minister in guatemala or simply high up in honduras and can you give me some situational awareness on that. it is a good dialogue. when i travel to the bears countries, just about every time i go down there, to any country, i will have a discussion for a couple hours with local human rights groups. i was just in cartagena. i never know what i'm going to get, because they have's all specialties. i was in cartagena recently, and to build that were very involved in helping team writes -- lbgt writes general, but i get questions about it, but it is caught me off guard for i have ever sat down and had a long conversation with people who are experts in that field.
women's rights -- there was another couple of representatives, and then the colombians -- probably 30% of the colombian that are african dissescent. getting a novel a lot of awareness from them. what was interesting to me, and what i get out of these is are they talking generally about these rights or violations of rights in the society or are they talking about the government doing something? in the colombia case it is never about the government doing this, it is more about the societal attitudes and how it will take time to change these things, and that is very telling because there are other countries you good to come where you got to get the president to stop his people from doing x, y, and z. the other thing in colombia human rights completes
have to do with way in the past or farq. they are just serial human right abuses, most of them for their existence, but the colombian government has got some human rights issues in the past and they are working those investigating them. guatemala does those. generally speaking, there are pre-high marks about how things are going today. the hondurans, which has taken off kind of the bad boy list from the oas which is a new thing. i do not know if that answers your question. back to the vetting, i note this other gentlemen -- i know this other gentlemen is working who has the accusations from colombia? reporter: reports are not publicly available. general kelly: if you say it is
widely known then there's probably some process they are going through. thanks for the question. ok thanks, everyone. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> if you missed any of this, it is available at www.c-span.org. a reporter from politico is tweeting out of senator john cornyn and senate report does earlier today during a press conference, as the senate continues working on a bill that
would and human trafficking. mitch mcconnell on the abortion provision in the bill, saying they seem to finally discovered and they will get a vote. "time" explaining the rest over the hill today. until tuesday the bill was expected to pass. now it is in jeopardy. shortly, the senate will take up a vote on the way to move forward with that bill. you can see that live on c-span [applause] -- c-span2. here are some of our programs for this weekend. saturday at 1:00 p.m., "book tv" is live for the tucson festival of books, featuring discussions on race and politics, the civil war, and by magazine writers. sunday at 1:00, we continued our coverage of the festival with panels on the obama
administration, the future of politics, and concussions in football. saturday morning on american history tv on c-span3, we're live in virginia with the 16th annual civil war seminar talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. sunday morning at 9:00, we continue live coverage of the seminar with remarks on the surrender of the confederacy and integration of confederates to brazil. find a schedule at www.c-span.org and others and what that you could think of the programs you're watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. in our road to the white house programming, lindsey graham spoke on monday at a politics and eggs breakfast in manchester, new hampshire. it is one of the stops for
potential presidential candidates. he talked about economic issues. we will have those tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. rick perry spoke at the politics and eggs breakfast at the st . anselm college in new hampshire. this is about 45 minutes. mr. perry: it is good to be here. >> my son sat next you. mr. perry: the last time we were here. >> he spoke to about texas. mr. perry: it is happening. >> congratulations. mr. perry: what is he doing now? >> he is going for pharmaceuticals, process engineering. mr. perry: what kind? >> process engineering.
mr. perry: each of the coasts has some really extraordinary incubators, but there's fascinating is texas -- we became last year, in january of 2014, texas became the number one high tech exporting state. people have always said texas is just oil and gas and we are really proud of our oil and gas industry and it plays an important role, but it is pretty desperate not going to say stagnant, that is not the right word -- it makes up somewhere around 14% of our gross estate product. the rest of the state is incredibly diversified in manufacturing. texas medical centers has more doctors and nurses and individuals coming in their everyday than any place of the world. >> [indiscernible] >> i wanted to say
congratulations. we're looking forward to seeing you. mr. perry: ok. tell your son to keep us in mind as he grows. >> thank you. >> hi. mr. perry: you work here as well? get our picture here margaret. what you do? >> i do communications. mr. perry: you got an important role to play here. howdy. >> [indiscernible] mr. perry: hi. >> i will be introducing you. mr. perry: better you than me. i have some allergies going on too. you got an excuse of keeping it short. thank you for that. what have you been doing?
>> i run this. mr. perry: excuse me. >> in washington, and down there three days a week. mr. perry: you keep a home here you keep an apartment there? >> [indiscernible] mr. perry: ok. >> [indiscernible] ed markey, bringing people together. mr. perry: well, i may talk about that a little today. i find that this function is one of our real challenges in our country, and governors to not have that -- they do not have that luxury. we have to get things done, and we have never done anything big -- >> how are you?
very happy to see you again. >> the governor of massachusetts. mr. perry: good guy. >> welksalks in, sits with this figure, sits with the president commences this is my idea. mr. perry: yeah. not one big issue did i pass in texas or that we passed in texas without democrat help. >> [indiscernible] mr. perry: that is what this country has to have. we have to get past this talking past each other. is is one of the things that i am critical of the president on, is that he has really divided this country. he has divided us by gender, by race economic strata, and we got to get over that. i grew up on a very rural cotton
farm. we were not poor, but i grew up in a house that did not have running water until i was 7. i do not meet everybody can until i was 26 or anyone who would admit to being one -- >> once a republican, always a republican? mr. perry: no. i was elected three times as a democrat to the state house. reagan made it good to be a republican in texas. jennifer, thanks for being here. >> [indiscernible] mr. perry: mr. president, it is an honor to be here in this university and to all of you good morning. i found that on my numerous visits back to new hampshire over the course of the years t hat you all appreciate plain
talk about as well as any place in this country. and you want to hear some very plain talk about the challenges that we have in this country. and that is the spirit in which i come today, to share with you this vision of mine, and on three points i want to be very very clear. first, our country has entered -- and i think a time of testing, a time -- our political leadership is feeling that test. the american people see a president who is in the nile about -- denial about the threats we face, making grave
miscalculations that make the world less safe. isis filled the void of failed policy in iraq and syria. in american tanks, with american weapons, isis began taking cities that just a few years ago had been freed by the blood of american soldiers. in these highly orchestrated videos we are seeing broadcast to the world beheadings. we are seeing a young jordanian pilot turned alive -- burned alive. these people have filled mass graves with muslims and christians alike. they have terrorized women. they have declared a caliphate over an area as large as the
united kingdom in that part of the world. and let's be clear about who isis is, what they represent. they are a religious movement that seeks to take the world back to the seventh century. their aims are apocalyptic to cleanse the world, not just of christians and jews, but of muslims who do not agree with their extreme ideology. and it is their stated vow to kill as many americans as they can. and it is time the the american people heard the truth. the president declared in his state of the union address that the advance of isis had been stopped. that is simply not true. he says isis is not a religious movement. again, he is simply wrong.
to deny the fundamental religious nature of the threat and downplay the seriousness of it is naive, it is dangerous and it is misguided. if the leaders of egypt and jordan -- if they recognize we are at war with radical islam isn't it time that our president admitted the same? the fact is we did not start this war. we do not choose it. but we need to have the will to finish it. now, let me state another obvious fact about the middle east. it is not in the interest of peace and security in the free world that iran would be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. here is another country where
our president is naively miscalculating the intentions of a brutal regime. i believe it is fundamentally dangerous to grant iran's nuclear ambitions diplomatic cover. our discussions with iran should be governed by two nonnegotiable principles. number one iran should not be allowed to become in possession of a nuclear weapon, period. and, secondly, israel should be allowed to develop -- or excuse they should have the right to exist as a jewish state. now, put all of that into the context. see, watching all of this unfold in front of us is the president of russia.
he has an watching as our president to a redline in syria that was crossed without consequence. and when he canceled plans to deploy the missile system in poland and the czech republic, vladimir putin was watching. and it was against this backdrop of weakness and empty words that putin then annexed crimea, he invaded ukraine and it was in those conditions that allowed him to negotiate a one-sided cease-fire at minsk with no real consequences. it from my perspective, it was a sorry sight to see russian -- western leaders rush to minsk to sign a second cease-fire that russia would invalidate just as quickly as they did the first.
here is the civil truth about this. our allies doubt us and our enemies, our adversaries are all too willing to test us. and too often today we negotiate treaties and cease-fire agreements from a position of weakness rather than of strength. my point is this -- as a former captain in the united states air force, as a pilot who has flown into many of those regions in the middle east, including saudi arabia, i am not eager to pursue a military solution, the military action in that part of the world. for 15 years we have tried a steady diet of military solutions to resolve ancient religious differences in the middle east. and i have seen the impact.
i have seen the impact of these policies on our warriors, on their families. for a good seven years of my period of time as governporor from 2003 until 2010, there was hardly a week that went by that i did not write a letter, that did not address to a family that i do not do to a hospital expressing my appreciation, my regrets for the loss of a life, the sacrifices our heroes had made and their loved ones had to deal with. wars must always be the last resort. after all other options are exhausted.
but we need to understand the essential lesson of history here. it is the strength and resolve in the face of threats that we face that guarantees peace for our children and for future generations. it's weakness and vacillation and wishful thinking regarding these taters and totalitarians -- these dictators and totalitarians that endanger the peace of the world and drive global chaos. for the world to be safer i believe with all my heart america must be strong. and along that same thought process, if you will, along that same line, for america to be stronger our border must be secure.
drug cartels and transnational gangs are smuggling drugs and weapons and people across a porous holder today. they are a clear and present danger to the health and safety of america. any conversation that we have about comprehensive immigration reform must begin with comprehensive border security. and that is exactly why last summer when i met with president obama and we discussed this issue of border security i told him if he would not secure the border with mexico, texas would, and we did. now, here's the second point that i'm going to be clear about today.
the american people know that the united states economy can be vibrant again. ronald reagan knew that we this -- weakness at home led to weakness abroad. we have to revitalize the american economy if we are going to reassert america's strength abroad. now, we are told we are in a recovery. yet labor force participation is at its lowest level since 1978. one in 10 american workers are unemployed underemployed, or have just given up hope of trying to find a job at all. one of five children live in families that are on food stamps. we need to look them in the face and asked them, is that the best that america can do? the president may be satisfied
with 2% economic growth. i am not. the first time in american history, a generation of leaders are on the verge of breaking the social compact if you will with the next generation. that is, that we leave a better country for them than what we found for ourselves. fewer of us believe in the american dream now than in the last 20 years for middle-class americans. opportunity and security have been replaced by worry and exciting -- anxiety. out-of-pocket health costs housing, college tuition, all of them have gone up faster than wages have. student debt is at an all-time high, and this has to change. it is time to restore hope and opportunity to middle-class america. we can start with our tax code.
we had the highest corporate tax rate the western world. it also hurts the american workers. economists will tell you that if you cut the corporate tax rate by 10%, it will lift wages for the middle class worker by between 5% and 10%. that is what we need to be focused on helping raise those workers wages. we need more than just corporate tax reform to help the workers. we also need to simplify the tax code so that you reduce that tax burden on all individuals. we also need to tackle the inequities that are caused by this. frank -- dodd frank regulation.
dodd frank codified "too big to fail." it restricts access to funds for main street. because of legal compliance is no overwhelming our community banks. those of you that come from small communities in no those banks may be the only institution in our rural areas to fund economic development there. they happen to provide half of all the small business loans in this country. this contributes that perception -- and i would argue the reality -- that the big institutions of big government can take care of their own while main street gets the grounds -- crumbs.
we need to stop the excessive regulation that kills jobs. they harm small businesses, cost every american family -- these regulations come almost $15,000 every year. that is because. we need to repeal -- the cost. we need to repeal every incentive that keeps the ball from looking to work. one of the many flaws of obamacare is that it causes employers to move people from full-time work two part-time work just to avoid this massive new insurance cost and that needs to be repealed. hethe next resident should look at all of the regulations that harm full-time work and end them. that needs to be a straight up work of the next president of the united states. we have an $18 trillion debt.
every department, every agency needs to be required to look at every dime they spent and justify that. liberals in washington have spent 30 years criticizing re aganomics while delivering trickle-down liberalism. there've you is clear -- you give more power and money to the government, let the liberal elites take care of their causes and live in a shrinking high for middle-class americans. their answer to jobs is spend close to $1 trillion in stimulus and hope a few jobs get created. no wonder that washington is now
the richest metropolitan area in america. not because they create wealth but because they redistribute it. redistribution is not a strategy for wealth creation. only economic growth is and that only happens in the private sector. but me tell you where the economic revival is occurring or one of the places it is occurring in an extraordinary way and that is in my home state. instead of expanding the welfare state, we have built the freedom state. our formula was simple -- control taxes, providese smart regulation and stop lawsuit abuse at the courthouse. that is it. they will work anywhere. in my 14 years as governor, we
helped create nearly one third of all the new private sector jobs created in united states. in the last seven years from two dozen seven-toy doesn't 1 -- sen. graham:007 in sen. graham:0 gov. perry: president brett: that number would be 250,000 jobs in the red. under my leadership, we had 14 years of balanced budgets, never skipped a debt payment, never raised taxes and i signed the largest tax cut in texas history. we have led the nation in international exports for more than a decade.
just last january of 2014, texas became a number one high-tech exporting state bypassing california. in 2013, we had the second-highest high school graduation rates in america. we had a 118% increase in hispanic precipitation in our higher education, mr. president. on that second-highest high school graduation state, in a state with a very large population of english as a second language, a really challenging group of people to teach, but they're getting the job done. i happen to think it is time to bring that type of economic revival to every state with policies that limit government
instead of expanding it. here is the third point. i have never been more certain than i am today that the best years are ahead of us in this country. i'm optimistic about the future because i know that the weakness and incompetence of our government should not the confused with the strength and ingenuity of the american people. our experiment in this republican form of government is to durable to be sidetracked like a confused administration. we survived worse. we survived a civil war, two world wars, great depression jimmy carter. [laughter] we will survive the obama years as well. there is nothing wrong -- there's nothing wrong with
america that cannot be fixed with a change of leadership. i see in america, wages are on the way up, freedom is on the march, where opportunity is the birthright of all and not just dispensed by a few out of washington to a select few. america that believes the world that stands with our allies, where citizens can dream again and an america where the of our founding fathers ideals and our children's dreams. thank you and god bless you. [applause] >> the governor has agreed to answer couple of questions. gov. perry: what he said was i have agreed to do a couple of questions. please introduce yourselves.
[laughter] >> questions for the governor. maybe i can ask the first question. the a lady. >> thank you. i am alan from new hampshire entity dedicate in a -- i teach in a committee college. what will you do to change how campaigns are financed and please address how money corrupts and controls our political system, what you can do to change that. gov. perry: i come from a state that has no limits on campaign contributions and we are all about disclosure. i am a big fan of disclosure. i think that you disclose where
you get the dollars coming you do it almost immediately. in the world we live and with technology available, you can require that where those dollars come from, who those individuals are and i think the american people are smart enough to know whether or not they think that is too much or whether that would grab the process. i happen to think the limiting of dollars is not the issue, i think the transparency of the where the dollars come from is the real issue and we need to be substantially involved with making it the a more transparent process. >> thank you so much for being with us. great presentation. think you for your time. i am bob, a volunteer. my question is domestic and it
is about medicare. we recently took a survey at aarp and it was of those residents of new hampshire 50 years of age and older. a big point been made was they are concerned about health care and the insurance that hopes to save them from heavy bills but they are particular about medicare. will it either for them as it is poor as? for the next generations? i bet i know where it is going. gov. perry: that is my medicare registration. i spent an inordinate amount of time on the telephone and got a really nice and capable lady helping me as i worked my way through this. obviously, the challenge that we have as a country is that these entitlement programs in the out
years are not sustainable. that we all need to be honest about that and not honest about it for me or you but honest about the next animation that is paying in -- the next generation that is paying into these programs and for them to have that safety net as they mature and become senior citizens and we need to be honest about how we are going to deal with that and come up with solutions whether it is adding years to when you get that and i think most thoughtful people would say that is one of the alternatives out there. to really think about this $18 trillion debt we have doesn't take into account these numbers. for us, for the next president and congress not to legitimately
touch that add find the solution for that is -- and find the solution for that is unacceptable. we need to get commitments from all the candidates -- or, all of the individuals wanting to be candidates and are members of congress to work together to find solutions to fin these programs. i just happened to have this in my pocket. seriously. [laughter] what he gave me was an aarp membership registration. president brett: you talk about the next president doing
something on entitlement reform regulation. how realistic would it be that if you were elected president he could work with a divided congress? gov. perry: i think americans are so sick of the gridlock in washington dc. . people walking past each other not getting anything done. walking on the floor of the house and walking away and taking your toys and leaving and that is not acceptable. one of the reasons i do think that our nominee -- i am obviously biased about this but i think the executive experience of having to get things done -- governors don't have the luxury of just having a conversation coming giving a speech and walking away. there was not one big thing that occurred in texas, not education reform not those major budget
issues we have to deal with that was done with just republicans. there were democrat chairs, democrat leaders we had to work with. i think the next president of the united states -- and i'm critical of the president and the divisiveness we have seen pitting gender against gender economic groups against economic groups, and we need to be working to bring this country together, to reach across the aisle, find those places -- we find some of the most sweeping prison reform, judicial reform in america in texas. it was a democrat idea. we created drug courts in 2001.
texas is not known for being soft on crime. we were putting kids in jail for long periods of time. don't ruin their lives forever don't throw them in prison where they learn to become first rate criminals. give them some options. that is what we did. in the early part of the 21st-century, we put those into place. giving those judges the flexibility to give treatment rather than send them to the prison -- the result is we shut down three presence in -- three prisons in texas saved $2 billion. that is real conservatism in my book. maybe it is medicare reform, maybe it is our other
entitlement reforms where we sit down and find like-minded democrats that no we have to deal with -- know we have to deal with this. i am looking for the next ronald reagan and tip o'neill to come forward. they're are out there. you just have to have the will. we can do it. i am abundantly optimistic. i shared with you that the best days of this country are in front of us. economically, foreign policy was comeise, and it will require men and women to find things that they can work together on. >> bob from massachusetts.
i appreciate what you are saying relative to bipartisanship and working. over the weekend, a letter was sent by republican colleagues that was highly criticized by senator -- a secretary kerry when he testified yesterday. my question is hypothetically relative to the spirit of doing business in d.c. these days, if you were a u.s. senator, would you have signed on to be f if not, what would a better approach have been to try to get the republican senators message across to the president? gov. perry: i am not a senator but i signed the letter because i happen to believe that there are some things that are too important not to find --
compromise on. allowing iran to get its hands on a nuclear weapon is nonnegotiable. i think the president is making an error. i think that is a really bad example of finding a place we can mark together because there are places out there and things as so important that we cannot compromise our principles. allowing this country that still -- if -- when you see a ron monday -- iran funding hamas, they're kind of equal opportunity funders. they fund the sunnis and the shiites to wipe israel off the face of the earth. i cannot accept that as a place where i will compromise. you work with fqhc's.
the point is, that is where we can find places to work together. we have expanded those out care delivery systems and other private sectors ways to deliver health care. giving that type of compromise, that type of negotiation, i sit at the table and work with people from now on because those are places where democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives can indeed agree. i think it makes sense. to quit building prisons. i think that is where liberals and conservatives can agree that those are some good things to work together on. we can find those and ways to prioritize our spending.
but to use what is going on in iran -- i happen to think those senators and senator cotton in particular could have clipped out of the united states constitution and send it to a ron -- iran. he said there is a number of ways we negotiate, we do treaties which require the united states senate to sign that we do an agreement. that is what this is with the president. this is an agreement between the president of the night dates -- of the united states. that is what the letter says. nothing more, nothing less. i support the clear message that the united states is a body and
the next president will not be held accountable to this president to sign an agreement i don't think is in the night states -- united states best interest. >> [inaudible] how would you see education could to beating to the future -- contributing to the each of our nation? gov. perry: i don't think there is much of a role at all for the federal government. i think your governor, your legislature working with your school administrators, teachers, parents, a substantially better
place for a curriculum to be developed than a one-size-fits-all out of washington. the department of education needs to be a repository of good practices. that might be a good final state for it. i don't think that washington needs to be this one-size-fits-all -- this place where health care, education reform, transportation and infrastructure these to come from. louis brandeis, not a well-known conservative former member of the supreme court said that the states were laboratories of democracy. states need to experiment and try different ideas. from time to time, they will mess up. from my perspective, colorado is making an error in legalizing marijuana. it is exactly what louis
brandeis said. i don't agree with it but i respect their right to find out they are making a mistake. the same is true about education policy. people closer to the schools closer to your state, closer to understanding what the people of new hampshire are all about, you come up with the best curriculum. you find the ways to educate your children substantially better than this one-size-fits-all that too often comes out of washington dc. >> we hope you all will come back. gov. perry: i will be back. [applause] gov. perry: take care of yourself. thank you. i will be back. >> it was a good message.
your personality will play extremely well in this state. it really will. gov. perry: i want to come back and spend some time with the kids. it is -- [laughter] is that lindsay? i will get by lindsay. i am a egg -- big lindsey graham fan. i think he is one of the most knowledgeable will people we have on foreign policy and we need to listen to him. he is a very bright united states senator -- he has carved out his niche and it is foreign policy. >> we did a poll with bloomberg on foreign-policy issues and
someone can up to me and said lindsey graham is on every single one of these issues. gov. perry: i agree. i talked to him tonight before last. picking his brain about what is going on in ukraine particular. putin is a dangerous guy. this strategic patience with him i don't think it is wise because the theory is with oil prices being in the tank and he has all of these economic problems and we will just outlast him and he will collapse -- you have to remember the 90's and how god it -- how bad it got in russia. it is not anywhere near as bad as that now. he has $386 billion of reserves.
all of this oil and gas money he put aside. people think about what was going on in the 90's and it is a lot better now. trying to wait him out is not a good strategy. i think you have to fund the lethal weapons to the ukrainian military. you take the swift banking ability away from him. there is a law where you can really go after the oligarchs and the thousand or so people that actually run russia and really squeeze them. we could flood europe with liquefied natural gas and that would really bring him to his knees. >> when i was in wisconsin, i worked with a congressman on my board and we were looking at income contingent student loan payments.
the cayenne s troy are doing it. instead of paying back student loans on a fixed time and they say, if you are an investment banker and a teacher, you pay back in a different timeframe with a fix on the amount of interest you will pay. gov. perry: i wonder if we can get the federal government out of the student loan business. >> that is the ultimate objective. gov. perry: give it back to the private sector. thank you, sir. ok. great. let me take off my c-span microphone and note to give it to. alan, thank you.
>> are road to the white house coverage will continue tonight on c-span with this event with rick harry --perry at 10:00 eastern. also, lindsey graham spoke about how he learned diplomacy, a skill he uses in the u.s. senate. sen. graham: i grew up in the back of a liquor store with my parents in one room and they went to work every day whether they felt good or not. it was a wonderful life. it was the neighborhood bar and people would come in as the shift changed. the and and a lot of people had missing fingers.
i will never forget that. you get to know each other pretty well. you learn diplomacy. i can remember fred. case wife -- his wife called one night when i was eight years old and i answered the phone and he asked is fred there. iran up and said, fred your wife once to know if you are here. he said, tell her i'm not here. i went back and said, he is not here. i learned diplomacy at an early age. you don't have to repeat everything you're told. >> senator graham spoke monday at the politics and eggs breakfast in new hampshire about foreign policy and u.s. economic issues. we show you that tonight at 8:00 eastern. following senator graham is rick perry at 9:10.
tomorrow evening, former governor jeb bush in new hampshire speaking to republicans. we have live coverage of that at seven: 45 eastern. saturday afternoon, scott walker speaking at the new hampshire republican party grassroots activists party. this sunday on q&a, dr. adrian berman director of the georgetown university medical center on lobby congress and what medications to prescribe. >> the promotion of the drug starts 7-10 years before a drug comes on the market. it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it has been approved by the ea but not illegal to market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated
the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8:00 easter and pacific on c-span's q and a? . alex again --secretary kerry railed against climate change skeptics today saying to two generations should not forgive those who ignore this moment. he offered no direct clues on whether he would back the keystone xl pipeline. that was part of his remarks
today at the atlantic council. he went on to say there was no time to waste debating climate change and inaction would lead to catastrophe. this is under 45 minutes. >> distinguished ambassadors here this morning, thank you for taking time to represent your country's to come here and share your concern about this critical issue. and i'm delighted to be accompanied by our envoy on climate who has been toiling away in the fields for a long time now and helping to shape president obama's and the state department's policy on this. todd stern, thanks for your many efforts on it. fred, thank you for your leadership here at the atlantic council. i think fred has demonstrated that he seems to always have the ability to have his finger on the most critical issues of the day, not just today, actually, but of tomorrow. and as a result, we can always count on the atlantic council to
be ahead of the curve and to be challenging all of us to think. so we appreciate very much what you do, and thank you, all of you, who are on the board and/or part of and committed to the efforts of the council. i have to add, you also have an impeccable eye for talent. i was not surprised to hear that you had the good sense to hire one of the most experienced global energy experts and a good friend of mine in massachusetts, and now that he's the director of the new global energy center, you couldn't be in better hands. and secondly, my former legislative assistant on energy and climate and then went to the white house, heather zeickel, is part of this great family on effort in climate. i think we're kind of a family this morning, in fact.
it's clear that from venezuela to iraq to ukraine, there is no shortage of energy challenges in the world today, and we've had many conversations recent. recently i was in brussels. we had a summit where we laid out an agenda on how we can liberate these countries from their one-country dependency such as russia, and for others it has huge strategic importance. at the top of the list of energy challenges is climate change. that is why the road to paris series, the one posted by the senator, is so very important. i'm delighted to be here and be a part of it. as fred mentioned, climate change is an issue that is personal to me. and it has been since the 1980s when we were organizing the very first climate hearings in the senate. in fact, it really predates that, going back to earth day when i had come back from
vietnam, it's the first political thing i began to organize in massachusetts. when citizens started to make a solid statement in this country. and i might add this was before we had a clean water act or safe drinking water act or coastal zone manager act. it all came out of that kind of citizen movement. and that's what we have to be involved in now. and the reason for that is simple. for decades now, the science has been screaming at us, warning us, trying to compel us to act. and i just want to underscore that for a moment. it may seem, you know, obvious to you, but it isn't to some. science is and has long been crystal clear when it comes to climate change. al gore, tim worth, and a group of us organized first hearings in the senate on this, 1988.
we heard jim hansen stand in front of us and tell us, it's happening now, 1988. so we're not talking about news reports or blog posts or even speeches that some cabinet secretary might give in a think tank. we're talking about a fact-based, evidence-supported peer-reviewed science. and yet if you listen to some people in washington or elsewhere, you would think there is a question about whether climate change really is a problem, or whether we really need to respond to it. so stop for a minute and just think about the basics. when an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground. we know that because of the basic laws of physics. science tells us that gravity exists. and no one disputes that. science also tells us when water temperature drops below 32
degrees fahrenheit, it turns to ice. no one disputes that. so when science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say well, i dispute that. or i deny that elementary truth. and yet there are those who do so. literally a couple of days ago i read about some state officials who are actually trying to ban the use of the term climate change in public documents because they're not willing to face the facts. now, folks, we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say climate change. we have to talk about how we solve climate change. because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97% of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is
happening and that human activity is largely responsible. i have been involved in public policy debates now for 40-plus years, whatever, since the 1960s. it is rare, rare, rare, i can tell you after 28 years-plus in the senate, to get a supermajority of studies to agree on anything. but 97% over 20-plus years? that is a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience has a right to ignore. but what's really troubling is that those same scientists are telling us what's going to happen. not just the fact of it being there, but they're telling us what's coming at us. these scientists also agree that if we continue to march like robots down the path that we're
on, the world as we know it will be transformed dramatically for the worse. and we can expect sea levels will continue rising to dangerous levels. we will see nations moved as a consequence in the pacific and elsewhere. bangladesh, countries that are low, we will see large swaths of cities and even some countries underwater. we can expect more intense and frequent weather events like hurricanes and typhoons. we can expect disruptions to global agriculture sector that will threaten job security for millions of farmers and undermine food security for millions of families. we can expect prolonged droughts and resource shortages which have the potential to fan the flames of conflict in areas that are already troubled by longstanding political economic, religious, idealogical, sectarian disputes. imagine when they're complicated
by the absence of water and food. these are the consequences of climate change. and this is the magnitude of what we're up against. and measured against the array of global threats that we face today, and there are many, terrorism, extremism, epidemics, poverty, all things that respect no borders. climate change belongs on that very same list. it is, indeed, one of the biggest threats facing our planet today. and even top military personnel have designated it as a security threat to not just the united states but the world. and no one who has truly considered the science, no one who has truly listened objectively to our national security experts could reach a different conclusion. so yes, this is personal to me.
but you know what? the bottom line is it ought to be personal to everybody. every man, woman, child, businessperson, student, grand parent, wherever we live whatever our calling, whatever our personal background might be, this issue affects everyone on the planet. and if any challenge requires global cooperation and urgent action, this is it. make no mistake. this is a critical year. and that is why this road to paris series is so important. the science tells us we still have a window of time to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. but that window is closing quickly. we're already in a mode where we're looking at mitigation, not just prevention. in december, the world will come together at the u.n. climate conference in paris, and we will see whether or not we
can muster the collective political will to reach an ambitious, comprehensive agreement. now, even those of us who are most involved in the negotiations, and todd and i have talked about this and talked about it with the president. we all understand. we even know the agreement we're trying to reach in paris will not completely and totally be able to eliminate the threat. it's not going to. but it is an absolutely vital first step, and it would be a breakthrough demonstration that countries across the globe now recognize the problem and the need for each and every one of us to contribute to a solution. and it will set the market moving. it will change attitudes. it will change governments. and then progressively, no one can quite measure what the exponential productivity of all that effort will produce. so we have nine short months to come together around the kind of agreement that will put us on the right path.
now, rest assured, not a threat, but a statement of fact, if we fail, future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment, no matter their reasoning. future generations will judge our effort not just as a policy failure but as a collective, moral failure of historic consequence. and they will want to know how world leaders could possibly have been so blind or so ignorant or so idealogical or so dysfunctional. one and frankly, so stubborn that we fail to act on knowledge that was confirmed by so many scientists in so many studies over such a long period of time and documented by so much evidence. : truth is, we will have no excuse. you don't need to be a scientist ayou don't need to be a scientist to see that the world is already changing and feeling
the impacts of global climate change and significantly. that many of the things i mentioned a moment ago are already beginning to unfold before our eyes. just look around you. 14 of the 15 warmest years on record in all of history have occurred since the year 2000, in all of recorded history. last year was the warmest of all, and i think if you stop and think about it, it seems that almost every next year becomes one of the hottest on record. and with added heat comes an altered environment. are it's not particularly complicated. i don't mean to sound, you know, ai don't mean to sound, you know, haughty about it, but think about it for a minute. life on earth would not exist i without a greenhouse effect. will that is what has kept the average temperature up until recently at 57 degrees fahrenheit, because there is this greenhouse effect.
it was called the greenhouse effect because it does exactly what a greenhouse does. when the sun pours in and bounces off at a different in angle, it goes back up -- it can't escape. and that warms things. very simple proposition. now, it's difficult to tell and whether one specific storm or one specific drought is solely caused by climate change or a specific moment, but the growing number of extreme events, scientists tell us, is a clear signal to all of us. recently, southeastern brazil you has been experiencing a crippling drought, the worst the region has seen in 80 years. the situation is so dire that you families in sau paulo have will been drilling through their basement floors in search of groundwater. and the historic droughts in in some parts of the world are her will matched only by historic floods in others. malawi is currently in the midst
will you of a disaster in which more than 150 people have died a tens of thousands of people a have been stranded by the rushing waters, cut off from food, clean water, health care and thousands more have been forced from their homes. in this is happening now. it's not a future event. and you can find places like a california where they've had 100-year, 500-year droughts and a so forth causing fires as a result. in a a a a it is happening before our eyes. that's the reason there is no excuse for ignoring this problem. the second reason is that unlike some of the challenges that we face, i can readily attest to this, this one has a ready-made solution. the solution is not a mystery. it's staring us in the face.
it's called energy policy. energy policy. that's the solution to climate change. and with the right choices at the right speed, you can actually prevent the worst effects of climate change from crippling us forever. if we make the switch to a global, clean energy economy a priority, if we think more creatively about how we power our cars, heat our homes operate our businesses, then we still have time to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. it really is as simple as that. but getting there is proving not to be as simple. so what more specifically do we need to do? i'm not going to come here and just describe the problem. what do we need to do? to begin with, we need leaders with the political courage to make the tough but necessary
policy choices that will help us all find the right path. and i am pleased to say, and proud to serve with, a president who has accepted that challenge, who has taken this head on. today, thanks to president obama's climate action plan, the united states is well on its way to meeting our international commitments to seriously cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. and that's because we're going straight to the largest sources of pollution. we're targeting emissions from transportation and power sources which account for about 60% of the dangerous greenhouse gases that we released. we're also tackling smaller opportunities in every sector of the economy in order to be able to address every greenhouse gas. the president has put in place standards to double the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks on american roads. we've also proposed regulations that will curb carbon pollution from new and existing power plants. but it's not enough just to address the pollution generated
by dirty sources of energy. we also have to invest in cleaner alternatives. since president obama took office, the united states has upped its wind energy production more than threefold and increased our southerlylar energy generation more than tenfold. we've also become smarter about how we use energy in our homes and businesses. this is by far the most important set of climate actions the united states of america has ever undertaken. and it's a large part why today we're emitting less than we have in two decades. it's also the reason we were able to recently announce the goal of reducing emissions by 26 to 28% from 2005 levels and accomplish that by the year 2025. and that will put us squarely on the road to a more sustainable and prosperous economy. now, this upper end target would
also enable us to be able to cut our emissions by 83% by mid-century, which is what scientists say we need to do in order to prevent warming from exceeding the threshold level of 2 degrees centigrade celsius. but i can't emphasize this enough. no single country, not even the united states, can solve this problem or foot this bill alone. and that isn't just rhetoric. it's physically impossible. think of it this way. even if every single american biked to work or carpooled to school or used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, every american, if we somehow eliminated all our greenhouse gas emissions, guess what? that still wouldn't be enough to
offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. the same would be true if china went to zero emissions but others continued with business as usual. it's not enough for one country or even a few countries to reduce emissions if their neighbors are unwilling to do their share. so when i say we need a global solution, i mean it. anything less won't work. now, of course, industrialized countries obviously play a major role in bringing about a clean energy future. from the days of the industrial revolution all the way through the last century, obviously the industrial countries benefited by developing and growing, but they also created the basic template for this problem. but even if all the industrial countries stopped today, it doesn't solve the problem. and it certainly is a signal that other countries shouldn't go off and repeat the mistakes of the past. we have to remember that today
almost two-third of global emissions come from developing nations. so it's imperative that developing nations be part of this solution also. now, i want to make this very, very clear. in economic terms, this is not a choice between bad and worse. some people like to demagog this issue. they want to tell you, oh, we can't afford to do this. nothing could be further from the truth. we can't afford not to do it. in fact, the economics will show you that it is better in the long run to do it and cheaper in the long run. so this is not a choice between bad and worse. not at all. ultimately, this is a choice between growing or shrinking an economy. pursuing cleaner, more efficient energy is actually the only way that nations around the world can build the kind of economies that are going to thrive for decade to come. and here's why.
coal and oil are only cheap ways to power a nation in the very near term. but if you look a little further down the road, you begin to see an entirely different story. when you think about the real numbers over time, the costs of those outdated energy sources actually pile up very quickly. start with the economic impacts related to agriculture and food security and how scientists estimate that the changing climate is going to cause yields of crops like rice and maize and wheat to fall by 2% every decade. consider what that means for millions of farmers around the world and the inflationary impact that will have on food prices. now factor in how that would also exacerbate global challenges like hunger and malnutrition that we already face. add to that the other long-term health-related problems caused by dirty air.
asthma is an example, which predominantly affects children and already costs americans an estimated $50 billion annually. the greatest single cause of young american children being hospitalized in the course of a summer in the united states is environmentally induced asthma. and that costs billions. the reality is that carbon-based air pollution contributes to the deaths of at least 4.5 million people every year. no part of that is inexpensive. and any nation that argues that it simply can't afford to invest in the alternative and renewable energy needs to take a second look at what they're paying for, consider the sizeable costs that are associated with the rebuilding of devastating weather events. in 2012 alone, extreme weather cost the united states nearly $120 billion in damages.
when typhoon hyann hit the philippines a little over a year ago, the cost of responding cost a little over $10 billion. that's just the bill for the storm damage. think of the added health care costs, the expenses that result from agricultural and environmental degradation. it is time, my friends, for people to do real cost accounting. the bottom line is that we can't only factor in the price of immediate energy needs. we have to include the long-term cost of carbon pollution. we have to factor in the cost of survival. and if we do, we will find that pursuing clean energy now is far more affordable than paying for the consequences of climate change later. but there is another piece of reality to take into account. and as you can see, these arguments begin to compound and
grow, become irrefutable frankly. clean energy is not only the solution to climate change. guess what? it's also one of the greatest economic opportunities of all time. want to put people to work? this is the way you put people to work. the global energy market of the future is poised to be the largest market the world has ever known. we're talking about a $6 trillion market today with 4 to 5 billion users today. that will grow to 9 billion users over the next few decades. by comparison, the great driver of wealth creation in this country in the 1990s when superbillionaires and millionaires were created and every income level in america went up, that was the technology market. and it was a $1 trillion market with only a billion users.
just to get a sense of the possibilities here. between now and 2035, investment in the energy sector is expected to reach nearly $17 trillion. that's more than the entire gdp of china, and you just have to imagine the opportunities for clean energy. imagine the businesses that could be launched, the jobs that will be created in every corner of the globe. and by the way, the united states of america in the year 2015 doesn't even have a national grid. we have a great big gaping hole in the middle of our country. you can't sell energy from the wind farm in massachusetts or minnesota to another part of the country, because we can't transmit it. think of the jobs in creating that grid. actually, you don't have to imagine it. all you have to do is look at the results that we are already seeing in places like my home state of massachusetts.
in 2007, we set a couple of goals. we pledged to build 2,000 megawatts of wind power capacity by 2020 and more than 250 megawatts of southerly power by 2015. it was pretty ambitious. it was unprecedented. but we knew the risks to the -- the potential benefits to the state was enormous. fast forward to today. massachusetts has increased renewable energy by 400% in the last four years alone. we used a bulk purchasing program for residential solar to help keep prices low for residents and businesses across the state. and because of that, today there are residential solar installations in 350 of massachusetts' 351 cities and towns. today the commonwealth's clean energy economy is a $10 billion industry that has grown by 10.5% over the past year and 47% since 2010.
it employs nearly 100,000 people at 6,000 firms. and it's the perfect example of how quickly this transformation could happen and how far its benefits reach. if we put our mind to it, folks, if we make the right decisions and forge the right partnerships, we can bring these kinds of benefits to communities across the united states and around the globe. to get there, all nations have to be smarter about how we use energy, invest in energy, and encourage businesses to make smart energy choices as well. now, we'll have to invest in new technology. and that will help us bring renewable energy sources like solar wind and hydro not only to the communities where those resources are abundant, but to every community in every country on every continent. we'll have to stop government money from going towards non-renewable energy sources like coal and oil.
it makes no sense to be subsidizing that. which is why the united states has been helping to drive efforts in the g-20 and apec to phase out wasteful fossil fuel subsidies. we've actually taken steps to prevent now global financial institutions from funding dirty power plants and putting public money into those things that we know are going to go in the wrong direction. we'll have to strengthen legal and regulatory frameworks in countries overseas to help spur investment in places where it's insufficient. it's much easier for businesses to deploy capital when they have confidence in the local legal and regulatory policy. and to attract money, we need to control risk. the more you can minimize the risk, the greater confidence people, investors will have to bring their capital to the table. we also have to continue to push for the world's highest
standards in the environmental chapters of the trade agreements that we're pursuing, just like we are doing in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and the transpacific partnership. just like labor standards and other agreements, these environmental agreements have to be really fully enforcible. finally, we have to find more ways for the private and the public sector to work together to make the most of the innovative technology that entrepreneurs are developing here in the united states and around the world. and this is the idea that is behind the white house announcement that they made last month, the clean energy investment initiative. its starting goal is to attract $2 billion in private sector investment to be put toward clean energy climate change solutions. now, the good news is much of the technology that we need is
already out there, and it's becoming faster and faster easier to access, and cheaper to access. a report that the department of energy released this morning actually projects that in the united states wind power is going to be directly competitive with conventional energy technologies within the next 10 years. none of this, therefore, none of what i have said is beyond our capacity. it's not a pipe dream. it's a reality. it's right there. and it's up to us to grab it. the question is whether or not it is beyond our collective resolve. now, we have seen some encouraging progress, frankly, over the past few months. during president obama's trip to new delhi earlier this year, and fred referred to it in his introduction, india -- well, both china and india, the president affirmed its
far-reaching solar energy target, and our two nations agreed on a number of climate and clean energy initiatives. we also committed to working closely together to achieve a successful global agreement in paris, so india has joined in that challenge. that came on the heels of the historic announcement in china that the united states and china, the world's two largest emitters of carbon pollution two countries, by the way, long regarded as the leaders of opposing camps in the climate negotiations, have now found common ground on this issue. and i joined president obama as he stood next to president xi and todd was there when we unveiled our ambitious 2020 commitments. that was an enormous achievement. it was felt in lima and had an impact on the ability to move towards paris with greater momentum.
around the same time, the e.u. announced its target as well which means we have strong commitments from the three largest emitters in the world. now we need more and more nations to follow suit and announce their ambitious mitigation targets as well. and because this has to be a truly all-hands-on-deck effort i invite all of our partners businesses and industry groups mayors, governors throughout the country and around the world to announce their own targets their commitments leading up to paris so we can set an example and create a grassroots movement toward success. this will help us come forward with plans that will help every country be able to reach their goals. now, i am keenly aware that we can do a better job of engaging the private sector and our partners at the subnational level of government in this effort. and i can tell you that i plan to make certain in the next months that that happens.
i know many of you have already made impressive announcements, those of you engaged in business or on the boards of enterprise or ileomosinary or education institutions. you've helped to lay out how we combat climate change, and i appreciate that. but now it's time to build on those pledges. let us know how you're doing. let us know through the state department, through state.gov, and how we can help you make progress. this is the kind of shared resolve that will help ensure that we are successful in paris and beyond. in closing, i ask you to consider one basic question. suppose, stretching your imaginations, as it will have to be, that somehow those 97% of studies that i just talked
about, suppose that somehow they were wrong about climate change in the end. hard to understand after 20 years of 97%, but imagine it. i just want you to imagine it. what are the consequences we would face for taking the actions that we're talking about? and based on the notion that and based on the notion that those might be correct? i'll tell you what the consequences are. you'll create an extraordinary number of jobs. you'll kick our economies into gear all around the world, because we'll be taking advantage of one of the biggest business opportunities the world has ever known. we'll have healthier people. those billions of dollars of costs in the summer and at hospitals for emphysema and lung disease and cancer will be reduced because we'll be eliminating a lot of the toxic
pollution coming from smokestacks and tall pipes. you'll be be able to see your city. we'll have a more secure world because it will be far easier for independent companies to do what they need to thrive and not be blackmailed from another nation, cut off, their economy turned into turmoil because they can't have the independence they need and the guarantees of energy supply. we will live up, in the course of all of that, to our moral responsibility, to leave the planet earth in a better condition than we were handed it, to live up to even scripture which calls on us to protect planet earth. these -- all of these things are the so-called consequences of global action to address climate change. what's the other side of that question? what will happen if we do nothing and the climate skeptics
are wrong and the delayers are wrong and the people who calculate cost without taking everything into account are wrong? the answer to that is pretty straightforward -- utter catastrophe. life as we know it on earth. i, through my life, have believed you can take certain kinds of risks in the course of public affairs and life. my heroes are people who dared to take on great challenges without knowing for certain what the outcome would be. lincoln took risks. gandhi took risks. churchill took risks. dr. king took risks. mandela took risks. but that doesn't mean every risk-taker is a role model it's one thing to risk a life or principle to save a population.
it's quite another to wager the well-being of generations and life itself simply to continue satisfying the appetites of the present or insist on a course of inaction long after the availability of that evidence is folly to that path. gambling with the future of the earth itself when we know full well what the outcome would be is beyond reckless, it's just plain immoral and it is a risk no one should take. we need to face reality, there is no planet b. i'm not suggesting it will be easy in these next months or next few years. if it were, we would have resolved this decades ago when the science revealed the facts we are facing. it is crunch time now. we've used up our hall passes our excuses. we've used up too much valuable time. we know what we have to do.
i am confident we can find a way to summon the resolve the need to tackle this shared threat and we can reach and agreement in paris, we can carve out a path toward a clean energy future, we can meet this challenge. that is our charge for our children and grandchildren, and it is a charge we must keep. thank you, all. [applause] >> i want to thank secretary kerry for passionate significant important remarks i think will set up the road to paris. really way beyond that. we understand you have to rush out to a very important meeting at the white house. i do want to ask one question to close this off, if you can broaden this to the energy world at large. we're seeing falling prices and
got the u.s. energy boom. how are you looking at the impact of both of those things in context of this? what is the geopolitics of these falling prices and the rise of america as really the leading, if not a leading energy producer in the world? secretary kerry: well, the impact is very significant obviously. it's certainly affected russia's income and the current situation in russia, it's affected the situation in iran, it's affected the budgets of those producing states. it has potential on some sides strategically be helpful and potential on other sides to be strategical damaging. for instance if petro karab would fall because of prices in venezuela we could end up with a serious humanitarian challenge in our near neighborhood. there are a lot of pluses and minuses of it. you have to remember the primary
reason for america's good fortune in this turn around is l and g, the production of gas and fracking in regards to our independence, and we're also producing more oil at the same time, and we've become one of the world's largest if not the largest energy producer. that's positive as long as we're on a road to deal with the problem i just laid out today. remember, while lng is 50% less carbon than oil, it is nevertheless carbon and has an impact. we have to do all the things i just talked about, move to sustainable renewable in terms of energy that don't have that problem. the way the world is going right now because of the dependency -- another negative impact is it has greatly reduced the price of
coal and in certain countries people are going on a price basis and racing to coal, and means we have a number of power coming on line with coal in countries at a rate that is destructive. there is no such thing in the end as absolutely clean coal, so we have a challenge with respect to what we're going to do. there are technologies that significantly clean coal, and when you do carbon storage that isn't happening enough and there is a way to use it and far more expensive in the end and other technologies coming on to produce other things at a far better cost. wind is about to be competitive with other energy. what really has to be done is
the setting of the goal through the paris agreement so people see countries everywhere are moving in this direction and the marketplace is moving and when entrepreneurs and investors start to say this is the future and it takes hold. that accelerates the process itself. when that begins to happen, that that's when this $6 trillion market and 9 billion users component kicks in and takes over. it's a mixed bag for the moment. we certainly see the road map to move in the right direction. >> in closing, let me just say three or four years ago, the atlantic council gave you an award not knowing how much you would be further earning it with your miles on the ground. we want to thank you for your climate change historic and ground breaking and your visionary principled leadership at time we know is historically challenging. thank you.
[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated as the secretary exits the room. thank you. >> tonight road to the white house coverage of remarks by south carolina senator lindsey graham. he spoke at a politics and eggs breakfast hosted by the new england council. you can watch his comments tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. right after that, or politics with rick perry also in new hampshire talking about foreign-policy issues.
mr. perry: would you have signed on to that letter, that many republican senators signed onto, and if not, what would a better approach, kind of in the spirit of tip o'neill and ronald reagan have them together of can senate its message across to the president of the united states senate? mr. perry: i'm not a senator, but i believe there are some things to important not to find compromise on. allowing iran to get its hands on a nuclear weapon is nonnegotiable in my opinion. and i think the president is making an error. i think that is a really bad example of finding a place where we can work together, because there are places out there and things that are so important that we cannot compromise our principles and allowing this
country that still is not the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world -- when you see iran funding hezbollah to the north of israel and hamas, they are equal opportunity funders where they will fund the sunnis and shiites to wipe israel off the face of the earth. i cannot accept that as a place where i will compromise. >> some of rick perry's remarks the former governor speaking earlier today in new hampshire the state that traditionally holds the nation's first presidential primary. tomorrow morning a discussion on the role of congress in the iran nuclear negotiations. then eleanor smeal looks at the
status of women in 2015 and what is being done to improve rights and opportunities. and john cook talks about efforts to get axis to hillary clinton's personal e-mail accounts. all on washington journal tomorrow morning, at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. today the u.s. special representative for the arctic talked about the need for u.s. leadership in the arctic on issues like climate change. he spoke at the brookings institution for about an hour. >> good morning, everybody. welcome. i and the vice president for foreign policy at brookings, and i am glad to welcome you today. before we begin i would like to acknowledge and thank others from our energy security and initiative who organized the
event. i would like to knowledge and thank a commander who is an executive fellow from the coast guard here at brookings who has been a terrific colleague over the last several months. admiral, i know you are ready to steal him back soon, but i hope we can borrow him back sometime down the road. as all of you know, in april the united states will assume the chairmanship of the arctic council for two years. we go back about five years, i would say there are two things that were true. one, and all frankness, not that many people had heard of the hour take -- arctic council. and, too, people writing about the arctic cancel were writing about in saber-rattling terms. this is a back to become the area of great power tension and clashes between those dangers nations and others. i'm canadian, among other
things, so i can say that. and of course the most dire productions about how things would involve in the arctic have not come true, at least an important piece of the story has been the institutionalization and element of the arctic council. things are changing fast in the arctic. this is a region where one of our board members described as the world's next emerging market. since 1979 we have seen a 40% reduction in the ice coverage. that is having important impacts on indigent as communities wildlife changing fisheries but more substantially it has meant since 2007 the northwest passage is open year-round, at least for entries that have the right capabilities. and of particular importance of it seems to me it is opening up new prospects in terms of oil and gas developments and really huge levels of reserves in the arctic, particularly for russia,
driving a sense of potential for the region, but also of course a challenge in terms of where that energy lies and claimants to it. it is a region that is growing strategically economically to the united states and to china and india and russia. we are therefore delighted to have admiral johnally papp with us today to talk about these issues. the admiral was appointed in july 2014 as special representative for the arctic. his the 24th commander of the coast guard. he has had an illustrious 39-year career in the coast guard. a graduate of the coast guard academy, two master's degrees and has served on six ships, commanding four of them including what i am informed of as he is us government's only tall ship, the eagle. i am informed on that ship he is
frequently found up in the sails inspecting the rigging, sailor to sailor, not just as a leader, but held in high regard in the coast guard and why the rest of the defense and security community. it is appropriate to have a sailor's sailor be our country's representative to the arctic in this upcoming period. we are delighted to have you here and thank you for being here today. [applause] admiral papp: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. what a great crowd. this is wonderful. i feel great. i think i met here at brookings when i was the commandant. it is pronounced commandant. canadians pronounce things a little bit different. i have been introduced as the 24th commandment before. [laughter] i know the first 12 commandments.
i much or what happened to the ones in between, but i kind of thought of the time, the 24th commandment, is a pretty good title. i like that. thanks for the introduction, and yes, canada is one of those dangers places. in fact i remember going a couple years ago. they brought a bunch of us to the foreign relations committee in the senate. secretary kerry was the chairman at the time, and we did a hearing on the law of the sea. we might want to talk about the law of the sea at some point this morning, but at that particular event, somebody talk to me and said, one of the senator said, we do not need to accede to the law treaty, we can do everything we want, and i gave an example between yukon territory and alaska it a segment that is colored gray as the united states and canada have not been able to agree on a border there. the senator said, you cannot
tell me that we cannot come to an agreement with canada and yes, it is true, we cannot, and it still exist today. we might want to touch on that because there's some interesting elements in terms of the continental shelf claims that would to talk about. it is great to be here at brookings. i feel good because all my basic needs have been taken care of. i was served a hot breakfast. i have coffee. they brought in a team over breakfast warming up with a lot of challenging questions so i feel ready to go. as i look around the room, i am also a little concerned because i see so many faces that i have seen in so many other places, and you start after a while losing track of who you have spoken to and what sea stories you have told her to there's one other thing i have to correct. i cannot take jason back. i am no longer the commandant of the coast guard. the current commandant may he concerned about him coming back. you can keep him, as far as i am concerned -- [laughter] drew pierece, where you?
thank you for being at the hearing last week. drew has heard my story. story many times. because there are so many people have heard me talk in other venues, i thought i would take a different course this morning and i will start with an alaska story. back last fall, i went up to alaska for my second series of listening session. we were in the city of -- and there was an alaskan native who got up to talk to us. my recollection is his name was -- he is ace assistance hunter, and he is that he is a subsistence hunter, an interesting individual. he was talking about the challenges of washington coming up and telling alaskans what to do, etc. etc., in the example
that he used was he said, one of the departments sent the seal expert up to talk to us. he is a seal hunter, a subsistence hunter, and it has been in his culture, in his tribe for thousands of years. as i looked out across the bay there, i could understand why. everywhere i looked, you could see that heads of seals, and the alaskan natives revere them. it is part of their culture. they use it for food for furs, and other things. it is part of their life. so the seal expert came up from washington, came in to speak to a group of them, and when he was introduced as the seal expert, the man looked at him and said so you are the seal expert. have many seals have you eaten? [laughter] i like to tell that story because as i have gone and started talking about the arctic i find that i can
usually classify people into seal hunters and seal experts. there is an awful lot of people in between, some who are sincerely interested in the arctic, others that could not care less about the arctic, and hopefully during our german ship we will be able to bring more of those people into that category of people who are interested in the art that. i found that it is very important to listen to the seal hunters, and i use that as a metaphor. there are certain people that have spent a lot of time in the ark, that are interested in it, that are passionate about it, and in the city i find people who are seal experts. i was in a meeting the other day preparing to go into a meeting over at the state department and a young staffer came up to me and she said, admiral i'm so excited about meeting you. i am passionate about the
arctic. there's so much work to be done up there. i said, when is the last time you visited the arctic? i have never been there, but i am passionate about it. i have watched the nature channel, etc., etc., and there is so much that needs to be done up there. that can be excused. it is great for youth and young people to be interested and have that passion, because we need more of that in this country particularly as we address the arctic. where i am concerned is when senior leaders are not necessarily -- they are in that seal expert category. i had a senate hearing last week, and there were a couple of senators who had very legitimate, very good questions. there were others on the panel who you can sense it, they almost have to establish their credibility first. one of them, and i know ambassador -- are you still
here, from iceland? -- there he is. one of the senators to a status creditability said, my wife traveled to iceland one sprint you have a very nice country there. i looked at the master, and he is there -- you know at that point they have some sort of very shallow interest or knowledge about >> another one mentioned that he had visited alaska wants. i am told that he took a cruise to alaska wants that establishes credibility in terms of understanding alaska. i would never put myself in the category of a seal hunter. i respect the seal hunters. i respect our alaska natives. i have one a lot from them. i would say that i am in that category of people that is very
interested, that is concerned about the arctic, and i have a limited amount of knowledge. i started out my coast guard career in alaska. i was -- let us say academically challenged the academy and in those days we selected our first assignment based on your class standing. [laughter] there were not many choices left when it came to me. i saw a ship in alaska and said that looks exciting, alaska, i kid from connecticut going to alaska? the ship was home ported in a place called adak, alaska. i did not know where a deck was but i found it exciting. i went back to my room and i broke out in atlas, a great big atlas, opened it up, and believe me, do this, open up an atlas and alaska will cover two pages in the atlas.
at the bottom, there is an insert that has part of the alaskan peninsula, and the first couple of islands of the aleutian chain. there is another insert that covers the rest of the aleutian chain. adak was in the second insert. suffice to say, my fiancé at the time was not too pleased. however, afterwards, after going out to adak, i think that got us off to a great start in terms of our marriage and she is with me 39 years later so it probably was a good experience. professionally, it was a great expense. i learned a lot about being a sailor in alaska. first of all, you have to deal with the tyranny of time and distance. we are still challenged with that today. going back to my coast guard position, the nearest air station that can fly helicopters for search and rescue up the north slope is about 850 miles away in kodiak, alaska.
that tyranny of time and distance. when you're sailing ships of their, when you have to refill and the nearest port is 800-900 miles away that you can get you can get to for feel, it causes you to be cautious and concerned , and then the weather you have to do without there. i have seen the worst sustained whether of my entire career in my first two years in alaska. i have seen whether in the caribbean that lasts 24-48 hours, they call them hurricanes down there. the same weather conditions in the bering sea, they call normal weather during the wintertime and it lasts for weeks on end. the challenges that i faced serving and learning as a sailor up in alaska state with me my entire career. they drove me to be very interested about 36 years later when i became the commandant of the coast guard.
of course, at that time, it was almost forced upon us, because there were a lot of coast guard equities involved in the opening of the arctic, and we begin a process of coming up with the coast guard arctic strategy, and at the end of that and after trying to campaign for resources to better prepare our country for what was happening in the arctic, i was about to retire on may 30 of last year. on the evening of may 29, secretary john kerry called me and asked me if i my come to the state department to help coordinate activities in preparation for the arctic council. i did not even have to hesitate. asked to serve your country by a senior official of the government in an area that i was passionate about, there was no decision involved. i automatically said, yes. here i am about 7-8 months later, and i'm very happy with that decision and very excited about the prospect of us taking on the chairmanship in about another month here. so, as i came into the job, the
big task was organizing our u.s. program for the arctic. what i was very pleased to find was that there was an awful lot of work that had transpired in preparation. in fact, if nothing else, what we had to do was paired it down a little bit, package it, and marketed. we have been about that process. there was something called the arctic policy group, the avg that works across the inter-agency and consult with alaska. we have a senior arctic official who has been working on that job for about 10 years. she has a lot of good contacts not only with the other countries, but also with groups in alaska. what i found during my career as an officer and as a ship captain is one of the most important things you do in terms of developing policy, programs, or curing at omission is you listen to people. so we set about the business of listening to others and forming our program, and patching it --
packaging it together could we came up with a rough idea first of all for a theme which is one arctic, shared opportunities challenges, and responsibilities. if nothing else comes across during our chairmanship, that is the theme that i want everybody to remember, because it is one arctic. it is not just year by the eight countries of the arctic council, but it is part of our world and things that go on in the arctic impact the rest of the world and we want to develop interests and other countries about the arctic as well. then we had this collection of projects, literally scores of projects that we could choose from. we started lumping them into categories. one that appealed to me as a former, that of the coast guard was arctic ocean safety, security, and stewardship. it is a theme that we use within the coast guard, but it is really a component of maritime governance. when you look at the arctic, when you look down from the pole which is a view of the earth that not too many people look at
, what you see is the predominant feature is the ocean. a lot of it is covered by ice in fact, there are certain times of the year when it's covered by all ice, but it is opening up. there are new maritime routes that are developing. it is interesting. it is exciting. it will change the world and the way we conduct long -- congress over time, but once again, a maritime environment and the first responsibility of a maritime nation is to provide for the safety and security of mariners and ships that will approach it shores and have to transit, have rescue capability navigation, other things in order to assure safety of navigation and navigation and maritime trade contribute to the prosperity of the country. it will contribute to the prosperity of alaska and the arctic. it is already happening in other portions of the arctic, and we need to be prepared for it as we go along. so, we are heavy on the emphasis
of safety and stewardship. hopefully, you have red some details of the program. we will have to exercise the search and rescue agreement. we will have to emphasize exercising the marine oil spill preparedness and response agreement that was executed by the arctic circle countries, and another -- a number of other projects moving forward. the second category is improving the economic and living conditions of the people of the north. a series of projects that go from renewable energy all the way to a review of telecommunication capabilities within the arctic. then the third is adapting to climate change. very important. we are not going to cure climate change within the arctic council, but we need to draw attention to the effects of climate change, and also come up with ways to mitigate and adapt
to it, to hopefully protect the environment of the arctic, to demonstrate to the rest of the world that what goes on in the rest of the world affects the arctic and what is happening in the arctic affects the rest of the world. people in boston, massachusetts and people in washington d.c. in fact probably don't need to be reminded that some of those changes that occurring are drastically changing our weather patterns, and i'm not sure that we can change that in the short term at least, but we need to be about the business of thinking how we can do that and also how we can help people that do live within that environment to adapt to it. so, we lump us things together in that order and then set about that process that i talked about, listening to people. first and foremost, the most important place to go to was alaska. last august, our team went up to alaska and we met with a full range of people, starting first of all with our alaska natives. we met with them in various venues. we met with environmental groups, other ngos, the oil
industry, alaskan legislators and everything in between. we took their input, went back to washington, refined or program a little bit, and then send it up to secretary kerry for his conceptual approval. having received his conceptual approval, we took the program back to alaska. it coincided with an event that's called a week and the arctic, and we went up there and did listening sessions -- [no audio] -- there we go. so we went to several cities and did additional listening sessions, brought that back, and further refined our program. now we have projected that i was not going to speak publicly about the program until we had done those listening sessions. i can't remember the exact date, but there was an event that
heather conley had scheduled which was passing the torch between canada and the united states, and that was to be my first opportunity to speak publicly about our arctic council program. until i was asked by other leadership just beat at another event, the center for american progress, on the date the four that esci event. i use those as markers. for those of you familiar with the center for american progress, they have an environmental focus. when i spoke to them afterwards, they said, you got it. you recognize the importance of the climate. you recognize the importance of the environment. you are a little strong on that security and safety stuff on the other side but that's ok. it looks like bounce program. i went the next day and spoke to them and they said that you got the sick purity stuff arctic
ocean, everything else, your little strong on the climate change in environment, but it is a good balance program. i figured that we had this sweet spot. we are doing good here. and that has followed through across the board as we have gone around and spoke and groups. the next step was to take it internationally. and so, it coincided at that time with something called arctic circle, the arctic circle event was being held in reykjavík, iceland. that was the first time i met ambassador gearhart when i was there in reykjavík. it was my first opportunity just be publicly in front of a large group, talk about interest in the arctic, 1300 people from 39 countries in reykjavík, iceland in lousy weather, no offense sir, but it was rainy, cold, blowing 40 knots, we were
walking into a headwind from the hotel, the it was very invigorating -- but it was very invigorating. it helped me to get more excited about this program, and also give me the opportunity to do a lot of bilateral meetings with folks who had come in. we were refining the program. we get another re-think through secretary kerry. recently, but a month ago, i went on another trip to go to the rest of the nordic countries. we started out in sweden. we went to norway, where we went up to an event for an event called arctic frontiers. once again, another opportunity to speak to a large group another group of about 1300 or so people from 39 or 40 countries, senior representatives from around the world. what's again, an opportunity to talk about our u.s. program. from norway, we went to copenhagen. i met with not only the danes, but the greenlanders as well.
we got their perspective. i went from there to finland and not only did we meet in helsinki with a full range of activities, but we also traveled north to meet with the parliament to meet with one of our permanent observers in the arctic council. then, most importantly, we finished up by going to moscow. i will talk a little bit more about that in just a moment, but very productive meeting. it was the first senior-level meeting of a united states representative in moscow since the imposition of the sanctions so it was a significant event not just for the arctic council, but for the united states as well. i will be happy to answer questions on that when we get into it. so, there has been an awful lot of listening going on. what i would say is that it has been broken down into a couple of themes. the first theme being this theme of balance, finding the sweet spot.
as i said, i have spoken to an awful lot of groups similar to this, diverse groups, brookings tends to have a very balanced view of things, more centrists. so perhaps this program resonates. we have tried to make it a balance program to reflect all the needs that are going on out there. the second comment that i get most constantly when i breathe this two groups, to the press and in particular, to the other seven countries, is only the immediate response of this being rather ambitious. it is. i will lay claim to our united states program probably being the most forward leaning, most ambitious program that has ever been proposed during a chairmanship of the arctic council. i think that is the way it should be. part of leadership is setting the bar high, setting goals, and
then measuring progress towards those goals. that is what we intend to do during our chairmanship. while everybody else says it is a rather ambitious program there's one dissenter. every time i brief secretary kerry, he says, are you sure we are doing enough? can we do more? so perhaps we found the sweet spot there is well. the third thing that comes up frequently come in fact, he came up in the session this morning. why doesn't the united states support the arctic economic council? the arctic economic council or the aec, is one of canada's initiatives. the focus of the arctic council has been environmental protection and sustainable development. we have plenty of representation on the environmental protection side. if we want sustainable development, it seems to me that we need to cut in industry and
let them know what the standards are. we need responsible, sustainable development within the arctic. the arctic economic council i believe is set up to facilitate that. now, where the united states, where this misperception occurs about the united states not supporting the arctic economic council, is we have some disagreements on exactly how we ought to employee our participation in it. i would say now that i have had a chance to dissect it, because all all this feedback of us not supporting it, i have had a chance to get into it a little bit. i have found that with a countries, you have a different approaches, just like you have a different forms of government as you look across it. for our form of government in the united states, united states government does not own industries. some of the industries that are represented within the arctic economic council from other countries are partially or wholly owned by the state. there is a state interest in
having those countries in there to be able to develop things within the arctic. we took a different approach. first of all, because of our culture. once again, our government does not own industries. secondly, if we start getting too close with industries, you start running into federal advisory committee rules that have to be complied with. so, our choice, whether you like it or don't like it, our choice early on was to turn this over to the chamber of commerce and alaska. the chamber of congress -- of commerce and alaska selected three companies. the arctic economic council has just had its first meeting. so i think there are going to be some disputes on how the arctic economic council should be used. there will be questions on how we employ. there will be questions about how much influence it should have on arctic council activities should it have a
different status from our observer groups question mark i -- groups? i don't know. it is a work in progress through the united states fully embraces it. we will continue it greatly think canada for starting it but there is more to come on that. the next thing that came up most frequently is, are we going to talk to russia? i would just leave it at that. obviously, -- [laughter] obviously, i was sent to moscow. we talk to russia. it is important what we do. everything in the arctic council is done by consensus. one country can break consensus and we don't take on a project. it is very important to keep russia in the fold, not just for the arctic council, but for other things going on in the world. the next to the last thing that is repeated frequently as -- is we are excited by united states leadership. i like that. i have found that. one of the things that is most gratifying to me as an american
is when i have traveled overseas either as the commandant of the coast guard or in this position, it is the respect that the united states gets wherever we go. it is the looking to us for leadership wherever we go. i can be at an event here in washington and i am seated all the way in the back of the room. in fact, in norway or iceland they give me a seat of honor of front. when i step up there, regardless of where we are in the program people stop and listen. it is not because -- it is because it is the united states. that is particularly gratifying. the last item i will bring up is that along with that, being excited about united states leadership, they question our commitment. they want to know, are you really committed to the arctic? fortunately, or unfortunately, what they look at its commitment of resources. one of the questions i've really get is you guys cannot even buy
an icebreaker. our you really committed to the arctic if you can't buy an icebreaker? yet, the russians have more than two dozen. china is building icebreakers. south korea is building icebreakers. other countries are building icebreakers. and i don't want to say that we're focusing just on icebreakers, there are other infrastructure needs as well but we need to be about the business of committing some resources. i am hopeful that the recent executive order signed by the president, which brings all the agencies together with an arctic executive steering committee, is going to lead to setting some priorities which will hopefully lead to committing some resources as well to the needs and the arctic. went back, i think i will finish right there, because i'm excited about getting into your questions. so, thank you very much. [applause]
>> [inaudible] >> while you are getting miked up, i would like to ask the first question. i don't mean it to be controversial, but i think it's an important question. despite the grandiose plan that you have outlined that the government has for our chairmanship of the arctic council, there are a number of what seem to be crisscrossing signals coming out of this administration. particularly if you are an alaskan resident. we are all concerned about the pipeline capacity dropping rapidly and the need to find additional oil reserves to have that vital national asset
continue to operate, and yet we have just seen the administration take large swaps of alaska out of consideration for future oil the relevant, at least on the coastal plain. do you think that we really do have a coherent -- and i'm saying washington -- do you think we have a coherent on whether we see alaska as a land of opportunity and abundance for the future of the nation, or the other view is maybe close it off and make it all a national park. ? >> i will admit in speaking and listening to alaskans as recently as last week, our senator lisa murkowski and maria cantwell held a hearing last week on the day that the government was shut down, before the energy committee in the senate, i think senator murkowski couldn't there the
possibility of shutting down a hearing on the arctic on the day that it was snowing in washington. [laughter] we are getting attention to it. there were alaskans on the panel with me, and they brought up the same concerns. i guess what i would say is that part of our challenge is raising the visibility of the arctic. as we sit here right in the spot, we are 3500 miles from the northern most point of the united states and alaska, right there in the center of the arctic. 3500 miles, and a lot of candidate in between. so, there is not a connection between the american people and the arctic. we only have 50,000 americans who live above the arctic circle in northern alaska. now, i think most alaskans, the
rest of the state also have a connection to the arctic. they understand it. but it is not a large population. someone mentioned earlier this morning -- in fact, i meant to comment on it -- it was one of our officers in the earlier meeting who talked about us being a maritime nation. look, i've had a hard time over the years trying to convince people that we are a maritime nation much less anarchic nation as well. yet we are good we have responsibilities as a nation. it has only been recently with the opening of the waters that we have developed all this. that is why we are so excited about this. there is a changing climate. it is opening up waters. there are needs there. they are new needs. they are new starts. anything in washington with a new start is difficult to solve. in terms of resourcing, we all of the pressures that have been on the federal budget over the last decade or so. it is hard to get those new things in there.
in terms of policy decisions, i think that part of our program is a very active and strong and robust public diplomacy effort which we will hope will raise the awareness of the american people. there will be significant meetings held in alaska. there will be some meetings held here in washington d.c. we hope to bring senior leaders from around the world, including some of our own senior leadership from washington, some of the seal experts and bring them to alaska and teach them a little bit about it, so that we can raise awareness. then and only then will people take into consideration the full range of opinions and issues when they make policy decisions that affect the country broadly like that. >> thank you. we will go to the floor. there are some roving microphones. if you would wait to get a
microphone. if you would police identify yourself and ask a question. we have one in the back of the room. >> my name is meredith sandler with sandler trade. i was a state of alaska representative within the unit -- united states delegation from 1995-2002, and in fact ramrod it -- did all the things that you described. my question -- so, for one apple, i appreciate what you said very much. i am a 10-year resident of alaska, worked for the alaskan governor tony mills for seven years, and he would say to me with a little nudge to my back if not for alaska, the united states would not be in the arctic council or need an arctic policy, and clearly it has evolved. this room is incredible and so
many people are here. my question is that i appreciate the listening, but where are the alaskans, the alaskan governments office, in the policymaking part of this? not just to be listened to, but to be an integral representative ongoing to the delegation, to the arctic council, to what you're talking about, and honest to god, i policy maker who has an equal voice all the feds? thank you very much. >> obviously, as you referred to it as the listening and i referred to it as listening, that is consultation and a more formal term. we will keep that consultation going. i see the alaskan legislators here in washington on a very frequent basis. our two senators and
representatives and beyond, and every time we get alaskans in here, they generally stop by the state department and spend some time with me. i have not had a chance to get back up there to alaska, but i think that you can understand with all the preparations that we have going on with the arctic council, which is an international body, as you know i'm speaking to the rest of the room, i don't mean to become the sitting towards you, but we are focused on international issues. it is not within our portfolio to beginning with domestic issues. the domestic issues are the responsibility of other departments within our government. as i said, part of our program is this public diplomacy effort which in my heart i hope will raise the awareness of the american people for using the arctic council chairmanship as a means to get to the goal that i
have advocated for at least the last five years, that we need to start investing in some of the infrastructure in alaska. so the consultation will continue to go on. we have brought an alaskan nate to have come on to act as the chief of -- native to come on to act as the chief of staff to the ambassador. she's providing great input to us. we've been a little frustrated, i tried to set up -- we've been trying to set up a panel of experts to consult with alaskan natives. we're trying to find the right device for doing that, the right contract whatever it might be. to make a more formal arrangement between us and doing some consulting with alaskan natives. at the end of the day, where do we put alaskans into this
organization? once again it's an international thing that is a federal function. we appreciate the input. they sit in on the alaska -- the arctic policy group and that will continue. how do we more formally involve them? i know craig fleener is coming up through thed a ministerial, the new governor's representative for the arctic. and we will continue to engage as much as we can. >> right here in the mid. -- middle. >> i'm from the polish embassy. just to question referring to the cooperation with russia, could you expand more. you had quite productive talks there. if you could say something more. and just -- along this line, isn't the increased military activity russian military activity isn't it bothering
you at all? that's the first question. the second, if you could expand on the eyes breakers. what's your opinion -- icebreakers. what's your opinion? there was a news the other day about possible international cooperation, having u.s. iceberg breaking capability. what's the minimum level the u.s. should, you know, have? thank you. >> russia. one of the things that the united states is deeply appreciative of is that the other arctic countries have stood shoulder to shoulder together in terms of their opposition to the unlawful inkergses in the ukraine and the -- incursions in the ukraine and russia's violation
of ukraine's sovereignty. they have all adopted the sanctions and have supported the sanctions and we as a country are grateful for that. but one thing that we're also in agreement on, as i mentioned, is the seven other arctic countries the united states and the other six minus russia, all believe that we should for the good of the arctic for the environment and other important issues, we need to keep russia in the fold and keep communications open. we are all committed to that. i have relaid the message that the military rhetoric, the actions by the russians in ukraine are not helpful to keeping that line of communication open. yet we remain committed to doing that. i think and know secretary this is secretary kerry's belief and the president's
belief, and it's something that i just understand intuitively is no situation is made better by cutting off communications. it's very important for us to communicate, not just for those things that we want to do in the arctic, but also to help other situations as well. so we are committed to maintaining that line of communication, at least as it stands right now. military buildup, i don't know whether you were touching on military buildup in the arctic, clearly there's been a lot of rhetoric there as well. i was told by one russian that, when i said that that rhetoric was unhelpful, they said, well, you know, military people are going to be military people. they're going to say what they say. i'm trying very hard to make sure either through our intelligence programs or otherwise, to find where the reality is in terms of capability. one person can look at what's going on in terms of military buildup and rightfully say
they've got an awful long border along the arctic and if you're going to have increased maritime traffic, you should have search and rescue facilities, you should have modern airports and other things. things that i would like to see built in alaska. as maritime activity increases. so one person's search and rescue response capabilities is another person's military buildup. i saw a couple of news stories when i was appointed into this job that said that the united states was now going to militarize the arctic because they selected an admiral to be their special representative. i'm not doing a very good job of it, if that's why i was elected. [laughter] it's hard to determine intent. intent is always sort of a gamble. what you need to look at is capabilities. what are they actually building? and we're keeping an eye on that. but some of it is legitimate
things that should be built because there's an increase in maritime traffic. they are building icebreakers. i wish we were building icebreakers. last week's hearing, senator can'twell asked about the various studies that are out there. there's one study that calls for three u.s. heavy icebreakers and three medium. there's another one that calls for four and six. i can't keep track what have the numbers are and what i told senator can't well was, we got all wrapped up talking about how many we should have, it would seem to me we could at least come to agreement on we need at least one. and we should start building it. we haven't put money toward building that first icebreaker. i would be happy seeing just a first icebreaker, much less all those other things. in the absence of that, there are people coming forward. there are some commercial activities that would say, we'll build you an icebreaker and lease it back to the government. there are other countries that
might volunteer. part of the arctic council, what we might work at search and rescue for instance. we want to take that search and rescue agreement and exercise it now. because no one country can provide all the resources that are necessary to take care of a major maritime disaster, so let's inventory what we have and see how we might work together better to be able to share responsibilities and share responses. maybe all those icebreakers are out there, maybe there's a way for us to cooperate between the countries. i hate to go down this line of logic, but i watch fantasy, the star trek movies and you see on the bridge of the enterprise, you see a russian, an asian an african-american whatever it might be, other countries came together, pooled their resources and worked together. wouldn't it be beautiful if, within the auspices of the
arctic council we could pool resources and work together cooperatively? i think that's a worthy goal. but the united states at the end of the day has to do its part as well and start investing in some resources there. i'm hopeful that the president's new executive order that delineates the responsibilities of the arctic executive steering committee will start setting those priorities and start pushing some resource proposals. >> we have a gentleman -- did you have a question? lady on the middle. >> hello. my name is linda preebie and i'm a partner doing federal relations and ethics and compliance at a law firm here in washington, d.c., called colehain meadows. before that for 14 years i was deputy general council -- counsel and ethics official at the white house drug policy. i was very interested in your comment about the federal advisory commission act, which is known as the federal version of the government in the sunshine act.
and i presume that your comment expressed a concern, correct me if i'm wrong about the u.s. participation in the arctic economic council potentially converting that to a u.s. federal advisory commission. is that the concern that you were raising? >> that would be the concern. i'm not an expert on the laws. but it has been expressed as one of those concerns, as we talk to people within the state department. >> that's right. i did a lot of that when i was at white house drug policy. that is correct. that's a legitimate concern. but i note with the president's new executive order on interagency coordination that there's no position or representation there for nonfederal interests. and i understand that as well. as far as the interagency. although i do have an idea. about a way to address that. but regardless, my question to you is, clearly in light of the very first question that was asked you, there is a desire for people to have input to the federal policymaking process who are not already in the loop insiders, whether that
includes alaska or other areas as well. do you foresee the creation of an actual federal advisory commission for u.s. arctic policy being created to address that need? >> i have toed a might right up front, i have -- have to admit right up front, i have not even considered it or thought about it. i'm not going to use it it as an excuse. i think i've been in the job seven months now and while i had a very narrow and parochial interest on the coast guard, i've had to broaden that out into the international portion of this and that has consumed an awful lot of what limited brain space i have, so getting into some of those other finer details, how we refine this as we go forward, i think that's a worthy suggestion for consideration. we'll make a note of that. certainly i could foresee it as a possibility. but i just don't know.
>> "science magazine." admiral, the arctic is one of the most important places in the world in terms of climate change it's one of the most volatile regions. you mentioned this. and yet it's very poorly instrumented for climate. i note in your remarks you didn't mention this issue. how important is it that the nations of the world improve monitoring in the arctic and what do you think the arctic council should do about that? >> it is a part of our u.s. program. we're looking at various mapping systems, sensors, we're looking at inventorying what other countries are doing and bringing them together so that we can have better observation. it's not only just that, there's a great need for increased satellite coverage,
whether it's communications, observation, navigation. most of what we've put up over the decades is optimized fored middle latitudes -- for the middle latitudes. not optimized for the higher latitudes. that's another thing that clearly the united states can't take on all by itself. there's benefits to all the countries that are going to be operating in the arctic, so that's another area that we're hopeful that we can bring people together and start investing in. but you are absolutely right, we need better coordination of what sensors there are up there and we're going to attempt to identify those that are needed as well and start moving towards getting them resourced. >> thanks so much for holding this event. my name is claire, i'm with "national journal." you talk ad lib about the need to -- a little bit about the need to kind of raise public awareness. it seems like one of the big
challenges with arctic is, you know, getting adequate funding and resources and sort of convincing congress. but also kind of convincing the american public. which might lead to more attention in congress. can you talk a little bit more about how you can get the public to pay attention and then i also wanted to ask if you'd heard anything back from disney about your offer to them to perhaps use the "frozen" characters as a way to educate the public? >> i'm afraid my name isn't very good at disney right now. for those of who you don't know, and don't know how you couldn't, actually when you go home tonight, google papp disney arctic. and the last time i checked there's at least about 10 pages of articles there. one of the proposals we had was a very bright young lady within my office, who is a big fan of disney the movie "frozen," i think she can recite all the --
the entire script of the movie and sing all the songs. but she suggested that we need to start teaching the youth about the arctic and perhaps having some public service announcements done with the disney characters from the movie "frozen," you know, anna and elsa and sven and olaf. i know these because i have granddaughters and i watch the movie all the time. when i arrived in norway, it just so happened that it was in the middle of the film festival. and on that particular evening there was an outdoor theater, there were about 300 children all bundsled up and they're watching disney's "frozen." so i tell the story to the crowd at the arctic frontiers event the next morning, the 1,300 people, and i mentioned that i had gone out to disney in los angeles to meet with them and i didn't think my marketing through very well and i said, you know, you've taught
all these kids around the world about a fantasy arctic city in norway. a kingdom that doesn't really exist. and conditions that don't really exist. i said you need to start teaching them about the plight of the polar bear and alaskan villages that are falling into the ocean because the perma frost is that youing. i went on with a list of other things. i could see this guy was becoming more and more concerned and then he said, admiral, might not understand our culture here at disney is to project positive images and happy endings. [laughter] and he's right but how do you turn that into finding happy endings for our arctic as well? i think it can be done. we're continuing discussions with disney. i'm hopeful that we're going to get there. it's a very good company and they put out a good product. i'd like to have them help us raise awareness. your basic question, though, is how you raise awareness to the american people. if i had that secret, i
wouldn't be sitting here working for the government. i'd be out as a lobbyist or something like that. i'm never going to be a lobbyist. but i'd be runninging a business, a media business or something. it's hard to get bandwidth. look at the front page of "the post" today and see the things that are erupting every day that draw the attention to the american people. -- of the american people. and, yes, long-term we're becoming -- we're coming -- becoming concerned about what's happening in the arctic. because of climate change and other things. but it's slow. and there's no major cataclysmic event that's happening. and when you have so many cataclysmic events that are drawing the attention every day, it's hard to get the bandwidth to spread it out. i mean it's like, you know, we say, why isn't the white house taking this up? well, the white house has a lot on its plate. secretary kerry's going to be the chair of the arctic
council, but do you think he has the time to devote to the arctic council on a day to day basis? with dealing with ebola syria, isis and everything else in the world? there's something that goes along with leadership and that's that you got a lot on your plate. the united states is fortunately or unfortunately involved in an awful lot of things around the world. therefore the arctic isn't a huge problem right now for anybody. so it's hard to draw that attention. that's what i've been trying to do. how can you come up with a national imperative, something that will draw in the american people? we're still struggling with that. but i think we're getting closer. >> thank you. richard ranger from the american petroleum institute. this question prompts a suggestion for you to consider, admiral papp. and that is, through some resource associated with the u.s. chairmanship, a
recommended reading list something that you could develop over time, with the state of alaska, with academia. there's a lot of great books out there. "arctic dreams," "50 miles from tomorrow," but i think from the standpoint of the long pull, building student interest, academic interest, public interest i throw that out as a suggestion that could be developed over your tenure. >> that's part of our public diplomacy program. we're using the scholarships to gain some interest and start bringing people in. that's why i -- that's one of the reasons why i was really keen on trying to get disney in there. is because you got to start with the youth. one of the challenges we faced back in my previous job was getting the best of american talent, diverse american talent into the coast guard academy.
and you can't start at the junior year of high school. you really have to start marketing when they're in grade school. we need to carry over some of these programs and perhaps introduce it in our schools or otherwise. you're absolutely right. >> admiral, in the very near future there's one cruise line that has plans to send a ship carrying as many as 2,000 people into the arctic waters. do we as a nation have the ability, if we believe this is foolhearty, to waialae this kind of activity and not allow ships that aren't truly sea worthy? arctic conditions to proceed into our arctic regions? or should we have such rights? >> we have the ability, and this is one of those things, i would bring in my lawyers and start looking at this, if a voyage is manifestly unsafe, if
you can make that determination, you can terminate a voyage. yes. if it's an american flag vessel. that can be done. will it be done in this particular case? i'm sure that they're going to demonstrate they have the capability. i'm sure the united states coast guard and other agencies in the government are going to take a good, solid look at this and say, ok, if a problem happens, how do you rescue those people? i personally have been involved with a cruiseship that broke down and the only way you could rescue all those people was to bring another cruise ship alongside and transfer -- in that case, this was many years ago when i did this, i think it was only about 800 people. you had to transfer 800 people by ferries across to the other cruise ship. do you require them to have another cruise ship come behind them in their wake? do you require them to have an ice break escort? there's a lot of things that canada and the united states will be and are in fact looking
at and we'll place down as requirements on these people. but then at the end of the day, i'm sure the united states and canada will deploy resources and have them on stand-by. those are resources that might be otherwise used for other things. resources are limited. so if you're going to do some new task you're going to have to pull them off other tasks. you might have to send ships up there that would be down interdicting drugs and illegal migrants and take them off those duties and send them up there to make sure that you can provide for the safety of those 2,000 people that are transiting the northwest passage. >> i'd like you all to join me in thanking the admiral for his very provocative presentation. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]
>> coming up tonight, more of c-span's road to the white house coverage. remarks by south carolina senator lindsey graham. he made his first trip to new hampshire since announcing he's considering a presidential run in 2016. senator graham spoke at a politics and eggs breakfast that's hosted by the new england council and the new hampshire institute of politics. we'll be showing that tonight
at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and then right after that, more politics with former texas governor rick perry. also in new hampshire. talking about foreign policy issues. including the ongoing dangers of isis. >> isis filled the void of a failed policy in iraq and in syria. in american tanks, with american weapons isis began taking cities that just a few years ago had been freed by the blood of american soldiers. and these highly orchestrated videos we are seeing broadcast to the world beheadings, we're seeing a young jordanian pilot burned alive these people have filled mass graves with muslims
and christians alike. they've terrorized women, they have declared a caliphate over an area as large as the united kingdom in that part of the world. and let's be clear about who isis is. what they represent. they are a religious movement had that seeks to take the world back to the seventh century. their aims are apocalyptic. to cleanse the world not just of christians and jews but of muslims who don't agree with their extreme ideology. and it is their stated vow to kill as many americans as they can. and it's time that the american people heard the truth. the president declared in his state of the union address that the advance of isis had been
stopped. that is simply not true. he says, isis is not a religious movement. again, he is simply wrong. to deny the fundamental religious nature of the threat and down play the seriousness of it is naive, it's dangerous and it's misguided. >> just some of rick perry's remarks. the former texas governor speaking earlier today in new hampshire. a state that traditionally holds the nation's first presidential primary. you can watch his comments in their entirety. we'll have them tonight at 9:00/10:00 -- 9:10 eastern time here. tomorrow on "washington journal," trita farsi. then eleanor smeal.
and john cook talks about efforts being made to obtain access to hillary clinton's personal email account. plus we'll be taking your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. all live on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> here's some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks.
>> find our complete television schedule at cspan.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> a discussion recently about a survey of members of congress and how they voted on business legislation and limited government. this is from today's "washington journal." it's about 40 minutes. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to our table david mcintosh, who served in our congress
representing indiana from 1995 to 2001. welcome and thank you for being here. let's talk about club for growth per remind our viewers what the group is and what your goals are and as the new president, what do you hope to do differently? guest: it is elitist political and policy organization for free market progrowth limited government policies. taxes to create private sector economic growth, free trade, and stable money supply. those are the policies they advocate. they recently have just come out with ratings for all the members for last year's vote. we do that and make it available to the public so they can see how their members stack up on key votes. host: why do you think it has an
impact? guest: it is for constituents and voters to know how their members stack up. they campaign saying they will be a free market strong supporter and what they do is tell them house -- how they were on those issues one after another here in congress. host: we are showing our viewers the five top house members. why these five members? guest: those members were at the top of the list when the added up all the votes. justin had a perfect 100%. always a progrowth vote. he also has a lifetime score of 100%. there were, i think it was a total of 34 members in the house and senate who received our
defenders of the economic freedom award, which meant they scored 90%. we recognize members will differ from time to time on various issues, but that is a consistent, time after time voting for free market progrowth. host: the top five senators for club for growth. but tell us specifically what legislation recently, high profile legislation, that they supported or opposed, that gave them a top rating? guest: these were for 2014, all the bills considered whether or not they would be in the scorecard from last year. voting on the keystone pipeline, for example approving that would increase economic activity and increased jobs. the budget bill, the crowd -- the club for growth opposed the budget because of the failure to get to a balanced budget.
we did not score paul ryan well on it because you look at the policy rather than the personality. that bill continued to have runaway spending and economic growth, did not have any tax reform that would lead to economic growth, and then the farm bill, a huge subsidy. one thing the club stands firm are -- on his do not let the government intervene competition, not government subsidies. host: how is john boehner doing? guest: we would like him to move to progrowth tax cuts, a balanced budget, legislation that would help us overturn a
new internet regulation the fcc has. in one case, the import export bank, simply make a decision not to put a bill on the floor and then it would expire. host: would you like to see a challenge by one of the house members giving a 100% score? would you like to see a challenge? guest: we are not about challenging the leadership. the house has chosen speaker boehner. our goal is to have him lead and have the house passed legislation that would help the economy. we do not get involved in those types of leadership questions. host: upshot column in the new york times about the republican tax plan. they write --
which one should it be? guest: we would vote in favor of those who create economic growth. for example we are a strong supporter of tax reform that would reduce the corporate rate both for large corporations and family businesses run by individuals. cut the individual rate as well you will see a lot more employment and job opportunities, particularly for our young students who have been facing a situation when they go to college and cannot find a job when they are done. those are the kinds of tax cuts we prefer. we strongly support members who advocate for those. host: marco rubio came out with a plan that seeks to resolve the debate by giving both sides what they want. big new cap -- tax cuts for families, like a tax credit, as
well as big tax cuts for owners of capital, including a tax rate of zero on dividends and capital gains. guest: i think that is a very good bill. the parts we focus on are the progrowth elements of it. they include the middle-class family tax. it will not necessarily have the economic stimulus we are looking for, but that type of bill and the a creative approach is what we hoping they will send to the floor. host: let's talk more about the export and import. writing about that this morning saying, it bank with congress in its pocket, saying both democrats and republicans support the export import bank because it benefits constituents companies in their districts and in their state. guest: it is no different than
the earmarking going on in the appropriations bill. members want to go home and create credit. in order to benefit our district. our view is the private sector will provide the same financing. the companies, boeing and ge, that used the export import bank , have said in their public disclosures, if it goes away, we can still finance sales of the product overseas. a direct subsidy to big corporation. a political payoff. members have told me we want to be with you on this, but we had 20 different lobbyists this week tell us export import bank. they are representing a constituency that gets that old subsidy, like welfare for operation. a better, free market approach, is to say to let the private market take care of it. it can be done, will be done,
and then as george points out, you do not have congressman putting their thumb on the scale, i want a loan for my constituent and politics does not enter into it and the taxpayers should not be paying for that. host: what have you heard from lawmakers about the debate? authorization for the agency expires in june. guest: what we have been hearing from a chairman is that he is confident the majority of the republicans would like to see the whole program just expire. we hope the speaker will listen to this conference and understand that is consistent with republican views of free market, we hear them campaign about it. they'll campaign on it, make the decision and say, we do not need to schedule that will. host: let's get to calls.
chuck, democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: good morning. you said you track everybody's voting record. i would wonder if you could tell me who inserted the language to get rid of the dodd frank stuff. like yesterday they were all stating what they put into the bill for human trafficking. they aim debts they inserted the part about abortion but everyone was bragging about what they put in and i did i hear nothing on the abortion thing. i was wondering if you could tell me. guest: i can't do that is not one of the issues the club has followed in the economic agenda. on the dodd frank question, you have asked a good one. the work done in the house to try to pull back onerous regulation, there has a lot of headlines today saying the banks
have struggled to deal with the bill. it ends up holding them back from creating new and innovative financing products. the main people who have been working on that are the chairman and his committee that have some a lot of reforms. host: headlines this morning about big banks struggling. four of the biggest names -- guest: what i think this shows is that the whole program does basically not work. investors are confident in them. instead, they have to dedicate a lot of time and manpower and money and resources complying
with a plethora of federal regulation. capital requirements the market may or may not require. the reason the federal government was doing that is because they subsidize them in a too big to fail program. much better to let the marketplace work the way it is supposed to work and have the discipline of competition and the threat of failure and the shareholders will then demand the banks have the right risks for portfolio because they do not want to lose their money. and that, we have replaced the market discipline with government regulation that wastes a lot of time, money, and effort, and has proved to be a huge burden. host: supporters of dodd frank say the space were not regulating themselves and that is what led to it. you say do away with the requirements that make thanks have skin in the game and then have them fail? >> i would set reasonable
capital requirements and then let the marketplace discipline them on it, but tell them, if you fail, you fail. we will not be there to bail you out. host: ok to michael in seattle democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: i wonder why on god's greater of anyone would ever listen to anyone -- anything this gentleman and his group ever had to say about anything ever again. their version of a trickle down iran survival of the physics economics has proven to be a spectacular failure anytime it has ever been implemented. exhibit a is resident clinton came in office and increased taxes in his first budget. every republican voted against it and every republican sounded like chicken little on megadoses of acid. everyone of them was wrong. a booming economy, 23 million jobs graded, left a record surplus. at the end of george bush's
catastrophic reign of error, a massive chain dollar tax cut which left the economy and skip -- in shambles, a surplus, and created a poultry 2 million jobs. 20 million jobs for president clinton, and 2 million jobs for george bush will go down as history as the worst president in the history of the united states and even a staunch conservative republican said that in 2010, george bush "had the worst fiscal record of any president ever. " it" " it has been a spectacular failure and will be. guest: bill clinton had a terrible economy for the first two years and in 1994, the american people said, this is not working, and senate republican congress that
actually passed tax cuts and bounced to the budget, we saw the economic growth. it is not the personality, bill clinton or no per -- or no bill clinton, it is the type of policies they passed. they went from big government and failed economic policies to lower taxes, balanced budget deregulation to make sure the internet was not regulated. then we saw on economic boom and 23 million jobs created. host: linda, michigan independent caller. caller: this gentleman is just espousing the same policies we have heard from republicans since reagan or trickle down more tax cuts for the wealthy and sticking it to the middle-class as usual. it does not work. he did not work under reagan. it does not work now. we throw tax cuts at wealthy businesses.
it is just "here, let's throw money at you and hope you do something for us with it are co- tax cuts do not create jobs. demand create jobs. people making a decent living create demand, which creates job. throwing money at wealthy people, they put it in their pocket. you basically financed our own job loss. this money, ok we will take that money and invest in machinery here, outsource the jobs, in source the label -- the labor. it is the same old scam it has always been. guest: the middle-class have suffered the most under obama's approach of handing out taxpayer dollars in subsidies. our view is, do not bring the money to washington and try to recycle. leave it with people with their own families and their own businesses, and they will create their jobs.
we have seen it work time and time again p or do we have more of their money and are free to make decisions on how to use it, spend it, and invest it. that will be the best for the middle-class. it is a much better deal for the middle-class when you have free market courses. the people who suffered the most are not the largest corporations in america. it is the middle-class and small businesses. that is where our economic program will do the best good. host: talk about the scorecard a little more and how it translates to money for those who score high and those who score low. guest: we advocate for free market positions. we have an affiliated political action committee and that makes decisions, looking at the scorecard, the members who score well, we support.
sometimes, there are members who score badly. if they end up having a challenger in a primary, the club for growth says, we will not only blindly support republicans. we will support members and challengers to members who would do a better job on our issues. this year, and this cycle getting ready for 2016, we have identified as a chief priority. six of the senators we supported in the past to help them get reelected because they all scored 90% or above on our scorecard. ron johnson, mike lee, marco rubio, rand paul, tim scott those are the six and the political action in the club will support in the election. host: here is a piece in defense of john boehner's speakership.
-- host: as a member of congress yourself who came into the 1994 wave and worked with speaker newt gingrich, isn't there something to say about having party unity, everybody on the same page, and not working against those in your party? guest: i think the key is a pretty simple formula about how to govern based on an election. tell the voters what you will do. you win the election and get the majority. then you do what you told them. the problem with republicans in this congress is they told the
voters, for example on repealing obamacare, we will make that our number one priority for three elections, they told the voters that. we will see how they do. it is a big test coming up. will they use the budget process, reconciliation, to fully repeal obama care? if they do that, the voters who sent them there say yes, we are confident you will do what you promised to do. a rule of the club is to call them on it and say when you said this in the last election, you are not doing it. that is where the members we support feel emboldened to tell the leadership, get with the program to this is what we tell voters we will do. host: that is the next fight you see, the next debate, whether or not we see the process of reconciliation to do away with the affordable care act? guest: i think that is kp at
week knowledge president obama's is unlikely this to sign the bill. the voters recognize that care what they want to see his congress doing everything it can do appear that is the next step it could do to move that along. when i was there in the 1990's, president clinton did not like welfare reform. we used the legislation process to send it to him three times and it finally passed and proved to be successful. my hope is if the -- if the republicans in congress follow the pledges they made to voters, do the hard work, it could someday change. host: anthony in massachusetts, a democratic caller, you are next. caller: the first thing you said when he sat down is that tax cuts for the rich was the answer. i would like to talk to you about president herbert hoover in 1929, who made a whole lot of rich people, called the roaring
20's. we had the worst recession -- the worst depression we have ever had in the world. 1958 president eisenhower had a crash in the economy. president nixon froze wages on people and he had the highest unemployment ever created. president reagan cut taxes on the rich in 1981 and he had a bad economy because in 1984, he ran for reelection and said the economy was really bad and he blamed it on president carter. he had the highest deficit tripled the debt. then he had the highest deficit ever created by a single
president in the united states at $2.8 trillion. he had 11% unemployment. i bought a home in texas under his regime in 1988, and i had to pay 11.2% in the interest rates on a home. president george w. bush cut taxes on rich people for three times and he created this crash and now you claim that this president had a difficult time trying to get people back to work without your help ever? guest: actually, i did not make that claim at all, nor that i say taxes for the rich paradigm for tax cuts for everybody. if you're wealthy and you invest, you should have a low tax on that investment.
if you are poor and you invest you save a little money because you want to send your kids to school, you should pay low taxes on the savings you do or the investment you make. those types of programs economic taxes are for everybody and the truth is the middle-class and the lower classes benefit the most because they see economic prosperity and can have a good job for their family and save, work, and live in a society where they have got hope for a better future. we do not see that with this president's economic policy. his hope is that you can sign up for a welfare program. that is not the time just the type of thriving and prosperous society the club for growth is looking for. you look back on the history and herbert hoover did not cause depressions with the tax cuts are he made it worse because he decided to increase taxes and put protection was limits on free trade. it is those crisis moment when government says, oh, we are
going to throughout these free market principles that become worse. he saw that in 2007. 2008. when the banking policy, not the tax cuts, the banking policy created this huge bubble in real estate with artificially low interest rates. and the government then turned away from free-market principles and said we are going to have a huge bailout. that made it worse. we saw a 20% loss of capital and value in the marketplace as a result. so, the real history of these economic crises is if you turn away from free-market principles, you make it worse. people suffer more, it last longer. as we have seen this long kind of anemic recovery from the policies of 2008, and then president obama after that. host: louisville, kentucky. everett is watching us there. caller: yes, sir, i wanted to thank you for all their good
work that you do in your organization. the club for growth is a counterweight to the george organizations and the liberal labor unions that spend millions of dollars against a pro free-market candidate. thank you very much. but my question was, here in louisville between 1996 and 2006, we had a program of free enterprise republican congressperson, and we certainly would like to have one again. john yarmuth, our congressman here is far to the left and is a sort of celebrity for msnbc. i really hope that you would look into finding somebody who could be a great candidate here in louisville. it is a swing district. in my fan of question is, if obamacare will be approved by the supreme court, with the individual mandate be repealed? thank you very much. guest: thank you.
thank you for that mode of confidence, and encouragement for finding a good candidate in louisville. i remember and northrup -- anne northrup well, and how she serves that district well. the question about obamacare is a difficult one. as you mentioned, the supreme court is now considering a case titled king versus burwell that essentially asks the question can the president ignore the way the law is written and extend both taxes and subsidies in states that don't set up their own obamacare state exchange? the democrats who wrote the bill in congress, every republican voted against that, purposely wrote a provision that said those type of subsidies and the taxes and mandates that go with it only apply to states that set up an exchange.
and the reason they did that if they wanted to create an incentive for every state to set up an exchange. well, pretty quickly, whether they were red states with republican governors, or blue state like or gone with democratic governors, many of them figured out this is a terrible program. and or gone try to set one up, couldn't do it, and finally -- oregon tried to set one up couldn't do it, and finally used the federal program. they don't work. the whole program is flawed fundamentally. there is no marketplace. there is no ability of people to make choices of what they want. and you are having to execute these huge programs of mandates with businesses demanded some individuals. so haven't set up the exchanges. president obama has unilaterally said, ok, we are going to ignore the law and say the taxes and subsidies.
the court is going to decide that. who knows how they will decide. there is a strong argument that the court will say this is a political question, we are going to follow the law as it is written. and the president needs to follow the law as written. he is not above the law. he can't just change it by himself. and then it gets tossed back to congress and the president to figure out what to do in most states -- those states. host: if the court were to rule in your favor and city subsidies are not legal, should republicans allow them to stand? should the have a way for those to get subsidies to continue to get subsidies until there is an alternative put in place? guest: what i would suggest they do is have a, you know, temporary measure that basically says to the insurance companies who written these policies, he took the risk, you are committed
to these insurance policies. keep them in place. then that would give time for congress and the president to pass hopefully free-market health care legislation. i saw an article by governor dall in louisiana, and he said the best thing to do is for the congress and the president tuesday out of this. let us in the states set up a program that exley works based on free-market principles, the privity between a doctor and his patients so that individuals can choose the best health care for their families, and we don't have the federal government coming in with these mandates and regulations that make the health care policies so expensive to begin with. so, my hope is that what will happen is congress will say this didn't work, but let's free up those states who chose not to have an exchange. they don't have to be a part of obamacare anymore. host: john in new jersey.
in independent -- an independent. thanks for hanging on the line. caller: yeah, thank you. i just wanted to comment. when clinton was in office and passed the everybody should own a home actor bill they work at mcdonald's but can't afford a $350,000 house. but they were giving these mortgages, and that what crashed our economy. most blame george bush, but it was executed who did that free homes act where every american was entitled to own a home, even if you didn't have enough money to make the payments. you had these mortgage guys giving you these balloon loans and that is what crashed our economy. caller: you know, you are right. the bubble in the real estate marketplace was driven in large by fannie mae and the policies that said lenders ignore the credit worthiness.
in other words, don't worry about whether someone can repay their mortgage. go ahead and make the loan because we want everybody who wants to have a house. when you try and get those economic principles, something is going to give. in this case, the whole financial market collapsed because they took those mortgages and they created securities out of them. essentially, they package them up and started telling them -- selling them to investors. investors thought mortgages were very safe. we might have a few defaults here and there. what they failed to do was examine the risk involved systemically when you have these type of regulations that promoted, essentially, making most the people who would never be able to repay them. and the caller is exactly right. that type of interference eventually piles up and we all pay for it the economy collapses. host: stephen and pompano beach
florida. a democratic caller. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a question for mr. mcintosh that deals with the transpacific partnership. tpp. the president at this point is asking professed check authority from congress for the tpp. aside from the trade aspects there is something else inserted that disturbs me. i can tell you how much. i would like a comment from him. specifically, its enforcement. i will give you the, you know the publication where i found this. if a multinational corporation feels that it will lose money by virtue of a particular piece of legislation, and that could be
legislation at the local, state or federal level, then they essentially can demand that the legislation be reversed. in other words, we are losing much of our democracy. the criteria is multinationals losing money or claiming to lose or to profits. host: stephen, we are running out of time here with our guest, so let me let him respond. caller: stephen, thank you for mentioning. this is an issue where the club for growth, because we are strongly supportive of free trade, disagrees with some republicans who say we shouldn't give any authority to president obama. we don't trust him, we don't think you should get it. our view is he is committed to free trade agreements. we think that is the right economic policy. and so we exley support congress giving him that fast -- actually support contract -- congress giving him that fast track authority.
your question is a provision that i am not as familiar with but my view is the way these free trade agreements work should work, is without particular subsidies to businesses or, as you are describing it, ability for private corporations to say state or local laws will be removed if they interfere with our profits on that. now, if the state or local laws try to impose trade barriers then the trade agreements traditionally have said this is the national law agreement between the countries approved by congress, and those trade barriers at the state and local level will not survive. so if it is removing something that prevents free trade, we would support that. if it is simply saying that the business can get a subsidy by
trumping these various local laws, we would be opposed to that. but we are very strongly in favor of the free trade agreement. host: let's get in one last call. douglas in oregon. a republican. caller: good morning. greta, you are a saint. c-span is the best thing on tv. david, would you take the last couple minutes and earthlink address our national debt, the interest, what is going to happen when the interest rates go up? host: thank you, douglas. i will have him do that. guest: thank you, douglas. you are absolutely right. it is already at $18.1 trillion. a huge burden on the future and a huge overhang in the economy. your point specifically is what is going to happen when we return to normal interest rates. and the federal reserve is
signaling they are going to and -- end the quantitative easing and gradually get us back to a more normal interest rate structure. at that point, there is a huge liability for the united date. -- states. basically, a requirement to pay a much higher interest than they do now. as we return to normal interest rates in a matter of five years or so, the interest portion -- just hang on what we've have -- what we have borrowed in the past -- exceeds the united states military. and a huge number of other domestic programs that congress supports. so, it has become suddenly this looming burden on the future. our view is you should only extend the debt ceiling if you have -- the way boehner approached it last time -- an equal amount of spending reduction so that we start to get the whole budget under control and don't continue to add that.
eventually, you need to start paying down that debt. host: mr. mcintosh, 2016 around the corner here. who will you target, what republicans will you target that are up in 2016? specifically, "the hill" newspaper with a question. will you take on the congresswoman from alaska? guest: we don't target anyone in particular. we wait. we are hoping that her score will improve. she was the lowest ranking republican on our scorecard last year. 27%. guest: we are hoping that she will support a repeal of obamacare, a balance of budget a lot of things that would raise her report. we wait to see a race develop,
and we don't see one developing at this point. host: "politico" says you'll get involved in the presidential race. what now do you see as the hopefuls? guest: we typically do not get more involved for this candidate or not. we have pointed out all the records. i would love to come back and share those with you. we have pointed out when a republican says they are conservative, but increases taxes and really aren't conservative on the economy. this year it is different. we have a great field out there. three of them are people that the club supported in the race for senate. thinking about it, at least. marco rubio, rand paul, and ted cruz. the club is thinking about you are going to talk to our members. if it comes down to a point that one of the good guys -- and you
have some governors who look very appealing on our issues, as well -- if it comes down to somebody really good like that should we consider being involved in the race? my job is to make sure we as the members and the donors money wisely. -- use the members and donor's money wisely, not just to make a headline. so if we can make a difference i would love to support good candidates. but if other people are already doing that job, wheels the to our knitting in the senate and house. host: former congressman from indiana. the current president for club for growth. guest: great to be here. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," we will hear from trita parsi. she will talk about the role of congress in the iran nuclear negotiations.
john cook talks about efforts being made to main -- in access to heller clinton's personal e-mail account. -- hillary clinton's personal e-mail account. this week c-span is in new hampshire for road to the white house coverage, as several potential candidates -- we will be in manchester for a politics and eggs event tonight with lindsey graham, who spent two days in the granite state this week. friday night at 7:45, live on c-span, we will take you to a house party in dover, new hampshire with jeb bush. on saturday, just afternoon, live on c-span, with scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop. sunday night at 9:35 on c-span,
senator ted cruz at the annual lincoln-reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016 on c-span. attorney general eric holder talked about last night's shooting of two police officers in ferguson, missouri, calling the crime disgusting and cowardly. he says the justice department will offer resources to help find the shooters. >> the heinous and cowardly attacks that occurred against two brave law enforcement officers in ferguson, missouri just last night. i any quickly condemn these repugnant attacks. all of us in the loft enforcement of family and americans across the country are praying for the safe recovery of those two officers. i stand ready to offer the full investigative resources of the u.s. department of justice, the fbi, to solve this crime and
hold these perpetrators fully accountable. my brother is a retired law enforcement officer. he always tells me that cops have the right to come home at night. that is exactly right. these are people who protect us who keep us safe, and they have the right to come home at night. seeing this attack last night really kind of turned my stomach. in the last week since the justice department released its pattern and practice report on ferguson, a thought we had begun to see important signs of progress. there were good-faith steps being taken within the city's leadership to move in a more cooperative direction that is beneficial to law enforcement and community residents. make no mistake, we still have a long way to go to bring about this systemic change that is needed and that is long overdue in that area. but i think the early indications have really, truly
been positive. what happened last night was a pure ambush. what happened last night was a pure ambush. this was not someone trying to bring healing to ferguson. this was a punk who was trying to sow discord in an area that is trying to get its act together and trying to bring together a community that has been fractured for too long. this really disgusting and cowardly attack might have been intended to unravel any sense of progress that exists, but i hope that this not happen. conversations like the one we have convened today that we will be having to build trust between law enforcement and the communities that they serve are really so important. >> this sunday on q&a the director of the georgetown
university medical center watchdog project on how pharmaceutical companies lobby congress and influence doctors on what medication to prescribe. >> the promotion of a drug starts 7 to 10 years before the drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it has been approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions, or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug, for example and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to except a particular drug, and also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern
and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> a senate appropriations subcommittee held a hearing today on the 2016 budget requests of federal law enforcement agencies. they talk about the resources they need in their work combating terrorism, preventing cyberattacks, and ending drug trafficking. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. we welcome [no audio] the department of justice fiscal year 2016 budget request for federal law enforcement agencies. i want to welcome our four witnesses, the fbi director
u.s. marshal service director dea administrator michelle leon hart and atf director, todd jones. they will later each testify about their agency's 2016 budget request. this morning i want to begin by thanking the men and women of the fbi, marshall service and atf who work to protect this nation. we're in debt for their service and sacrifice. in particular i want to express my condolence to u.s. marshall josie wells who was killed in line on duty tuesday while participating in a fugitive task force in baton rouge, louisiana. deputy marshall wells was attached to the southern district office in mississippi and had duty fully volunteered for this task force. our thoughts and prayers are for his friends and prayers and
entire marshall service community for their loss here. the constantly changing landscape of criminal activity at home and abroad has challenged the justice's department ability to deal with emerging threats. we expect our law enforcement agencies to be more nimble and sophisticated than the terrorist they pursue. the goal of this joint law enforcement hearing is to determine how the 2016 budget would give each law enforcement agency the tools and capabilities needed to tackle those changing threats, whether they're cyber attacks, drug trafficking, financial fraud or terrorism. i believe our federal law enforcement agencies must work together particularly in tough budget environments in a manner that safe guards taxpayer dollars while preserving public safety. the fbi's mission includes protecting and defending the
united states against terrorism and foreign intelligence threats, fighting cyber crime as well as tending to traditional criminal activities, such as violent crime, public corruption and white collar crime. in order to carry out these priorities, the fbi's 2016 budget request is $8.5 billion which is an increase of $47 million above the 2015 enacted amount. in the past year, we've seen terrorist threats and increased cyber attacks. i believe it's imperative that the fbi appropriately balances the bureau's diverse responsibilities while targeting the highest needs and criminal threats facing our nation. the marshall's service has the honor of being america's largest federal law enforcement agency. the marshals provide judicial security, apprehend fugitives and protect witnesses and transport prisoners among other important duties.
the 2016 budget request of $2.7 billion for the marshall service is $1 million less than the 2015 enacted level of $2.8 billion. the funding reductions are largely isolated to the federal prisoner detention account. i want to hear how the 15 budget requests will allow the marshall service to continue its critical missions for the pursuit pursuit and arrest of fugitive tax offenders who are targeting our children. the drug enforcement administration's 2016 budget requests totals $2.5 billion the agency serves a central role in our society, working with domestic and international partners in enforcement and control of substance laws and regulations of the united states. in addition the dea's diverse control program prevents
detector and investigates the diversion of controlled pharmaceutical pharmaceuticals and listed chemicals. this mission is critical with prescription drug abuse arguably being the country's fastest growing drug problem. the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and explosives is tasked with combatting illegal use and trafficking of firearms, illegal use and torng of explosives and acts and bombings among other crime fighting roles. atf atf's 2016 budget request is $1.3 billion, which is $60 million above the '15 level. i'm interested how the agency would use this increased funding, particularly in light of recent complaints from hunters and sportsmen who believe that atf overstepped its authority by attempting to ban certain ammunition for recreation use.
i look forward to hearing the views and explanations of the witnesses for the details of their 2016 funding totals and working with our committee members to prioritize necessary funding for our federal law enforcement agencies. at this point, i'd like to recognize my friend and colleague, senator mikulski, former chairman of the committee. >> thank you for this hearing today and really bringing the full complement of federal law enforcement before the committee not only to review their budget but so we could first of all truly express our appreciation. we do appreciate every single man and woman who works for the agencies represented here today are so much valued and appreciated and they should do that.
we need to do that in three ways, number one, giver them respect and respect them and the sacrifices they do and their families do every single day while they're often away protecting us. number two, let's have the right resources and make sure we don't do another sequester where fbi agents were digging in their pockets and dea agents wondering what they could do to do their job and while we're looking at sequester how we go after the sexual predators. and the wonderful forensics, not only what you're enforcing but able us to identify we had few years ago came from a single gun from the forensics that you did.
it's that. some carry a gun and some work with a microscope, all are on their job and i wanted to say that. tomorrow, i will be at a maryland montgomery commercehamber of commerce event in which they honor those who provide public safety. firefighters and also police officers. the baltimore field office, mr. comey, will receive an award for being the best safety partner. it's not only what you do, how you do it, actually engaged in the community, leveraging the assets of both the federal government and state and local where everybody's best at what they're best at and best at what they're most needed for. so we appreciate that. of course, we want to express our condolences to the death of deputy marshall jose wells killed in the line of fire and we wish our police officers in ferguson a good recovery. so we've got a big job to do.
we way we start with respect i believe with the right resources. while we're looking at the law enforcement agencies of the fbi, dea and atf, make up most -- half of the justice department's budget. close to $15 billion. i think that's a bargain. i think that's a tremendous bargain for what we get in the way you are out there protecting america. there's only a modest increase here of $98 million, and i'm concerned whether that enables you to keep on hiring the people that you need to do the job, to be able to sustain the effort with the people that you hire also, will we be able to do the cost of living adjustments for the people who work with you whether agents, intelligence
analysts or computer analysts. these needed increases come in the context of the president's request. yes, we do know it's above the caps and we will have a robust discussion. while there are many pounding the table, let's lift the caps on defense debate, there's another way we need to defend america. we need to defend america in the streets and neighborhoods of our communities and we need to defend them from sexual predators. we need to defend them from murderers and killers. we need to defend them against the lone wolf who could be roaming around one of our big cities or small towns. if you want to protect america you not only want to lift the defense caps, you want to lift the domestic caps and have parity with that. i want you to know i feel very strongly about it. when i say i didn't want to run
again because i didn't want to raise money but raise hell, this is one of the areas that i'm going to raise hell about and we're going to do it here today. we look forward to hearing what it is you need for those resources. we count on you to be able to do this job. i could go through the data, which i will, when we get to the questions. two areas i hope we could also focus on, in addition to your specific mission, of course, is the heroin crisis that we hear from every governor, including my own in maryland. we look to work with our governor. yes, he's a republican and, yes, i'm a democrat but we're 100% marylanders and we're 100% involved in dealing with heroin. of course, the women of the senate joining with very good men are now focusing on the issue of human trafficking. we look forward to hearing it.
i need to know what are the right resources for you to be best attitude what you're best at and best at what you're needed for and we best better get our act together and make sure we support you. i look forward to the dialogue. >> thank you. we will start the hearing testimony with fbi director comey and then go right to left. we welcome all of you and your written testimony will be made part of the record. >> thank you. nice to be here. vit chairman mikulski and senators. thank you for the opportunity to sit with three, i would say old friends but i don't want to criticize any, people i've worked with for many years more than we'd like to admit and appreciate your expression of condolence for the marshall service, terrible loss, a reminder of the people we have and risk they take to protect this country. we're very grateful for that. the fbi's 2016 budget request is about maintaining the capabilities you have given us. it's about being good stewards of the taxpayer's money and make
sure we recover from the effects of sequester by filling the ranks so depleted over the past couple of years. there are two enhancements requested in our budget, each for about $10 million, one relates to cyber capabilities, trying to build those and the second to our efforts to integrate better in a technology technological way with this community. as the rest of you know, the fbi like my colleagues here, it's all about the people. 70% of our budget goes to our good folks. we have remarkable men and women working 24 hours a day all around this world to protect this country and its citizens. the members of this committee are very well aware of the threats the fbi is responsible for addressing. counter-terrorism remains at the top of our list for reasons that make good sense. the world of terrorism has shifted just in my 18 months on this job particularly in the growth and unflourishing spaces of the progeny of al qaeda, most
predominantly with isil and use of groups like isil and aqap with sophisticated technology and social media to spread their poison, attract recruits to their so-called callieiphate and try to motivate people who don't want to do harm in the united states. -- who don't travel to do harm in the united states. this poses an enormous challenge to us to find the people responding to that siren song and track those traveling and find those who may be motivating to radicalize and stay in place but engage in murderous behavior in the name of some misguided effort to find meaning in their lives. counter-terrorism remains at the top of our list for reasons i know the american people appreciate. as chairman shelby mentioned we have responsibility for counter-intelligence.
the spy game is not a thing of 1950s or '60s, it is alive and well. increasingly for all the threats, manifesting on the internet, cyber dominates the fbi's life and have to be digitally literate to protect kids, fraud, terrorism, protect critical infrastructure and our secrets. we're working very hard to make sure we have the workforce and technology and we're deployed in a smart way to be able to deal with the threats that come at us through the internet, which is all the threats we're responsible for. we spend a tremendous amount of time working with our partners here at this table to address a variety of criminal threats. vice-chairman mikulski mentioned our efforts to protect children. we work very hard on that and fight public corruption and a host of other efforts we do around the country. we do them almost entirely in partnerships with federal partners and state and local partners. is there literally nothing the fbi does alone. we accomplish great good but do it in partnership with lots of other folks. i want to close just mentioning a couple of our capabilities this committee has supported don't get the attention they deserve.
the first is rtdak. it is the analysis center for explosive devices around the world. it is a tremendous effort. we are putting together a world class facility so we can do with explosive devices the way we do fingerprints, to connect the dots and save lives. i had a chance to visit recent ly for the commitment to keep our allies safer and i appreciate your support. and we have the hazardous devices school for today and tomorrow to diffuse devices and protect the american people. two tremendous resources that don't get much attention. i'll mention one other. in the great state of west virginia we have thousands of people working in our criminal investigation services
department, division, literally the frame on which hangs the law enforcement of this country. they run the information sharing, the fingerprint database, they run the dna database, they run the sharing of vital information that protects law enforcement officer s officers officers. i told them when i visited, your work to a lot of people sounds boring. it is only boring because it works so well. we take it for granted this work will be there so when a cop pulls somebody over and runs their name or fingerprints they know immediately whether that's a rapist or terrorist or fugitive and people are protected by that. they are underappreciated but the frame that hangs law enforcement of this country and we are grateful for our west virginia colleagues. with that, i'll stop and thank you again. this committee has been tremendously supportive of the fbi. we recognize it and our great folks are extraordinaryily grateful for the support we've gotten from the committee and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you. miss hilton.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, everyone. i want to start by thanking you for your recognition of deputy josie wells, who we lost this past tuesday. he was without a doubt one of our finest. he was a young man committed to our fudgetive investigations. he worked to make our country safer. his loss was hard for all of us but you can imagine his family. he came from a long line of law enforcement. his father is a retired law enforcement officer from mississippi and his two brothers currently serve as law enforcement police officers. we will stand with them as we bid farewell to josie this weekend as we recognize yet
another fallen u.s. marshall service hero. our total request includes $1.2 billion for salaries and expenses and $1.5 billion for de tension and $15 million for construction of courthouses nationwide. the agency's many accomplishments over the years as we celebrate our 225th anniversary this year recently would not have been possible without your support from this committee in particular. in recent years, you have acknowledged and provided resources for us to safely guard the nation's federal prison inmate and detention populations. you recognize the importance of those resources. over the past year we had worked carefully to assess the agency spending and where necessary make improvements and reduce costs. the usms has also benefitted from this committee's decision to restore our resources in 2014, on salaries and expenses. this allowed united states to
fill 200 vacant u.s. marshals and i thank you for that support. i can assure you we take our fiduciary responsibilities financially seriously. and we will work with your staff to submit a moderate budget mindful of our country's financial situation. we have worked proactively to use existing resources, to ensure officer safety. aside from retaining a small carryover from the detention balance the u.s. marshall service worked to make sure a significant amount are made to the administration and congress for other purposes.
it is my ongoing focus to ensure we be as efficient and effective as we can within the dollars given to us and priority to take transformational steps to make the marshall service to be a data driven agency to make strategic and tactical business decisions. ultimately this is helping us present a performance based budget to show how we are managing our resources appropriated from congress. the '16 budget you have in front of you provides the necessary resources to protect and enhance you spoke about today. arresting violent fugitives, protecting children and enforcing law enforcement in the communities. still a paramount concern for the marshall services as we see more violence in our federal courthouses and federal judiciary. we saw it in wheeling, west virginia, saw it recently at a judd judge's home in the night, the judge just barely escaping the shooting and his family and the violence in the court in utah. you can see it play across the
media and violent criminals introduced to our court system pose a great risk to our judiciaries. this increases our enforcement efforts for law enforcement as we provide safety to our officers, try to work and ensure we can meet the requirements under the adam walsh child protection and safety act. the national center for missing and exploited children estimates over 769,000 sex offenders live in the united states of which i am proud to say we have apprehended at least probably close to 12,000 annually. brought them into compliance because over 7,169 are not in compliance. it is my top priority in this agency as we have lost too many and every effort to make sure personnel are adequately equipped. along with those at the table and my partners and we're collectively together, we the
marshall service apprehended warrants for more than 105,000 violent fugitives a year. deputy marshals who risk their lives arresting and apprehending those who flee from justice and wanted we are requesting 1.5$1.5 million for law enforcement training so we may keep that effort. the committee has recognized the urgent need to contain proliferation of gangs across our country. it has a severe impact on law enforcement because of the high-rising level of violence we see. gangs are no longer isolated to motorcycle gangs and urban street gangs, they are now in suburban and rural communities socially economically depressed communities and over more than 1 million members are criminally active in the united states. this is something we all want to address. our '16 budget request has an increase of $2.5 million for a total of $15 million for federal courthouses as i spoke earlier
about the situation we faced to make sure to mitigate the risks of the public that attend those courthouses and judiciary. mr. chairman, ranking member mikulski and members of the subcommittee, i request your sport to fully fund the '16 budget request to support the members of the marshall service you recognized earlier to carry out the protection efforts of our judicial process. we have proven ourselves a valuable asset to our communities insuring public safety and protecting our children. thank you. >> good morning, chairman shelby, ranking member mikulski and members of the subcommittee, i want to start by thanking ranking member mikulski for her many years of leadership and dedicated service to our country. you have been a trail blazer for wom enen in the senate and i am especially thankful for your
support of dea's museum traveling exhibit that went to the museum science center in baltimore last year. over 350,000 people visited the exhibit during the sep month run and they learned not just about law enforcement but also the science behind drugs, addiction and recovery. dea is in mourning this morning after hearing the news of deputy josie wells and we offer all our assistance to director hilton. the support of this committee has led to the arrest of many violent drug traffickers exemplified by the recent arrest of marine tinnez also known as latotu and omar morales. these arrests are another win for mexico in the fight against
brutal criminal cartels like the knights tempplar and lasettas. these arrests along with last year's capture of guzman signal major steps forward in our shared fight against drug trafficking and violence. since the department of justice began coordinating efforts against the most known wanted drug traffickers in 2003, there have been 183 identified around the world. cumulatively, over three-quarters have been indicted in the united states. over half have been arrested here or abroad and one-third have been extradited to the united states to face justice. in fiscal year 2014 alone, we saw several successes against them, including seven who were extradited to the united states, one surrendered to the united states authorities and six more arrested in custody outside the united states. historically the image of organized crime in the united
states was of hierarchal organizations exerting influence over criminal activities at the local levels, with cells of loosely affiliated groups. that still remains true today. however, these organizations now have direct connections to mexican drug trafficking organizations to distribute heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs throughout the country. this is the new face of organized crime. the violence perpetrated by these groups harms communities across the united states and dea is set up to manage the dismantle the distribution cells and traffic organizations with whom they conspire. of notable concern is the alarming level of heroin use and abuse in this country and increases in heroin related deaths. after years of declining use
the availability and abuse of heroin is now increasing especially among younger americans. this is due in part to the increased production of heroin in mexico, even as colombian production has declined. in 2013, 8,257 people died of a heroin overdose. nearly tripling since 2010. a contributing factor to increasing demand for heroin is prescription opioid abuse. prescription drug abuse is a nationwide epidemic. overall, 43,982 people have died of a drug overdose in the united states in 2003. that was more than half of which involved prescription drugs. these deaths represent not just a statistic but they are family members, our friends, our neighbors and our colleagues.
if we look at the operational successes we are having today, coupled with the decline in overall drug use, there is reason for optimism. since its high point in 1979 the overall rate of elicit drug use in america has dropped by over 30%. by taking harmful drugs off the street, dismantling major drug organizations and seizing profits we are making our nation a safer place to live and to do business. the support of this subcommittee is critical to our success. i look forward to working with you and would be happy to answer any of your questions. thank you. >> good morning, chairman shelby, ranking member mikulski and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today with my colleagues. this is a great team i'm privileged to work with within the department of justice. i think together we are moving forward to enhance public safety
around the country on behalf of the citizens that we serve. i'm also pleased to be here to discuss the president's fy 2016 budget request for atf. atf's principle mission is to protect our communities from violent criminals who illegally possess and use firearms, use explosives for elicit purposes and engage in deadly acts of arson. we accomplish our mission through partnerships and through the enforcement of the criminal law regulations of firearms and explosives industry. this makes us somewhat unique among u.s. law enforcement. we have a long history of maintaining working relationships not only with our federal partners but with our state and local partners. we put a premium on those partnerships. the public safety agencies, the industry groups and community organizations that we work with are vital us to being able to accomplish our mission. when serious violent crime happens at communities across the country, atf is there working side by side with our partners. in the past three years alone,
atf has been at the front line against crime helping our partners investigate the boston marathon bombing, horrific mass shootings in aurora colorado and washington navy yard as well as insisting in thousands of other investigations that have simply not made the national news. atf's work with its partners is producing tangible results in communities across the country. our discussion today, i hope leads to some help for you all in sustaining the results we have accomplished in various places around the country. for example, we recently completed an enhanced enforcement operation in bridgeport, connecticut and chicago, illinois. in both circumstances we have made an impact working with our state and local colleagues on diminishing and lowering violent crime in those communities. we accomplished this not only through manpower and strong partnerships but by also leveraging our technology
resources, such as nybin, the national integrated ballistics informational network. it compares high resolution cartridge cases, the senator alluded to it earlier, recover from mult crime scenes and compare and contrast and follow the gun strategy to identify the worst of the worst offenders in communities. this technology has been integrated with e-trace and we are are, in certain communities around the country test driving crime gun intelligence centers showing very promising results. atf's contributions to public safety extend beyond these operational successes. as director comey mentioned tdak is in huntsville and we have our national training for explosive research there established through the members of this committee and it's performing important work. by the end of fy 2016 it will significantly increase its staffing by 30% and work on
increasing fire and arson investigation in addition to explosives research. because we are getting healthier as an organization over the last several years, we will offer several courses that haven't been offered because training is usually the first thing to go when you have tough budget times unfortunately. in addition we will be bringing our u.s. bomb taetdata center from washington d.c. and put it in the cedar facility in an effort to make sure we are not only fully integrating our capacity but collaborating at the highest levels with the fbi's explosive device analytic center that is down there. another important asset our fire research lab in maryland is currently involved in research of several high profile fire incidents. i want to thank this committee for the support that that lab has. it's sort of an un --
surprisingly to me, as i've learned across the country our arson capacity is something that's a great treasure to federal law enforcement. we've worked on several significant arson investigations with state and locals trying to figure out what happened. we are performing tests recently on the west texas fertilizer plant that killed 15 first responders and injured 160, and we're currently looking at the hor horrific fire that happened several months ago in annapolis that killed a grandmother, grandfather and their grandchildren trying to determine some of the things with christmas trees. this kind of research is taken care of very quietly but would be very helpful to public safety across the board. to support this important work -- and i look forward to discussing it further, atf's 2016 budget request totals $1.26 billion, including 5100 permanent positions, nearly half of which are special agents.
this request includes 52 million increase in base resources that really is focused as director comey mentioned, on our human capital. atf has a very experienced special agent workforce. within the next three years we will have nearly 35% of that workforce be either mandatory or eligible for retirement, so we need to do all we can over the next several years, including to this budget cycle, to refresh and get new agents out there before the senior agents leave. i look forward to answering your questions. i do want to maybe set the table here as preemptive. the chairman mentioned about in our regulatory effort, a proposal we posted -- requested comments on for the last 30 days. that comment period will close. it involved not -- it involved an exemption for a particular type of 556 round. we've gotten nearly 90,000 comments. we will assess those comments.
working with you, with others, see how we can really address what was at the genesis of that posting, which was an effort to address nearly 30s exemption requests in finding a framework for dealing with that. with that said, i see the time is over and i will be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you. thank you very much. i'll direct my first question to you. on february 13th, the atf delivered a proposed framework that would have eliminated the green tip ammunition from the sporting purposes. this week, the atf abandoned this proposal. a lot of us are troubled the aff's process and intent regarding this proposed ban. i've heard from numerous constituents who use this ammunition for shooting sport and hunting and they're strongly
opposed to the ban, as you know. additionally, it's concerning to a lot of us the new federal firearms regulation reference guide published in january in inexsplikably remove m 855 ammunition from the exemption list for sporting purposes. why did the atf propose this m-855 ban, when such ammunition has been allowed under sporting purposes exemption for many many years. >> senator, thank you for the question. i think it's important for everyone to understand again that the genesis of us putting that framework proposal up for public comment was our good faith effort to try and construct a framework to deal with nearly 30 exemptions that we have had in the cue for many many years at atf. we do have a responsibility to regulate. we can't stick our head in the sand with respect to the additional exemption requests.
the m-885 exemption has been in place for nearly 30 years. it was a classification that atf made on that particular round. i want to make sure everybody understands, this was not contrary to some of the blogosphere and effort to completely ban that certain type of cartridge. it's this one particular green tip that is in essence, military surplus, that under leopa does qualify as armor piercing but has had an exemption for 30 years and been in the market and used for sporting purposes for the last 30 years. so our request for input on a framework was our effort to try and get a transparent process we could act on the nearly 30 other exemptions that were there and not sort of not look at the exemption that was out there on m-885. so, you know, i think the reality of it is we need to deal with the pending exemptions.
there aren't going to be any new exemptions granted until we work our way out through this. the exemption for 885 has been there for 30 years and will remain. >> you abandoned it this week, did you not? >> we're going to take the input in. we are not going to move forward without analyzing the nearly 90,000 comments from all spectrums with a sense of figuring out how we do this rationally, in a common sense way that, first and foremost for us, protects our law enforcement officers in compliance with leopa. >> i'll direct this question to the fbi director. you talked about earlier the terrorist explosive device analytical center we call tdac and so forth and how important it is. what is tdac's operational construction status at this point? when will the facility be fully
operational, do you know? >> i think we're on track to open it sometime late this spring or in summer. i went down there to check on its progress because i'm keenly interested in it. the building's up, looks good to me but other things to be done for it to be ready. we have had some delays because our contractor has struggled with some of the unique technical requirements to deal with explosives in that building. my understanding we're on track for no later than summer opening. >> how is the atf working cooperate cooperatively with you, with the fbi on this? are they putting their good offices forward to work with you and cooperate with the fbi regarding tdac? >> yes, as they always do. director jones said one of the hallmarks of atf, they are a great partner in a whole host of ways and they are with tdac. >> director jones, you ref reynolds in cedar a few minutes
ago. where are we exactly on that, as far as staffing the program we call it the national center for explosives training and research? >> you know, i've had an opportunity -- >> you mentioned this earlier in your testimony. >> i've had an opportunity on a number of occasions to go to in cedar, a wonderful facility for our organization and asset. i think when tdac is up and running and what we've dean at in cedar and what we plan to do expands beyond the explosive training and research, focusing primarily on homemade ieds and some of the research there has expanded into the fire and arson realm, not to -- we have a great lab in ammondale and doing work down there and that necessitates us moving additional personnel down there. i think the main thing is that we're finally going to move the u.s. bomb data center personnel
from washington down to in cedar as originally envisioned and that's going to happen this year. one last question to the fbi director. how is the fbi responding from the army's separation from the hazardous device school they sent word, as i understand it where they had a partnership there and the army indicated they would no longer provide personnel to the school but i think that's an important operation there. >> i agree completely, mr. chairman. we're working with them to see if there are folks they will no longer have there as part of their complement that can come work for us so we don't lose the expertise and our overall commitment is not lose capability. as you know with the support of this committee we're expanding that facility because there's such a hunger for advanced bomb tech training. >> thank you. >> thank you.
i want to compliment you on the fact we will consider the tradition of a classified hearing after this because so much of what we want to do about counter-terrorism and organized crimes are question ss in that setting and thank you very much for being able to provide us with that opportunity. i've got essentially two questions. one, i want to raise, is about heroin. i have a significant issue in maryland, raised by our local dea people as well as governor hogan. we heard a place like vermt declared it a state of the state issue.
in fiscal '15, this committee requested that the doj convene a task force to come up with a comprehensive federal solution of law enforcement health care treatment and prevention, not only law enforcement. director comey, you told me that it had been handed to the dea, is that right? are you -- could you tell me what dea is doing? are you the task force that i asked for. because we've gotten very little feedback about it. >> sir, i'd be glad to address that. the task force you called for was not tasked to dea. i do know that the department has been looking at it and actually has convened some meetings that we have attended. to put together -- >> is there a department of justice task force? i'll ask the attorney general, that you know of, that has the task force that we asked for? >> i know that they have had meetings with people outside the department and within the department. >> ok. >> have gathered. >> so they didn't do it. we'll come back to that.
could you tell us, though, what you're doing miss leonhart? >> sure. europe is the perfect example of what it's going to take for our country to stem the flow of the rise rising heroin problem. as you know in maryland, your heroin deaths nearly doubled. in fact, when you look at all overdose deaths in maryland last year, the majority of them were actually heroin overdoses. so we very quickly and have for the past year, we put together a local task force. we have one in baltimore and we have a similar task force arrangement here locally we're working with our partners. but in baltimore, we became very concerned about why this raise in heroin overdoses. we understand why there's more
heroin coming into our country. that's because more and more of it is coming -- almost all western hemisphere. but more and more of it is coming from mexico and is being controlled by the same mexican organizations and trafficking groups that we see all across the country who have brought cocaine, midwest and marijuana to our communities. so we started looking at it and started -- >> remember, i have five minutes. so could we get -- >> we started to be concerned because there was an epidemic of fentanol laced heroin a few years back. we started working with medical examiner examiners, coroners and police departments and looking at those deaths and finding a number of them are actually phentanol laced heroin overdoses. we have efforts going public service announcements, warning local law enforcement. >> how many of these great task forces do you have doing this great work in the baltimore community?
>> i know the washington hida is working this. >> no. i'm frustrated the doj did not do the comprehensive thing. you can't only fight the law enforcement is a tool, we have to look at prevention, enforcement and intradiction and then recovery. ok? >> yes. >> that's not going on. >> you are doing a great effort. do you have seven of these? 17 of these efforts? how many do you have? >> we have -- the main effort in baltimore but we also have a couple different task forces operating and coordinating together here in washington d.c. and then we have communities throughout the country, where we have replicated what baltimore did.
the results of what we've done when we've been able to get health folks together, law enforcement -- >> ok. i will ask you. what are you doing on drugs, director comey? >> in every field office, we are engaged in focussing on the complex trafficking organizations almost all the time in partnership with dea. our contribution to the heroin epidemic has been to work with dea to try and disrupt the traffickers bringing it in. we have not touched the other pieces you've talked about. >> does the marshall service have a role? >> ma'am, our role is primarily dedicated to the regional task forces and district task forces on the ap mention of the futives involved and we work collectively with our colleagues on state and local and apprehend ing drug fudgetives. >> mr. jones. we look for the worse of the worse on firearms and protecting either their organization or business. the guns are always the driver for us, but
have obviously leads us to some collaboration with dea and fbi and state and locals across the board. >> well, my time is up, but i think it says, we really need a different kind of coordination here. first of all, i want to complement compliment everybody on what they're doing. it's not a criticism of you, and the fact also of working with the state and local governments. we had the methodologies of task forces. there needs to be, i think, a more organized effort. if we have a second round, i'll follow up with other questions. i appreciate what you're doing. i gained a great deal of insight here. thank you. >> senator langford. >> i would like to follow up on what senator mikulski was asking. is there a clear layout of the lanes of responsibilities when you deal with drug issues. the two areas i can see clearly dealing with gangs and drugs and
obviously there's a tremendous amount of overlap, all four of you have lanes of responsibility in those areas. does it exist there is a clear layout of who has what lane? >> i believe that there are very clear lines. for instance, atf and fbi, they're violent crime task forces and our role is really to identify those trafficking organizations, especially mexican cartels, major mexican organizations that are supplying the gangs and that's what's fuelling violence on our streets, so we work together in a collaborative way. when our lanes are. and i have been very proud to say the 12 years that i've been in washington, we've not once ran into a problem that i had to go to the fbi director and say we were overlapping here. i've not had to go to the director of atf. we work well together and know
what our lanes are. >> with that, and i would like to have that document, just to be able to see so we can get clarity of who has what lane. whatever that may be. i'd like to be able to have that so we can get the clear dif wrennation. but part of the issue for us as well as we deal with a bunch of issues, we appreciate very much what you do and the folks that are on the street and individuals that literally lay down their life for our country and do that every day. and deal with the grief and our nation grieves. we want to have the maximum number of people engaged on the street both protecting each other and our nation, the least amount of administrative work, so where there are areas of overlap and one is related to the area, we'd rather have one on the street and half theed ad cost as possible. so, that would help us to be able to get that perspective. i know there's a lot of focus on
national terrorism, rightfully so, by if way, but we can't lose the focus on drug and gang violence that's happening in the united states because we lose more folks to drug and gang violence every week in the united states than we do to national terrorism. we can't put one priority over another one. i would continue to reenforce that with the funds and focus we have, that's a continued, major emphasis we have to keep up and the da's trying to lead the way but all four of your agencies are very involved in that as well. a specific question. mr. jones here as well. eric holder and i had a conversation several years ago and it was a conversation about some of the procedures and process and trying to align the fbi processes for how they do undercover operations and the permissions and access points to d.c. because there's two different sets of processes. it was about three years ago, we had that conversation.
do you know where that is in trying to align processes with more on fbi like process for investigations? >> i had three priorities when i came on board. one was to get the organization healthy. not just in resources, the infamous morale question. number two was to fully integrate atf. having served on the agac, being intimately familiar with undercover review committees all of the process that are there at the department of justice, we are on target with integrating and making sure that we are in sync with all of the doj law enforcement components on how we do some of those fundamentals in terms of processes for higher or high risk law enforcement operations. now, the challenge for all of us
and the thing that gets attention oftentimes is when the policy is not put into practice completely across the country and that's, that's sometimes a challenge. because putting it into practice involves people and communication and training. >> what do you think that is in implementation of the policy though first? >> for us? >> yes. >> we are in sync with doj policy across the board and will continue to refine all of our borders and policies and practices on paper. >> there's a decrease this budget on the prisoner detention bulgt budget line aim on that and the reason there was a decline in population. can you tell me the reason you've seen there's a decline in
federal prison population? >> you're accurate, senator, is that the major contributeor is the decline in the population. it's also a lot of efficiency that's been reduced in business practices. >> any certain population there's a decline in length of detention? >> the decline in population stays strong in immigration, stays at a steady pace. there's a slight decline in drugs and a slight decline in supervised release. but those fluctuate, primarily because of the length of time it takes to prosecute the cases. so it's time in detention that really impacts the dollar. so immigration is a faster time of those cases compared to drugs. it's really the time factor that reduces it. >> thank you. i yoeld back. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. director comby, i want to thank you for the work people do in counterterrorism. i was there when bob muller announced the
development of an intelligence branch in the fbi and at that time, i had some concerns about it and i've watched its evolution. whether it was azazi or plots that are not well-known, the fbi has been able to disrupt plots in the united states and i think that's a very important and significant thing and i want very much to thank you for it. one of my disappointments was to learn that the six year report of the committee on detention and interrogation program sat in a locker and no one looked eded at it and let me tell you why i'm disappointed. the report, the six 6,000 pages and 38,000 footnotes, which has been compiled, contains numerous examples of a learning experience of cases of interstation, of where the
department could learn perhaps some new things from past mistakes. and the fact it hasn't been opened, at least that's what's been reported to me, is really a great disservice. i'd like to ask if you open that report and designate certain people to read it and maybe even have a discussion how things might be improved by suggestions in the report. >> i have read the tech xif summary. you asked me to do it. i kept my promise and read it. there is a small number of people at the fbi who have read it, but what we have not done, have we thought about whether there are lessons learned for us. there's a tendency for me to think we don't engage in interrogation like that, so
what's there to learn. >> you did and bob muller pulled your people out, which is a great tribute to him. >> so, the answer is yes. i will think about it better. i don't know enough about where the document sits at this point this time. you mentioned a lock box. i don't know that well enough to comment at this point. >> thank you very much. let me talk to you about another problem. human traffic ingking is is now if second largest criminal enterprise in the world. it's behind only the drug trade and in this country, too children 12, 13, 14 are being trafficked. they're being transported across state lines to cities all over the united states. in some areas like los angeles even street gangs are running these trafficking rings. so, traffickers now to distance themselves, have come upon a method of using the internet and there are some 20 internet sites
where a per veaer, a trafficker, for as little as a dollar, can buy in an ad and so, the internet effectively becomes comply sit. these are children. under underage girls. sometimes, boys. they're held against their will. i've become very concerned about this. and will be doing more on it. but my question to you is what kind of, what can the fbi do to really make this a major priority and crack down on it? it's international. but it's also big time national. >> i think you're characterization of it is correct, senator. it's a huge feature of our work. in all of our field offices, we work in some 70 task forces to address it. we work internationally to try
and address it, so it's a big feature in our life. we are trying to make sure we in 91% of the cases, this is not me, this is the gao, 2,043 separate occasions, those known or suspected terrorists were suszful in pass passing a background check. it's somebody we're investigating, so we don't want to lower our investigation. >> let me say this.
individuals on the federal terrorist watchlist attempted to buy a firearm or obtain an explosive permit. in 91% of the cases, this is not me, the gao. 2,043 separate occasions, those known or suspected terrorists were suszful in pass passing a background check. what can bne if someone on the watch list purchases or attempts to purchase a firearm, an immediate alert is sent to the agents who are the source of the suspicious about that individual, so they can incorporate that information into the investigation. it's a little bit challenge for us because noknown or summited means it hasn't been adjudicated. it's somebody we're investigating, so we don't want to lower our investigation. >> let me say this. in 2007, the braigs's justice
department drafted legislation to close what is a gap and prevent a known or suspected terrorist from buying a gun or explosive in this countyry. in 2009, attorney general holder expressed the obama administration's support for the legislation. and i introduced similar legislation in the senate last year. the question comes for the law enforcement element of the administration. f to really come forward and be supportive of this. because the national rifle association even opposes this. now, this is terrorists, you know, we get people come into this country meaning to do us harm and they can go in and buy a weapon. to carry it out. that simply is unacceptable. so, i want to bring it to your attention, you know, we have to come together and prevent this from happening.
your biggest concern is the lone wolf. the lone wolf can come in unarmed. buy the explosives, the gun. this must be stopped. >> i don't know where the legislature is on the administration. i am focused on the operational piece of it to make sure we are alerted. i'll have to fipd out where the administration stands on the legislation. >> if you will and i'd like to know where you stand. >> i'm the fbi. >> you don't stand? >> i don't stand. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all for being here. appreciate all that you represent. first of all, i'd like for you to send our condolences to special agent william's wife and two young children.