tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN December 7, 2015 12:00pm-7:01pm EST
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 7, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable bradley byrne to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate, the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour, and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north
carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. when a married couple kill 14 people celebrating the holidays in san bernardino last thursday, president obama immediately used this terrible tragedy to renew his call for tougher gun restrictions. never mind the fact that the shooting took place in california which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, or that authorities would quickly determine this rampage was an act of terrorism that appears to have been inspired by the islamic state. this messaging blunder led to last night's televised address from the oval office where president obama sought to reassure the american people that his administration is taking the threat of terrorism seriously. sadly, the only thing he revealed was he has no comprehensive strategy to confront and defeat isis.
the president continues to cling to failing policy. this week the house will vote on a bipartisan bill to update our visa waiver program to reduce the risk of an extremist entering the country from abroad. however, only the commander in chief can provide the wide ranging plan that is necessary to eliminate the danger caused by radical islamic terrorism. we need more from president obama about what can be done. with our military, our intelligence gathering, and our international partners, we are facing a new era of violence and terrorism where danger exists both abroad and on american soil. we must do all that we can to eliminate the extremist threat. it's easy to see why the american people have no faith in the federal government. while the united states remains one step behind our enemy, and americans wonder if our
country's safe, the justice department is undermining congress' spending authority by funneling money to president obama's political allies. the justice department prosecutes cases against corporate bad actors and those companies agree to settlements that often include financial penalties. however, the department has begun to mandate that at least some of that penalty money be paid in the form of donations to nonprofits that allegedly aid consumers and bolster neighborhoods. the purpose of financial penalties is to punish the bad actors and provide restitution to real victims. however, the list of government approved nonprofit beneficiaries reads like a who's who of liberal activist groups. an investigation by the house judiciary and financial services committees reveal that d.o.j. has used mandatory donations to direct as much as half a billion dollars to these activist groups.
these payments also owe entirely outside of the congressional appropriations and oversight process. the miscellaneous receipts act requires money received by the government from any source to be deposited in the treasury. directing banks to ve money to third parties evades that statute. thank goodness the house passed an amendnt by chairman goodlatte in june that blocks funding for negotating settlements that require a defendant to donate to an organization or individualot involved in the litigation. this commonsense amendment passed by voice vote and should absolutely be included in the omnibus spending bill we are expected to vote on this week. it is time for republicans to confront this administration and restore the people's faith in their government. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. e speaker pro temre:
states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> tonight on c-span's landmark cases, we'll look at the case of baker vs. carr, the 19 of 2 decision that ruled federal courts to intercede in disputes over reapportionment in the drawing of election districts. chief justice earl warren called it the most important case of my tenure on the court. here's a portion of the actual oral argument. >> these 11 tennessee voters live in five of the largest cities of tennessee. they are the intended and ctual victims of a statutory scheme which devalues, reduces their right to vote to about 1/20th of the value of the vote given to certain rural residents. >> by the early 20th century, population shifts in states like tennessee had a majority of voters from rural areas move into the city. yet those rural districts with now smaller populations held
voter power equal to the larger urban districts. so a group of voters from nashville, memphis, and knoxville challenged the disparate and took their case all the way to the supreme court. the case of baker v. carr became a major milestone in supreme court activism and has continuing relevance today as the term one person, one vote is still being debated. joining us in the discussion u.s. e olson from the solicitor general, and douglas smith, author of "on democracy's doorstep, the inside story how the supreme court brought one person, one vote to the united states." that's live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book, available for $8.95 plus shipping, at c-span.org slash landmark cases. >> tonight on the communicators, terrorism and the use of social media.
we'll examine how social media is used by various terrorism groups to radicalize and recruit new members from around the world. we are joined by alberta fernandez, vice president of the middle east research institute, and mark wallace, c.e.o. of the counter extremism project. both guests recently testified at a house oversight committee hearing on radicalization, social media, and the rise of terrorism. >> we look at the world, you look at the production of media worldwide, if you look at hollywood, if you look at madison avenue there is no doubt that there's more of us than there are of them. if you look at the narrow space where people are searching for this type of stuff, in this type -- this subworld, this subculture, this niche they radically outeveryone else sending a different message. >> i think we ought to have a robust discussion in the united states that these companies have -- are now really on
notice that their platforms are being abused. i think they have to put policies and procedures in place, a lot of which we proposed, that limit and deny the ability of terrorists to misuse these platforms. if they don't, we have to have a real robust discussion at some point that do these platforms, they become material support for these terrorist groups. >> watch the communicators, tonight at 8:00 p.m. herein on c-span2. -- eastern on c-span2. >> attorney general loretta lynch spoke earlier today at the justice department in washington, d.c. the d.o.j.'s opening probe in the chicago police department after the shooting of a tiege ager by a chicago officer -- teen ager by a chicago officer. >> good morning all, thank you-all for being here. i'm joined today by ba nita gupta, and zachary, united states attorney for the northern district of illinois. the department of justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of law
enforcement throughout the united states. every american expects and deserves the protection of law enforcement that is effective, that is responsive, that is respectful, and most importantly constitutional. the each day, thanks to the tireless dedication of the men and women who wear the badge, citizens coast to coast receive just that. when community members feel they are not receiving that kind of policing, when they feel ignored, let down, or mistreated by public safety officials, there are profound consequences for the well-being of their communities. there are profound consequences for the rule of law, and the countless law enforcement officers who strive to fulfill their duties with professionalism and integrity. today i'm here to announce that the department of justice has opened an investigation into whether the chicago police department has engaged in a pattern or practice of violation of the constitution or federal law. specifically, we will example a
number of issues related to the chicago police department's use of force, including its use of deadly force, racial, ethnic, and other disparities in its use of force, and its accountability mechanisms. such as disciplinary actions and handling of allegations of misconduct. this investigation has been requested by a number of state and local officials and community leaders, but has been opened only after a preliminary review and careful consideration of how the justice department can best use our tools and our resources to meet chicago's needs. in the coming months, this investigation will be conducted by experienced career attorneys from the civil rights division, with the assistance of the united states attorney's office for the northern district of illinois. they will conduct a thorough, impartial, and independent review of the allegations, and the team will meet with a broad cross section of community members, city officials, and long-term command staff and
officers to both explain our process and to hear from anyone who wishes to share information relevant to this investigation. we will exam with our experts policies, practice, and data. at the end of our investigation, we'll issue a report of our findings. if we discover unconstitutional patterns or practices, the department of justice will publicly. em we'll seek a court enforceable agreement with the chicago police department. and work with the city to implement appropriate reforms. our goal in this investigation as in all of our pattern of practice investigations is not to focus on individuals but to improphecies thames. to ensure that officers are being provided with the tools that they need, including training, policy guidance, and equipment to be more effective, to partner with civilians, and to strengthen public safety. we understand that the same systems have failed community members also fail consciencious officers by creating mistrust
between law enforcement and the citizens that we are sworn to serve and protect. this mistrust from members of the community makes it more difficult to gain help with investigations, to encourage the victims and the witnesses of crime to speak up, and fulfill the most basic responsibilities of public safety officials. and when suspicion and hostility is allowed to fester, it can erupt into inrest. building trust between law enforcement officers in the communities that we serve is one of my highest priorities as attorney general. the department of justice intends to do everything that we can to foster those bonds and create safer and fairer communities across the country. and regardless of the ultimate findings of this investigation, we will seek to work with local officials, with residents, and law enforcement officers alike to ensure that the people of chicago have the world class police department that they deserve. thank you so much. at this time i'm happy to take a few questions.
>> the investigation extend include the cook county state attorney since so few officers have actually been charged in shootings? >> our investigation is focused on use of force and accountability in the police department. we'll look at how force, including deadly force is handled, investigated and how officers are accounted for that. that's our focus right now. >> madam attorney general, uld you please -- maybe u.s. attorney wants to chime n very interested in chicago knowing the status of the joint, state federal investigation that's taken quite a while and would ke to know the reaction to mcdonald's video document released by the city if you are aware of them and the potential of some people wonderinger if you are loog going to look -- two questions there if you could take them. attorney general lynch: with respect to the investigation into the death of mr. mcdonald,
as has been announced earlier, that investigation is ongoing. and is being conducted by the u.s. attorney's office for the northern district of illinois. as all of our investigations into whether or not there's been a civil rights violation, particularly when there's been a death resulting from police interaction, those investigations are thorough, they are independent, they are impartial. we review the relevant federal statutes, which are a different set of statutes from what the state's attorney has at their disposal, and we are thorough and efficient in ours. we don't prodict the timing of any of those investigations. i can't give you that answer. >> what about the documents that came out that talk about how the police account of what happened is different from what the video shows? attorney general lynch: what i can tell you is all the information will be factored into the investigation. we don't comment on the evidence while that investigation is ongoing for obvious reasons.
but all of that information is factored into that. i'm not anybody to give you anymore comments at this time. >> i was curious chicago's one of the police departments in the contry, how does the size affect the ability to find civil rights abuses? i imagine when you look at a department with many officers you look at bad apples but plenty of up standarding good police officers, 10 times bigger than ferguson. i'm curious how that complicates your efforts. attorney general lynch: when we look at systems using use of force, deadly force, and accountability, what we are looking at to see is how the chicago police department track and treat those types of actions. so a lot of the review that we do is of the systems of the chicago police department. and of course that will entail a review of how they handled specific matters. what we are looking at is to
see whether or not the police department as a systemic matter has engaged in constitutional violations of policing. this involves review, as you note, of a host of evidence. but because it will be worked in conjunction with the civil rights decision and u.s. attorneys office with the northern district of illinois, we'll feel confident we'll be able to cover that. this gentleman had-h a question. >> evidence in this case found its way into the corporation council in the city of chicago. will city hall, will officials at city hall be part of this review? secondly, a question to mr. fargan, will you consider obstruction of justice charges against any police officer who may have been on the scene that night? attorney general lynch: with respect to your first question, farden for n to mr. the scope of the investigation. what we'll look at again is the chicago police department's method and manner of dealing with use of force, particularly deadly force, and whether or
not we find racial, ethnic, and other disparatities in ow they handle those force allegations t len compass a number of things, including how officers are disciplined and the isciplinary systems. we'll work with city officials, but the matters you are talking about relate to a different issue. we'll take information from all interested parties. we are particularly interested in hearing from community groups and community members. we are particularly interested in hearing from the rank-and-file police department, and we do have contact with city hall as we do this investigation. but our investigation is independent. it is not tied to the findings or the actions of other entities. with respect to our second question, i believe you had a question about the specific mcdonald investigation. >> consider obstruction of justice charges, possibly, against other officers in the chicago police department.
attorney general lynch: at this point in time we are not predicting what charges if any will be brought. i'll let him speak. i will tell you as a general matter when we have an open investigation we do not discuss what specific charges may be brought until the resolution of hat investigation. >> what she said. thank you, attorney general. i will only add that i do think it's important as the attorney general is explaining to understand that the pattern and practice investigation that is being launched today, which is very important and positive, i think, for the city of chicago -- i do understand. >> people that live in the greater chicagoland region are concerned about that given recent reports that there are differing versions of what happened out there. and they don't seem to jimb, if you will, with -- jimb -- jive, if you will, with what we see on the video. to recognize nt
that this today's pattern and practice of this investigation and launch of this investigation is related to but separable from what you're asking about which is the mcdonald incident and we do not comment on pending investigations other than to reiterate what the attorney general has already today. which is we do what we do independently. we do it with vigor. we look at all relevant aspects and officials as we pursuit a case and it's not unique to this case. the u.s. attorney's office in chicago has a great history of doing that proving it's both independent and appropriately aggressive. but i'm not going to comment on specifics as to this particular investigation. >> this is a question for both of you, if you will. part of the criticism of this case has been how long it's taken for any measure of justice to be taken as a result of what happened in that incident. might understanding is that the video, the big piece of
evidence, the video was turned over to federal authorities nine days after it happened. can you confirm that? can you tell us what's taken this long? mr. fardon: i'm not going to speak to time lines specifically what evidence we received and when we received it during the course of the investigation. what i will say is that we have pursued all of the facts and circumstances relevant to mr. mcdonald's death on october 20, 2014. with vigor, earnestness, passion as we approach any important investigative matter in chicago. >> i want to talk about the investigation but also the allegations of unlawful detention. why is this not seen as part of the pattern of misconduct. attorney general lynch: at this time point in time it is looking at the use of force. that's not the issues you raise
are extremely important. they are not at this time within the purview of our investigation. but as we have notified the city as with every pattern of practice investigation, that we always reserve the right to xpand it should more information come to light and require a review of constitutional issues there as well. but at this point in time it is the use of force investigation. young lady in front. >> i have an off topic question. yesterday the president talked about urging muslim leaders to step up their efforts to stop radicalization in their communities. can you talk about is the justice department increasing its effort in this area in terms of outreach? are you changing any other policies or resource allocations in light of the attacks? attorney general lynch: with respect to the engagement of the muslim community in dealing with the issue of homegrown violent extremism, and susceptibility particularly of young people to these messages abroad that encourage them down the path of radicalization, i think the president was
appropriately noting this was a problem for all americans and every community has a stake in dealing with this issue. and that where people may be closest to a situation, they have a responsibility as well to try and intervene. we are always reviewing our efforts in countering extremism, not just the department of justice but the department of homeland security. every united states attorney's office is involved in outreach and muslim communities. we are always looking to improve not only our relationship with those communities but how those communities can be empowered to deal with this issue as well. one of the things that i always talk about when i meet with parents of a variety of communities is to ask them if they know what their children are doing online. as many of you will outless -- doubtless agree, it is difficult to get a handle on that. there are a number of areas which we think the muslim community can be very effective and proactive in helping resolve these issues. >> i'd like to ask you about
another civil rights investigation. you talked about building trust between communities. can you tell us what the status is of the garner investigation and are you close to closing that with no charges? attorney general lynch: that investigation is also still active and ongoing. it is open so i'm not able to comment on the specifics of that. when we come to a resolution, we'll announce the resolution there. i'm not able to give you a comment on that case specifically except to say that it is being conducted by the u.s. attorney's office for the eastern district of new york. an office with which i have some passing familiarity. that investigation also is independent, it is impartial, it is thorough. and it is reviewing all the relevant issues in that case. >> just yesterday on the eve of your news conference this morning, the head of the illinois police review authority resigned. obviously the accountability mechanisms in the state are part of your review process. can you talk a little bit about how important it is to have a
functioning discipline system for police who do fall off the path? attorney general lynch: i don't have comment on the personnel actions that may have been taken with regard to any board at this time. what i can say whenever we have an investigation, particularly into use of force and accountability, that the issues of how a police department not only tracks but resolves and disciplines for those uses of force is a key element of that. as one of the many, many things we'll look at reviewing. also i don't want to make it think we are limiting it to chicago's systems. of course we need to hear from community members, from residents who have experienced situations where they may feel that the use of force was not dealt with appropriately. and so we compare those to how it's handled internally. the investigation covers a host of issues. i don't want to make it seem as if we are looking only at chicago systems. because it's very, very important that we hear also from community members. it's also important that we
hear from rank-and-file police officers about their perceptions of their training. their perceptions of how use of force is handled from their perspective as well. >> question it for ms. gupta, based on your experience, you're now long experience with these kinds of investigations, what would you expect the timeline to be? in chicago are we talking months or years? ms. gupta: sure. as you know probably that we are unable to give any specific timeline. all we are able to say is that the department will be conducting this review in a very thorough manner. and we'll not leave any stone unturned and we look forward to working with everyone who has a stake in the chicago police department. >> madam attorney general, as a follow up to that. with a department as big as eric was saying, how far back is the review? three years?
10 years? how do you determine whether a police department as big as chicago has a pattern of practice -- attorney general lynch: it's hard to say at this point how far back we'll go because we have yet to begin. we look at, for example, civilian complaints. we look at trends in civilian complaints. we look at trends in accountability and trends in discipline. so we may start with one perspective. it could very easily expand into a longer time frame. at this point i'm not going to cabin the time period of the review of the procedures and things that have occurred. >> follow up on that and another question to fofment i think in the cleveland police investigation it went for 21 months. that would obviously take a tun your of political appointees under this administration. are you confident this chicago pattern and pran contiguous review will be completed on your tenure? my main question is about the
terrorism investigation. you mentioned in your interview on nbc that you were not sure what ideology motivated this attack. but then we have the president give a big oval office address talk about how we are going to step up our fight against isil nd this attack in some detail. how should i reconcile those things. are you confident it has something to do with isil? town lynch: i'm going to go in reverse order to deal with that issue and your question regarding the timeline of the investigation. at this point we are discussing the san bernardino investigation because we want the public to be aware of how these investigations are conduct. of their complexity. and the fact that they are a marathon and not a sprint. we are trying to keep people informed while also maintaining integrity of investigative techniques and the like. you do have us talking about this investigation more than we can talk about others. for example, as you see from the questions here today.
at this point we are not prepared to say that we -- we are not prepared to limit any particular ideology to what may have inspired these individuals. there are a number of groups that are on social media looking to encourage people to commit acts of violence within the homeland. so at this point we simply do not want to rule anything out. the president was talking about, however, the specter of evolving is an threat against american interests here and abroad. and our campaign to defeat isis. but also other terrorist groups that seek to harm american interests here and abroad. with respect to your question about the timing, again, we can't give you any prediction on this. it is my view that these investigations are significant. they are important. and we feel that they will be carried out because, frankly, it's in the interest of the people of the city of chicago who deserve a world class police department and evolving threat against who deserve constitutional policing. >> i was wondering why the
department did not open an investigation into the chicago police department before the ill illinois attorney general called for it given the volume of complaints against the department? and for how long the justice department was aware of the videos of the mcdonald shooting and the others that are due to come up? town lynch: as the u.s. attorney has indicated. we are not comment on the timeline as evidence comes in and our review of that. what can i say is we did receive requests from a number of people and offices to look at the chicago police department. we considered those requests. we also considered what we saw of the chicago police department also. a combination of factors. a review by the career people in the civil rights division us to come to this
conclusion that this particular pattern and practice investigation is necessary. >> don't know anyone could have predicted the shear number of cases, shooting relate the and police investigations that you have been asked to undertake not only here, ferguson, south carolina, cleveland, etc., etc. is the department of civil rights division prepared in terms of funding and staffing and statutory authority to deal with these? do you worry that the system is going to become overwhelmed by these investigations? town lynch: i'll always take additional resources should congress seek to allocate them to me. we are confident with the strong team we are building with the civil rights division and u.s. attorney's office in ill know will be well staffed. and other cases we work very, very closely with our local u.s. attorney's offices on these matters. often they are the ones who bring them to our attention and work as we see on the underlying criminal cases. >> i have a follow-up to what he said. do you have an idea how many people, then, you are employed to analyze -- deployed to analyze the amounts of data, do you bring in outside contractors and academics?
attorney general lynch: i won't comment on the size of the investigative team because that changes over the time related to issues. we do rely upon police experts and people who are stigs. but in this instance we are not predicting of those individuals who will be involved. again it may change the more we get into the matter. >> you mentioned sort of briefly a preliminary review that was done. can you sort of elaborate on what specifically you were told to make you think there must be a systemic problem that's worth of justice department looking into. town lynch: no, nice try. we don't go into that. what i will say is that we did review the requests. we review what we saw the chicago police department and felt that this investigation was appropriate and this was the time to open the investigation. >> talking about the number of investigations that are taking place, they are all reactionary
to specific instances, some have east bound led to civil unrest. what can the department do beforehand to try to prevent things like this from happening in the first place? attorney general lynch: all the pattern and practice investigations are not totally reactionary in temples specific cases. we often have situations where police departments reach out to us and request assistance in terms of training and collaborative reform. for example, in the baltimore situation that was an ongoing situation and after working with the baltimore police department, we felt a pattern of practice investigation was required in that matter. that was one where it had come about as a result of a different type of process. when we are talking with the police department, we are looking to see the depth of the issues. whether or not the constitutional issues are implicated. that is the impetus for a pattern of practice investigation. >> this administration is so
aggressive by opening civil rights cases. you have a limited number of resources. i think the hope was some police departments would see the cases and take a hint or take care of their problems. the mayor of chicago didn't quite get it. do you think these high profile investigations are sending a message? do you think the police departments across the country get it in temples excessive use of force? town lynch: -- attorney general lynch: in my discussions, they look very carefully at the department of justice actions. many of them do try and look at our consent decrees and the issues that spurred a pattern of practice investigation that tried to implement changes to get into that sweags. that is our hope. that is what we hope for. we hope that the reports, which are all on our website. i know you-all have read them, but we hope these reports do talk about situations in which police departments find themselves possibly having
violated the constitution. it is our view that police departments will and should look at those reports and take actions before it arises to the level of either a specific case or an incident involving a civilian and a law enforcement officer or the department having to take action. >> when did your preliminary investigation begin? did it begin before the call by the state attorney general? did it begin before the public release of the video? attorney general lynch: i'm not going to comment on that. >> as recently as last week, the mayor of chicago didn't want the justice department involved in the city. he since relented. but how confident are you that you're going to get the cooperation of the city that you need? attorney general lynch: we go into these investigations in every city hoping that we will receive the cooperation of the city. and in a situation where we
would not we would engage with them and them know what we need and why it's important. we are going into this investigation with the view we'll get the cooperation not only the city but the community. it's very, very important to us to hear from community members about these types of interactions. >> last week at the dinner you commented on d.o.j. vigorously working toward protecting any -- muslim community and any anti-muslim rhetoric that might come out of the attack that just occurred in san bernardino. can you elaborate on that any types of measures d.o.j. is taking at the moment to look at the -- attorney general lynch: we prosecute deeds not words. we always have a concern when we see rhetoric rising against any particular group in america that might inspire others to violent action and violent action is what we would have to deal with. at this point i think i would
refer to how the president dealt with it last night, which is as we consider the ways in which we keep american interests safe here and abroad, not to give into fear and not to let fear make us abandon our values. what we are focused on obviously is protecting all the email people under the am bit of the department of justice. and our concerns are that the understandable fear that is are out there after san bernardino not lead people to either take the law into their own hands or take action that is are not going to be justified. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> on capitol hill two more weeks until they break for the holidays.
the house in for legislative business, 2:00. working on two suspension bills later this afternoon. no votes scheduled today. and leaders in the house hoping to get everything done by the end of this week, including government spending for 2016. current government funding runs out next week. over in the senate, working on a replacement for no child left behind programs and also government spending. this afternoon, join us for live coverage of the canadian house of commons where justin trudeau will be holding his first question period as prime minister. he's expected to answer questions for about 20 minutes followed by members of his new cabinet. first, though, a look back at the thrown speech, that's the opening of the 42nd canadian parliament in the senate chamber in ottawa. the canadian governor general, david johnston, delivered the speech outlining the priorities of the government.
>> watching along with you now as this formal part of the speech from the thrown process takes place. the next thing we'll see i think will be the arrival of the governor general shortly. and then we'll watch that inspect of the guard and the 21 gun salute. as i have my party commentators here for a couple minutes. we talked about timing how the governors -- you mentioned the difficult in staffing up some of these offices. we are only a month into the formal process for the new government. is that part of the issue here? what this government proposed to do is undo many significant and major programs that were put in place by the previous
government. is that part of the issue that some of the changes they are talking about are significant to the point that as they deal with this relevant newness and staffing offices and turning around a direction in the public service, is the thing that takes time. >> it does. we have to remember the liberals went from 34 seats to 184. it wasn't like when the conservatives took over in 2006 when there was a parge number of m.p.s existing already and with talent and bodies to draw from. i spoke to some a -- a couple chiefs this week and they said they are comfortable with slow and steady. what what's the phrase? marry in haste and -- i think a big part of everything we talked about symbolism a little bit. i think there is symbolism is very important here because this government seems to be trying again and again to remind people they are not their predecessors. everything from the walk up the driveway when the cabinet was sworn in to some of the messaging the first couple
days. >> that's true except again the challenge that mr. trudeau may have. it seems in the past to have been a place where he falls into trouble. getting caught up in the symbolism and language of the symbolism and not the substance. that's why it's interesting to see what today will be in terms of getting down to more workmanlike behavior. i think the liberals so far as we have said have done an ok job at that. i think they are going to now start to have their feet put a bit more to the fire with the house coming back next week. the first question period next week. the focus will be on something robin just talked about the economy and the reality and the economy. you have seen the books. you know what your promises are now. you're purporting to take these measures to increase taxes in one strata of the economy and lower in another. is that the right course of action? i hear a lot that have next week. >> i think to greg's point,
he's right on the process of setting up the government and getting things going. you have to remember as well in terms of the public that the liberals won because they said change now. they defeated the n.d.p. on the left because it was perceived amongst voters that the liberals represented significant change now. so i think the challenge they are going to have is demonstrating that change is taking place. they have done it very well. we touched on it a little bit here. the speech on the thrown will be interesting in terms of what they are going to focus on. it's going to be things i think aligned with that brand they are trying to continue and enbrench in the minds of canadians of the getting to work on the economy, middle class, and reforming how the government operates, transparency and reforms. are they substantive forms? symbolic? that's what observers in the public need to judge. >> it's going to be interesting next week to see how the syrian refugee crisis plays out in the house of commons. and the future of the mission in iraq and syria. that will come up as well
because it's an issue on people's minds. i think the opposition, at least conservatives, are going to go there. i just want to go back to the symbolism. mr. trudeau did take a bit of a blow this week as it related to the whole story about the nannies. i don't think anybody begrudges the prime minister or anybody else childcare, the challenge he had, symbolism versus substance, he's purporting to be the prime minister of the middle class. he's going to bring forward tax measures he hopes will curry favor with the middle class. e says he's not going to taket universal childcare benefit himself. he has nannies paid for in the public purse. right or wrong, i don't in a moment in this case it doesn't look like it's right given the messages he's put out there. these are the things also i think the liberals are going to more careful b they misjudge the enthusiasm and support they have and go a tad too far sometimes. >> how much trouble did the nanny story cause?
>> i have the honor to inform the house that a communication has been received which is as follows. november 30, 2015, mr. speaker, i have the honor to inform you his excellency, the right honorable david johnston, governor general of canada will arrive at the peace tower at 2:30 p.m. on friday, the fourth day of december, 2015. when it has been indicated that all is in readiness, their excellencies will seed proceed to the chamber of the senate to formally open the first session of the 42nd parliament of canada. yours, sincerely, stephen wallis >> i have the honor to inform the house that a communication has been received the text of which is as follows.
[in french translation] mr. speaker i have the honor to inform you his excellency the right honorable david johnsston the governor general of canada and her excellency sharon johnston will arrive at the peace tower at 2:30 p.m. on friday, the fourth day of december, 2015. when it has been indicated that all is in readiness, their excellencies will proceed to the chamber of the senate to formally open the first session of the 42nd parliament of canada. yours, sincerely, stephen wallis.
speech from the thrown to be delivered by the governor general and on the senate side, we have the people who have been invited to hear the speech from the thrown. they include chief justifies, former prime ministers. also, as you saw in our footage earlier as the official delegation made its way in to the senate or to the edge of the senate where it will shortly arrive in the senate, the governor general and those in delegation met with some young people, some new canadians and also syrian refugees who have just came to canada, were part of the folks in that sector, sort of the receiving line of the senate door as the official delegation came to parliament hill and were met by political leaders, leader -- the commissioners of the rcmp and others that you saw there, part of that delegation for today's speech
from the thrown. now, in the next couple of moments here what will happen is that the delegation led by the governor general will make its way in here to the designate chamber and then we will -- senate chamber and then we'll have the speaker of the senate who will effectively order the usher of the black rod to make his way to the senate -- sorry, to the house of commons to summon members of the house back to the senate for the reading of the speech from the thrown. so we'll just lead you, here at cpac, let you absorb these images and stand by for the next formal process. as we said, steeped in centuries of tradition, will begin to unfold begin -- again here on parliament hill.
elected me their speaker though i but little able to fill the important duties thus assigned to me. if in the performance of these duties i should at anytime fall into error, i pray that the fault may be imputed to me and not to the commons whose servant i am and who, through me, better to enable them to discharge their duty to their queen and their country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges. especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates. access to your excellency's person at all seasonable times and that their proceedings received from your excellency the most favorable onstruction. >> may it please your excellency.
the house of commons has elected me their speaker though i am but little able to fulfill the important duties thus assigned to me. if in the performance of those duties i should at anytime fall into error, i pray that the fault may be imputed to me and not to the commons whose servant i am and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duty to their queen and country. humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges , especially that they may have freedom of speech in their ebates, access to your excellency's person at all
seasonable times and that their proceedings may receive from your excellency the most avorable construction. >> mr. speaker, i am commanded by hizell excellency, the governor general, to declare to you that he freely confides in the duty and detachment of the house of commons to her majesty's person and government and not doubting that their proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence. he grants and upon all occasions will recognize and allow their constitutional privileges. i am commanded, also, to assure
you that the commons shall have ready access to his excellency upon all seasonal occasions and that their proceedings as well as your words and actions will constantly receive from him the most favorable construction. >> mr. speaker, i am commanded by his excellency, the governor general, to declare to you that he freely confides in the duty and attachment of the house of commons to her majesty's person and government and not doubting that their proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence, he gas and upon all occasions -- he grants and upon all occasions have all constitutional privileges. i am commanded, also, to assure you that the commons shall have ready access to his excellency upon all seasonable occasions and that their proceedings, as well as your wors and actions,
will cob -- words and actions, will constantly receive from you the most favorable construction. >> honor senators, members of ladies of commons, and gentlemen, as the representative of her majesty the queen, i am pleased to be here to deliver the speech from the throne. a warm welcome to those of you who are returning to your duties as parliamentarians, including those who are returning after an absence. know that your experience is alued. welcome also to the 197 members
who are newly elected. your enthusiasm and fresh ideas will serve your country well. i call on all parliamentarians to work together, with a renewed spirit of innovation, penness and collaboration. as governor general, i have seen first-hand what a great country canada is, from coast to coast to coast. and i also know this -- we can be even better. how? by being smart and caring on a scale as never before. the times we live in demand nothing less. canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not
silenced. parliament shall be no exception. in this parliament, all members will be honored, respected and heard, wherever they sit. for here, in these chambers, the voices of all canadians matter. let us not forget, however, that canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change. canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently. they want to be able to trust their government. and they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them. things like growing the , onomy, creating jobs strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard o join it.
through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it. by working together in the service of all canadians, the government can make real change happen. it will do so in the following ways. first and foremost, the government believes that all canadians should have a real and fair chance to succeed. central to that success is a strong and growing middle class. the government will, as an immediate priority, deliver a tax cut for the middle class. this is the fair thing to do, and the smart thing to do for anadas economy. the government has also committed to provide more direct help to those who need
it by giving less to those who do not. the new canada child benefit will do just that. nd recognizing that public investment is needed to create and support economic growth, job creation and economic prosperity, the government will make significant new investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure. to give canadians a more secure retirement, the government will work with the provinces and territories to enhance the canada pension plan. the employment insurance system will be strengthened to make sure that it best serves both the canadian economy and all canadians who need it. to create more opportunities for young canadians, especially those from low- and middle-income families, the government will work with the provinces and territories to mike postsecondary education
more affordable. and to support the health and well-being of all canadians, the government will begin work with the provinces and territories to develop a new health accord. the government will undertake these and other initiatives while pursuing a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent and suited to challenging economic times. open and transparent government . the trust canadians have in public institutions including arliament has, at times, been compromisedted. by working with greater openness and transparency, parliament can restore it. to make sure that every vote counts, the government will undertake consultations on lectoral reform, and will take
action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system. to restore public trust and bring an end to partisanship, the government will follow through on its commitment to reform the senate by creating a new, nonpartisan, merit-based process to advise the prime minister on senate ppointments. and to give canadians a stronger voice in the house of commons, the government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees. also notable are the things the
government will not do. it will not use government ads for partisan purposes. it will not interfere with the work of parliamentary officers. and it will not resort to devices like prorogation and omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny. third, the government will prove to canadians and the world that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. we cannot have one without the other. protecting the environment and rowing the economy are not incompatible goals. in fact, our future success demands that we do both. last week, first ministers met ahead of the international climate change talks, a first step in an important and ongoing process.
working together, the government will continue to provide leadership as canada works toward putting a price on carbon and reducing carbon pollution. to encourage economic growth, the government will make strategic investments in clean technology, provide more support for companies seeking to export those technologies, and lead by example in their use. and as part of efforts to restore public trust, the government will introduce new environmental assessment processes. public input will be sought and considered. environmental impacts will be understood and minimized. decisions will be informed by scientific evidence. and indigenous peoples will be more fully engaged in reviewing and monitoring major resource evelopment projects. fourth, the government's agenda reflects that canada's strength is its diversity.
canadians elected a government to bring us together, not to set us against one another. canada is strong because of our differences, not in spite of hem. as a country, we are strengthened in many ways. by our shared experiences, by the diversity that inspires both canada and the world, and by the way that we treat each other. because it is both the right thing to do and a certain path to economic growth, the government will undertake to renew, nation-to-nation, the relationship between canada and indigenous peoples, one based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. among other measures, the government will work
cooperatively to implement recommendations of the truth and reconciliation commission of canada, will launch an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and will work with first nations so that every first nations child receives a quality education. the government will make it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in canada, reunite their families, and contribute to the economic uccess of all canadians. in response to a pressing nternational need, and underscored by canadians desire to help, the government will welcome 25,000 new canadians from syria, to arrive
in canada by the end of february, 2016. in gratitude for the service of canadas veterans, the government will do more to support them and their families. he government will support cbc/radio-canada, encourage and promote the use of canadas official languages, and invest in canadas cultural and creative industries. fifth, the government is committed to providing greater security and opportunity for canadians. canadians are open, accepting, and generous people. we know that helping those in need strengthens our communities and makes them safer, more prosperous places to live. the government will strengthen its relationship with allies, especially with our closest friend and partner, the united
states. internationally, the government will focus its development assistance on helping the worlds poorest and most vulnerable. to contribute to greater peace throughout the world, the government will renew canadas commitment to united nations peacekeeping operations, and will continue to work with its allies in the fight against terrorism. to keep canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military. and to expand economic opportunities for all canadians, the government will negotiate beneficial trade agreements, and pursue other opportunities with emerging markets. recognizing that canada is, fundamentally, a safe and peaceful country, the government will continue to
work to keep all canadians safe, while at the same time protecting our cherished rights and freedoms. to that end, the government will introduce legislation that will provide greater support or survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, that will get handguns and assault weapons off our streets, and that will legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana. the agenda of mine today is an ambitious one but is not one forged in isolation. rather, it is the result of conversations with canadians, who told the government, plainly and honestly, what they need to be successful. canadians are confident people. we know who we are, and we know hat kind of country we want to
live in. we know the greatness that canada is capable of, and we know that our success is not only about doing well for ourselves, but also about leaving an even better, more peaceful and prosperous world or our children. s you consider the important work that lies ahead, remember that canadians have placed their trust in you. it is now your sacred responsibility to help build that better world. by focusing on growing our middle class, on delivering open and transparent government, on ensuring a clean environment and a strong economy, on building a stronger canada, and on providing greater security and opportunity, the government will make real change happen. it will prove that better is not only possible, it is the inevitable result when canadians work together.
members of the house of commons, you will be asked to appropriate the funds required to carry out the services and expenditures authorized by parliament. honorable members of the senate and members of the house of commons, may divine providence guide you in your deliberations and make you faithful custodians of the trust bestowed upon you.
[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] >> and live of the canadian house of commons will justin trudeau will be holding his first question period as prime minister. we'll take you live to ottawa at 2:15 eastern time. we'll also take you live to the floor of the house just before question period where the house will be gaveling in for legislative business. taking up some measures later this afternoon under suspension of the rules at 3:45, sclug a suspension bill that would ban microbeads and phase it out used in cosmetics and cleansers that ends up in waterways. government spending throughout the week. the senate working on government strength as well and a replacement for the no child left behind program. you can watch the senate live over on c-span2 and the house
right here on c-span. but before the house gavels in we'll take a look at our conversation from earlier today on "washington journal" about american recruits for isis. a we y georgia university -- the director of the george washington university extreme -- extremism program, welcome, glad you could be here to talk about this issue. there's a lot of talk about the san bernardino shooters and how they were radicalized, what does that mean? it means that they adopted and extremist ideology. specifically, isis related ideology. part and parcel of this is the support of violence and the creation of his -- of an islamic state. most muslims do not agree. in a sense, it is the support of
against anybody that opposes the political idea. other muslims, westerners, you name it. host: what does radical islam mean, a lot of debate around those words? guest: absolutely a big political debate about whether or not is correct -- it is correct to use that term. it is difficult for some and it -- and an important debate to have. the idea is that there is a movement in the middle east, i think we have seen it for almost 100 years. it has really grown that uses phrases from the religion or a political agenda. it is a diverse movement. you have some groups that are nonviolent like the muslim brotherhood, then you have the opposite side of the spectrum, like al qaeda or isis. guest: they're just taking --
host: they're just taking different phrases from the corolla -- from the corolla from the koran? -- from the koran? they take a literal approach, a historical approach and they pick and choose certain verses that fit to their political agenda. it is a very powerful message because it builds on muslim frames and it's very powerful and abuse for a lot of people. host: i want to get your reaction to the president and his oval office address last night, talking about the growth of extremism, take a look. pres. obama: that does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread in some muslim communities. it is a problem that muslims must confront without excuse. muslim leaders here and around the world have to continue working with us to decisively
and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like isis and al qaeda promote. speak out against not just acts of violence, but also the interpretations of islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect and human dignity. just as it is the responsibility of muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all americans, of every faith, to reject dissemination. host: what did you make of what the president said? probably the strongest speech he gave on the subject, not just of terrorism but of radical islam. it was very powerful that he talked about ideology, a big debate within the administration and washington is the role of ideology and whether poverty causes terrorism.
of this,is a big part obviously it's not the only thing, there are other factors. it is a very complex process, but ideology is a big heart. poverty alone does not cause terrorism. after andy went condemned violent ideas, he -- heically mentioned talked about ideas that are unacceptable because they are against values that are human. not just to wreck the violent, but also ideas that are unacceptable. that it does not necessarily come from poverty, that it comes from an ideology, what does that mean for people in the notice states, i'm her -- americans who are attracted to the message and ideology? -- youa recent report,
did a recent report. guest: we look at all the cases of individuals who are charged with trying to join isis and this is one of the big takeaways poverty,t is not about we have all kinds of individuals from all walks of life, different levels of socioeconomic integration. for the most part, these are well integrated people based on socioeconomic standards. we don't know the details about san bernardino, for example, but both had degrees. someone who came recently, but the husband was born and bred in the u.s., he went to college and have a good paying job. on the surface, quite well integrated with no issues of poverty or discrimination or marginalization. different people become attracted to a certain ideology. seen a pattern we have with other extremist views. people do it for personal
reasons. poverty might have something to do with it. americans travel or attempted to travel to syria or iraq to join isis as of the fall of 2015. 900 active investigations against isis sympathizers in all 50 states are underway. 71 individuals have been charged with isolated activity since march of 2014. largenumbers are not that we look at the entire population. guest: we are talking about a statistically insignificant phenomenon, one mark of the president is that we cannot -- one of the biggest mistakes is the smallgether numbers of the extremists with the numbers of the two point something million american muslims that are peaceful and well integrated and reject those extremist ideologies. every security point of view, these numbers are concerning
because we don't see this -- we never saw this degree of mobilization in the past. al qaeda try to reach some americans, but you saw maybe 15 or 20 people charged every year. 60, year we are seeing 50, north of thousand, it is a substantial number. the biggest mistake would be to make this about the muslim community here. 30% of individuals who are charged in the u.s. are converts, most of them are new, people who convert to islam online and then two weeks later are attracted to isis. it's not just the muslim community, although it does have to play a role in going after the ideology. host: what is attracted to americans who are converts? -- attractive to americans who are converts? guest: it's difficult to say because they have so many diverse backgrounds.
criminals and graduate students, ethnic backgrounds, all walks of life. a lot of them, it is a sense of identity and belonging a certain community. maybe they are not well-adjusted in one way or another and they find a sense of belonging. in some case, it is the ultimate rebellion, people who are attracted by other rebellious ideologies. what is more rebellious today than isis? -- the average's age is 26 years old and 86% are male. guest: if you take out two or three cases of people in their 40's, then the average age goes down to the early 20's. we've seen quite a few cases of teenagers. it is a matter of people looking for a certain message.
i think that is the role that communities have to play, that is what the president was talking about. the fbi cannot be there doing preventive work. the do something once radicalization process has begun, but there is or what we can do in society to stop and intercept radicalization at the start. host: how do we do that? guest: a lot of european countries, they have experiences where there are mentors, --ically structures, whether they stop people from further radicalizing. some problems of gangs in the u.s. and i think radicalizing could be treated as a similar phenomenon. a social ill and you and people can become victims.
it is a message that attract young people. we have a system in place to prevent the signs and then try to help people, young people go to different direction. we don't have one for radicalization, and i think it's high time we did that. host: with all that on the table, let's dig in with viewers, errol from long beach, independent, you are on. says you are working at the george washington university and your skills are in extremism, what bothers me is you guys are all talking about circumstances and that that are overwhelmed when you look at the united states, people going into liquor stores and way more people buying from somebody going in and robbing and doing those kinds of things, yet the commander-in-chief of this nation, for some reason thinks it's ok to send nuclear weapons
to belgium, germany, italy, the netherlands and turkey. those nations used to be our enemies and i just comprehend why he would ever send nuclear weapons anywhere because some of the gets a hold of those things because there is an upsetting of the whole nation, especially like a nation like germany, it's like now we have a quick a country with nuclear weapons and what is going to happen when that takes place? the world is getting cold, that is was happening. guest: i'm not sure i know the dynamics of what he is talking about, but he mentioned nato whoes, those are countries have been reliable allies for the last 60 or 70 years. has military facilities
in all these countries, turkey included, which is a clear -- wegic part, they need have long had military bases and nuclear weapons are in some cases part of the arsenal that the u.s. keeps there. all countries are stable to be honest, i don't see germany -- by any sort of revolutionary force there, but that is been the structure since world war ii. in thesis sympathizers u.s., are they necessarily all attracted to and commit acts of violence? your times notes that the death toll from jihadist terrorism in the u.s. since the september 11 people, is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by whites premised and other right-wing extremist ideologies, both smaller than the large
number of 200,000 general murders since -- guest: how much do you cover the disk portion of coverage -- the disproportionate coverage? fair that if san bernardino got carried out by people other ideologies that it would not have gotten the same coverage. host: does that contribute to the attraction to isis, all the coverage? guest: i think they are attracted by the success that isis is having on the ground in syria and iraq. you might argue that some people that it ever been interested in the message might be attracted by this, these people follow a certain kind of media and mainstream on the debate. something to the disproportionality here between how the media treats jihadists
inspired terrorism, informational terror -- international terrorism and domestic terrorism. the kind of emotions itns it trs , the moment it becomes international terrorism, then everything becomes much more intense and polarizing. that is probably not the right way of seeing it if you look at it at the cold numbers. right-wing extreme -- extremism does actually killed more. at the same time, it is international terrorism, isis, a global movement, that poses a larger threat from a geopolitical point of view. there is no right-wing movement that is controlling a country the size of france in the middle east and trying to expand its reach globally. don in california, democrat. please let the people
talk, let the people that call in talk. host: you are on. caller: listen to me. is arab, right? host: he's italian. whatever, please don't cut me off because this guy called in talking about the bible earlier and he talked about nobody doesn't know what the bible is talking about, but these are the end times. there is nothing nobody can do about what's going on because the first and the second world war has been here and the third one is coming, what says the bible. the reason why we are >> and we leave this and watch the rest of it online. c-span.org. go to to our "washington journal" tab. [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]
take you live to the floor of the house where they're about to gavel in for legislative business. speak pro tempore: the will be in oe the prayer will beffered by our chapin, thy. haplain cony: let usray. lovingod w give unks r giving us another d. in th season amg the holiest for millns of just as atearl harbor 74 years ago, violence our land has bn sited upon u bu your word, yohave lored havefear for you are with us. help us to put ost i whfaces this assembly has a o, constancaltos. bless all the peacemakers our world, may your eternal
spirit be with them and with us always. may your special blessings be upon the members of this assembly and the important and difficult work that they are given to do. give them wisdom and charity that they might work together for the common good. may all that is done this day in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the the gentlewoman from washington, ms.delbene. ms.delbene: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. today i want to recognize a student from the pennsylvania's fifth congressional district who has given back to her community while helping our environment. cara, a senior at state college area high school, teamed up with a waste management company in 2012 to recycle a number of bar including granola wrappers and cereal bags. she set bags up at school so her teachers and students could help. 3,500 cereal bags
and/oral care products. proceeds from those items have gone to local organizations including the cemetery association. mr. speaker, so impressive to see charitable efforts such as this one in the communities we represent. what makes us even more praiseworthy is her regard for her community at such a young age. i wish her the best of luck as she fin herbs her high school career and next step of her education. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker terrorists shouldn't be able to legally buy guns. right now someone on the f.b.i.'s terrorist watch list can go into a gun store and buy a firearm of their choosing legally. since 2004, more than 2,000 suspected terrorists have legally purchased weapons in
the united states. last week house republicans voted three times to protect the ability of suspected terrorists to continue buying guns. mr. thompson: this made our country less safe. that's why i just filed a discharge petition that would allow us to vote on a to close the terror list loophole. the bill makes sure those on the f.b.i.'s terrorist watch list can't walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and buy a gun. if house republicans are concerned about the accuracy of the list, let's scrub the list. if you agree that terrorists shouldn't be able to have guns, then put your name down in writing and let's have a vote. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. oday i rise to honor douglas "stretch" baker of nevada for his dedicated service to save
and preserve the historic mining port. the park is a critically acclaimed tourism site and crucial to the part of the mining heritage and the proud history of the state of nevada. mr. barrack has given countless hours of his time and use of equipment to make the site safe and attractive to visitors. to build a unique welcome sign and gate, to promote the park through appropriate signage. mr. hardy: when it became known that the signature was in immediate need of it repair, the foundation undertook a momentous fundraising effort to save the structure and able to aise over 100,000. mr. baker was invaluable in the effort even acting as a crane operator and advisor chief. douglas "stretch" baker is to be commened along with the historic pining park foundation board to -- for bringing the exciting project to a
successful conclusion thereby preserving one of the most important artifacts in nevada's mining history. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms.delbeney: the pacific northwest has always been a leader when it comes to climate change. it's critical the united states shows the same leadership globally. that's why it's so encouraging to hear the reports from the climate summit in paris. we need to take action not just domestically but around the world. in washington state we know firsthand how damaging climate change can be. from longer and worsening fire seasons, increased bests and invasive species, aside phiing ocean, to more unpredictable natural disasters, a vast majority of the population recognizes climate change as a
growing problem in need of international solutions. we often hear talk about the debt we'll be leaving the next generation. but not enough about the environment we are leaving our children and our grandchildren. it's long past time for bold solutions and international approach to combat climate change. at a crucial es time and we look forward to its progress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: thank, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote yes on the microbead free waters act of 2015. mr. speaker, i represent a district that borders lake michigan. the great lakes are the source of fresh drinking water for literally millions of americans. jobs, recreation, and tourism a all depend on a healthy and flourishing great lakes ecosystem. and we must do all we can to
protect this vital natural resource. mr. speaker, microbeads are microscopic pieces of plastic included in products like soaps and cosmetics. they are designed to help these products to be more effective, but when these products are used the microbeads inside them can get into the nation's waterways. they end up accumulating on lakes and rivers and oceans where they stay and where they eventually collect toxic chemicals and eventually into the food and water supply. the microbead free waters act is a great step forward to preserving the great lakes for our future generations. as a co-sponsor of this important bill, i urge its passage. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. as a member of congress i take
seriously my responsibility to protect and defend the american people. that's why it is so troubling to me that republicans in congress last week voted three times to block debate on a bill offered by republican congressman, peter king, that would close a loophole that allows suspects on the f.b.i.'s terror watch list to buy assault weapons. the shocking truth is that according to the g.a.o. more than 2,000 suspects on the f.b.i.'s terror watch list tried to buy weapons in the u.s. over the last 11 years. 91% of them walked away with a weapon. with all the threats and ngers that we face, this loophole should be closed. we should make it harder for suspected terrorists to buy assault weapons not easier. 80% of gun owners support keeping guns away from people on the terror watch list. yet republicans in congress and
the n.r.a. continue to block commonsense bills. to do what? to allow suspected loophole should be terrorists to purchase weapons. congress needs to act to protect the mesh people and close this dangerous loophole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, president obama is misleading americans about climate change. at a news conference in paris, the president claimed fish are swimming through the streets of miami as a result of climate change. there is indeed something fishy about this story. according to the national weather service, south florida has been under a coastal flood advisory as a result of "high tides due to the lunar cycle." this is the cause of the high tides which subsequently led to flooding in low-lying areas.
the alignment of the earth, moon, and sun along with strong arl -- eerily winds caused the abnormal tides not climate change. how can the president not know this? the administration's alarmism and exaggeration is not good science. it is science fiction. the administration wants to violence an extreme climate change agenda that will damage our economy and have little impact on global warming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: thank you mr. speaker -- mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate. we recognize the somber 74th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor. on this day in 1941, our nation was gripped in shock and
sadness. over 2,000 lives were lost and over 1,000 service members wounded. we honor and remember those lives lost during this horrific attack. these brave men and women fought for our freedoms and made the ultimate sacrifice. we also remember the strength our nation demonstrated following this tragedy. from the ashes rose the greatest generation and a stronger united states of america. as president roosevelt said, the american people and the righteous might will win through to absolute victory. on this somber day, we honor the lives lost, we are reminded of the sacrifices made and of the strength of our great nation. i'm forever graving for all those in our armed services -- graving -- grateful for all those in our armed services. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: december 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. no matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the american people in their righteous might will win through absolute victory. so help us almighty god. franklin delano roosevelt's reaction to an attack on the united states. last night president obama held a rare oval office address to give his update on isis. his message, stay the course with the same ineffective strategy. not much inspiring as franklin delano roosevelt's address when the united states faced another enemy. the president has promised no ground troops and more gun control. he called the isis, isis the j.v. team. they defied american air strikes, expanded their cali fat, killing everyone in their
way. he declared isis was contained hours before 134 people were slaughtered in the city of lights. he said there was no immediate credible threat to the homeland. days later, 14 people died in san bernardino at the hands of isis sympathizers. mr. speaker, congress needs to approve an authorization to use military force. specifically against isis. isis is at war with the united states. it's time for the united states to be at war with isis. and the commander in chief should lead us to absolute victory. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. my colleagues have come to the floor and we do remember pearl harbor and we remember this day. we also remember how our
relatives who talked about this, who served, how they told these stories. and i think we are blessed to have that insight into history. and it is such a difference when you compare what the president did last night, 13 minutes is what he had to say about terrorism and the war on terror. i have been reading emails from some of my constituents. their words are this, he's tone deaf. he's in denial. he is the fearful leader. . they want to see leadership that will communicate the message. we are going to find you, we're going to destroy you, and we're going to destroy your networks. that's not what the president has been saying. my constituents see him as being very timid and very hesitant in this fight. they feel like he just does not get it. and they have a lot of questions that they're asking
me. why is it that he is so timid? in fighting terrorism? could it be that he does not possess the courage to call them out? that he thinks america is to blame for this? or he doesn't want to offend our enemies? they have declared war on us, it is time for us to confront our enemy. i yield back. spero: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair -- lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 4, 2015, at 10:40 a.m. that the senate agreed to conference report h.r. 22, that the senate passed senate 2032, that the senate passed with an
amendment h.r. 3762. with best wished, i am, signed, incerely, karen l. haas. h.r. 22, to authorize funds for federal aid highways, highway safety programs and transit programs and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house sundry communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule of the rules of the -- 8 of the ruse rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served by a subpoena for the central district of illinois. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations
required by rule 8. rokita. incerely, paul sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been certained -- served with a subpoena from the grand jury for the central district of illinois. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule 8. norman sincerely, gulata. this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena for the central district of illinois. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule 8. igned, sincerely, john nato. the honorable the speaker,
house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you formaly, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been swembd grand jury subpoena for testimony issued by the united states district court for the central district of illinois. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule 78. signed, sincerely, jacquelin herda. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena for testimony issued by the united states district court for the central district of illinois. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule 8. signed, sincerely, andrew toddcock. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 3:45 p.m. today.
>> we take you live now to ottawa and the canadian house of commons ahead of the first question period for new prime minister justin trudeau. he'll be answering questions from members followed by his ab nefment >> in the last week we have seen the obama administration, germany, france, and the u.k. step up their efforts on their air strikes. meanwhile, the prime minister has ordered our teams to stand down. why is the prime minister stepping back from the fight when our allies are stepping p? >> the right honorable prime minister. >> in the past election they want canadians and military to continue to engage in the fight
against isis. and we are committed to continuing to do that. however we have also made a clear commitment to withdraw the fighter jets and engage in a continued way militarily, in a humanitarian evident, and refugee efforts which we are continuing to do. i engage with our allies on these issues and they areassured me we are continuing to be helpful. thank you. >> the honorable leader of the opposition. >> mr. speaker, let's just be clear about what isis is. they are a cult that sell children and women into sexual slavery. they target and kill gays and lesbians and murdered thousands of muslims, christians, and other religious minorities. yet the prime minister says he's going to take our planes out of the fight. just how bad does it have to be in iraq and syria to leave our
teams there? the speaker pro tempore: the right honlyornl -- the speaker: the right hontyorble the prime minister. the prime minister: there isn't a canadian in this country who doesn't think isis is a terrible terrorist. the question has always been how best to engage. how can canada use its strengths, the extraordinary strength of the men and women of the canadian forces to support in the fight against isis. ongoing right now continue to be air strikes. we have committed to end those air strikes and to transform our engagement in a different way, equally militarily, to ensure that canada continues to be a strong member of the coalition fighting against sis. the speaker: the honorable leader of the opposition. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
mr. speaker, last night president obama also said that his closest a.o.l. lies have stepped up their air strikes. then he went on to name france and germany and the u.k. but no mention of canada. are we stepping back from the fight against terrorism is not stepping up. will the prime minister just admit he's more committed to his ideologies than he is to our fight? the speaker: right honorable the prime minister. the prime minister: just a couple weeks ago, mr. speaker, i sat down with president obama and discussed and confirmed that canada continues to be a strong supporter of the coalition against isil and continues to be engaged on a humanitarian level, on a refugee level, and, indeed, on a military level. right now we are in discussion with our allies about how best canada can continue to participate and to help in the fight against isil since we are
ithdrawing our cf-18 aircraft. translation] last night president obama had harsh words for isil. inside the threat of terrorism is real but we will beat t we will destroy isil and any other organization that wants to do us harm. from the prime minister assurance that he shares president obama's views, the honorable prime minister, obviously. the prime minister: obviously the prime minister, myself, the government of canada will continue resolutely in our desire and conviction to continue to combat isil together with our international partners. but what we won't do is keep talking about it and giving free publicity to isil because they use propaganda to spread.
>> the honorable member. of course, mr. speaker, the prime minister is referring -- has referred to his meeting with obama, very strange that just a few days later when talking about his trusted allies he talked about france, the u.k., and germany. we don't want slogans like canada's back. how is the prime minister going to defend canadians against isil? the speaker pro tempore: honorable prime minister. the prime minister: as i said, mr. speaker, canada is determined to combat isil. we will continue to remain committed and involved militarily but we will withdraw our fighters because we have been talking about it for months with canadians, and
canadians trust us to continue to take strong action against isil in a way that's appropriate for canada, thank you. [french translation] the speaker: the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to begin by congratulating the prime minister and by ensuring -- assuring him that the n.e.p. in op -- n.d.p. will be in opposition that will help the government fulfill its promises to canadians. a lot of canadians are disappointed that the prime minister brought along in his suitcase to paris the plan and the targets of the previous conservative government around greenhouse gases. can the prime minister commit here today in 2016, greenhouse gas emissions in canada will go down? yes or no?
the speaker: the right honorable prime minister. the prime minister: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to concombrat late -- congratulate my colleague on his election. the fact is we have -- we brought a new plan to paris. during election campaign we made commitments to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in green infrastructure, green and clean energy. we have a whole plan to achieve what the previous government failed to do and that is reduce g.h.g. the speaker: honorable member outrement. >> so, no plan to reduce g.h.g.s next year. but they are also hoping to a a nge of tone to bring about
concrete change of direction. will this government make them binding by trying them into a climate change accountability law here at home? the speaker: right honorable prime minister. the prime minister: one of the things my honorable colleague seems to forget from time to time is canada is a federation with 10 provinces that have different approaches and retirements. we have committed to sit down and engage with those provinces, listen to them, and work out not just targets but a plan that is going to ensure that canada meets its international and domestic obligations to reduce climate emissions and develop a strong economy. [in english] the speaker: honorable member. >> i thought he said had he a plan. during the campaign the liberal leader said he would, quote, restores robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments. last week the environment minister said projects
initiated under the conservative system will, quote, continue on that path. can the prime minister reveal whether pipelines, for example, now under review, will undergo a thorough assessment that includes greenhouse gas impacts or will they simply continue to use the woefully inadequate assessment system left by the conservatives? the speaker: right honorable prime minister. the prime minister: mr. speaker, the canadians know we need both a strong environment and protected -- strong economy and strong environment at the same time. that's why canadians want a system of environmental assessment that they can trust. we'll launch a public review and make the changes need to restore public confidence in the environmental assessment of natural resource project. we will modernize the national energy board to ensure that its composition reflects regional views and sufficient exeter piece in environmental science, community development, and indigenous traditional knowledge.
[speaking in] >> so the pipe line projects will continue under the old conservative system. during the election campaign the prime minister said with reeffrens to canada posts, i quote, we are committed to restoring door-to-door delivery, unquote. and yet there is nothing in the thrown speech and his minister of public service said last week that the service would not be restored. who is telling the truth? will the prime minister, the the speaker: the right honorable prime minister. the prime minister: thank you, mr. speaker. the fact is we clearly committed to providing canadians with the services they expect from canada post. we will work with canada post. we have imposed a moratorium on the installation of community
mailboxes. and we'll keep working with the ministers and our partners to ensure that canadians get the services they need. the speaker: honorable member from milton. >> first of all, mr. speaker, i welcome the honorable member, minister of finance to the house. i'm sure we'll have a loft fun in the coming weeks. mr. speaker, the prime minister made two fundamental commitments to canadians. one, that the deficit wouldn't go above $10 billion per year. and two, that any tax increases would actually be revenue neutral. unfortunately, mr. speaker, neither of these are true and it seems as if we are leaving these economiesments in the dust. my question for the minister of finance is, how much will these roken promises cost canadians?
the speaker: the honorable minister of finance. minister of finance: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i'd like to thank the honorable member for her question. it's a pleasure to be here and a privilege. we made commitments to canadians during the course of our campaign. we recognize that the economy is slowing. it's slower than we expected. we are going to make significant investments in our economy through infrastructure investments. we are going to make sure that we reduce our net debt to g.d.p. over the course of the mandate and intend on getting to balanced budget during the term of the mandate. we look forward to serving canadians in this way. thank you very much. the speaker: the honorable member from milton. >> we are going to hold the minister to his promise of the canadians of balancing the budget. one way of balancing that budget, mr. speaker, is by increasing taxes. indeed this government already said they are going to increase taxes. guess what? it's not going to pay for what is happening on the other end of the balance.
there is no revenue neutrality here. now that he's going to admit later on today, supposedly, that indeed that isn't going to work for him, will he admit increased payroll taxes that increases taxes on retirement savings and how children receive their support is not going to work, either, and also flawed? the speaker: the prime minister of finance. finance prime minister: mr. speaker, i'd like to thank the honorable member. this will be fun. i will say that we -- we are starting today with a very important part of our plan. we are starting today with middle class tax breaks. key part of our initiative -- the speaker: honorable member from milton. >> one thing for sure this government is very great at giving out money, but are they good as growing the economy? oil today is at $38 a barrel.
we are understanding that 185,000 job losses in the oil and gas sector in 2016 are possible. this affects everybody who works in that sector, including those in alberta. they are hurting, mr. speaker. yet this sector was not mentioned even once in the speech from the thrown. why is the economic engine not priority for this government? the speaker: honorable minister of finance. finance finance minister: we have inherited a situation that was more challenging than foreseen in the budget. we are looking forward to making significant investments in our economy. to help the growth of the economy because we recognize the challenges the canadians are facing across this country. we look forward doing a better job for canadians in the years to come. the speaker: the honorable member. [speaking in french --
translated from french] >> during the election campaign the prime minister made two major commitments. first, to run a deficit of $10 billion. to bring in tax cuts that would benefit everyone. but today canadians wake up and realize that's not true. it's unrealistic. can the prime minister stand up and tell canadians directly how much these broken promises are going to cost them? the speaker: minister of finance. finance minister: we aspire to be transparent and open to canadians. it is to give the canadians a clear understanding of the situation from which we can make investments that will make a real long-term difference for canadians. that's what we intend on doing by bringing forward our plan over the course of our subject that there -- bunt that will show canadians how we can improve our collective future. the speaker: the honorable member.
[translated from french] >> mr. speaker, the thrown speech left out entrepreneurs. not a single word or concrete plan to help entrepreneurs and small business and small manufacturing businesses. on this side of the house we think the real wealth creators are our entrepreneurs. why has this government left them out? why have they done nothing to help canadian entrepreneurs and wealth creators? the speaker: the honorable minister of finance. [translated from french] prime minister: i'd like to recognize we have to deal with all canadians. help businesses across the country by setting forward a plan that will allow us to invest in our country so we can make our country more productive and increase growth going forward while helping those that are struggling to get by which is exactly what we are starting with today.
the speaker: the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, liberals are already increasing payroll taxes. calling back tax free savings accounts, implement prementplementing job killing carbon tax. they are planning to get rid of boutique tax credits without any details of who will be affected. can the finance minister tell us whether he plans to eliminate tax credits for first ime home buyers? students, apprentices, families with children and sports and arts, or all of the above? the speaker: the honorable minister of finance. finance minister: thank you, mr. speaker. what we can tell the house today is that we are starting our program to help canadians. today's the day where we have said we are going to reduce middle class taxes by asking canadians who are doing
very well to pay a little bit more. this is an important first start in our tax program. a program that will make canada a fairer place for canadians and a better place for all of us to do business. >> honorable member. >> thank you. mr. speaker, the liberal government is now admitting the tax plans doesn't add up. we will have to make changes. the new government's plan gives maximum benefit to wealthy canadians while giving nothing to nearly 70 persons. we propose constructive change to ensure benefits go to 90% of canadians. will the minister work with us to help millions more by fixing the government's plan and making the tax system more fair? the speaker: the honorable minister of finance. finance minister: mr. speaker, i want to first thank the honorable deputy for his question and say congratulations on his election. i will say that our plan when looked at in totality over the
coming months will show that nine out of 10 canadian families will be better off through the course of our mandates through our projections because of our changes. we will also raise 315,000 canadian children out of poverty. our plan will start by reducing taxes and move forward to help canadians across this country rom coast to coast to coast. >> honorable member. >> mr. speaker, under the liberal tax plan, the medium income earner gets nothing. but those earning even 90,000 and 200,000 get the maximum tax break. does the minister think that a medium income earner is not part of the middle class? or will he work with the n.d.p. to cover 90% of canadians? the speaker: honorable minister of finance.
finance minister: mr. speaker, we are looking forward to working together with all of our colleagues in this house in trying to come up with policy that best helps canadians move forward. our plans that we have enumerated during our campaign will help nine out of 10 families to be better off. it will raise 315,000 children out of poverty. we know that we can start with a tax cut for canadians in the middle class so they can have more money to help our economy and move forward with other initiatives that will help other canadians even more. the speaker: member from calgary it rose hill. >> admitted that their campaign promise to bring 25,000 syrian refugees to canada by year's end was not within their ability to achieve. the governments of lebanon, turkey, and jordan require exit permits to be issued to refugees before they can come to canada.
given there are only 24 days left for the liberals to meet their diminished refugee target, can the minister of immigration tell the house exactly how many exit permits have actually been issued to governments -- by these governments for refugees coming to canada since november 4? the speaker: honorable minister of immigration refugees and citizen ship. honorable minister: i congratulate my colleague for the re-election and rise to the noble post of immigration critic in the opposition. and i would simply say we have pursued a totally open communication policy with canadians from the beginning, from the beginning we have said that yes, there are issues surrounding exit permits from lebanon. we are also dealing with jordan and with turkey. and we are working extremely hard on the ground to secure those exit permits.
the speaker: honorable member from calgary nose hill. >> mr. speaker, my colleagues' focus on talking about rising to the occasion, i would say it hasn't met reality here. given there are only 24 days left before the end of the year, account of immigration please inform the house since he wasn't able to answer that question on exit permits how many syrian refugees have been identified for resettlement to canada exact number, and how many canadian permanent resident visas have been issued to syrian refugees since november 4? only 24 days left. the speaker: honorable member of immigration, revenue geese, and citizenship. honorable minister: i'm delighted to answer that question. when i ask every provincial minister how many refugees from syria his province could receive, do you know what we were oversubscribed. if you take all the numbers presented by every provincial
minister, that number exceeds 25,000. those people are not here yet. but it's a huge indication of early support and enthusiasm from our provincial government which spreads across the whole ountry, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, even the liberals target requires social services to achieve. we still need to pass certification and other mmigration streams including and visas. can you explain how the human
sources to process syrian applications will impact other aliens in the immigration system? the speaker: honorable minister of immigration. minister: mr. speaker, i ask my department this question and i was a little bit skeptical but i was told it would have no impact on refugees from other countries. but i persisted and they explained to me that while some resources are being diverted to the syrian cause, no resources are being diverted for other refugees. other n say very clearly refugees will not be affected by this syrian take. the speaker: honorable member for calgary forest lawn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it is right that
our government provide assistance to syrian refugees, but security on the ground is key to those honorable people. hours ago the government -- military and providing aid. but the new government has decided to sit on the sideline making it even more dangerous for the people still in the camps. mr. speaker, will the minister of international development explain the helping victims war while not engaging -- the speaker: minister of development. [through inister: transfrench translation] st week we announced that we would increase funding by 100 million to help with humanitarian needs in the
field, to help unhcr support and accommodate a large number of refugees and 90 million dollars to help people in the camps, refugee, who are currently in the neighboring countries. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the government reiterated to establish a nation-to-nation relationship with aboriginal people. mr. speaker, we salute that commitment and offer our full cooperation. after decades of broken promises, this time, mr. speaker, must be direct. we are still waiting for the details with respect of the 2.6 billion dollars for the campaign for education.
account minister tell us when the government will make these intentions known? the speaker: honorable minister of indian vision of affairs and development. honorable minister: i thank the honorable member and i thank him for all of the work that he has done on this issue. and particularly on the u.n. declaration on the rights of indigenous people. you have taught us a lot. i look forward, this government has committed to a nation-to-nation relationship and we will begin that very important work of reconciliation and we will need the help of all members in the house. honorable member of simmons james bay. >> the ministers language on reconciliation she does know as we do the reconciliation has to
begin on the commound in communities like shoal lake where children are facing bacterial infection from dirty water. we all have a responsibility to change that. the prime minister's committed five years to ending the boiled water advisory. i'm asking the minister could she tell us what her timeline is for an action plan and will it have clear guidelines and commitments so we can get results for these communities? the speaker: minister of indigenous affairs. honorable minister: not only in his community but for nations coast to coast to coast. as our government has committed to a nation to nation approach, it means that we will have to work with first nations for us to be able to achieve this goal and i look forward to working with the member to make sure that happens and then we will have realistic time lines and oals and the budget to sign.
the burundi. the speaker: honorable minister of public safety. honorable minister: i'm delighted to have my first question in this portfolio from that distinguished member. when people need to be removed from canada according to the law, one of the factors taken into consideration is whether that can be done safely. the most recent information available to us on the country of burundi indicates that removals cannot, cannot be done safely at the present time. consequently the government of canada effectively, immediately has announced that the canada border services agency has impressed an administrative deferral on all removals from
canada to burundi. the speaker: honorable member. >> mr. speaker, in the speech from the thrown the liberal government told canadians they want a leaner military. we all know leaner is just a code word for cuts. last spring the parliamentary budget officer acknowledges report on national defense spending, i quote, the most significant cuts occurred in 1995 to 2004. mr. speaker, that was under the previous liberal government. are we going back to the future ? account minister of defense tell us what he's going to be cutting. the speaker: the honorable minister of defense. honorable minister: mr. speaker, first of all i just want to say it's a privilege and honor to be standing for the first time in this honorable house. our government is committed to
the men and women of the canadian armed forces. we will be making sure that the planning increases remain in place and when we send our men and women to the important missions around the world that they have the capabilities to achieve that mission. thank you. the speaker: honorable member. >> mr. speaker, the thrown speech was 1,700 words and not one of those words was isis. in the past few days we have watched as leaders of france, united kingdom, and the united states announce that they are stepping up in the fight against isis. back here the liberal government is stepping back. canada's back all right, way back behind her allies in the fight against isis. why won't the prime minister stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the fight against sis? the speaker: the honorable minister. we will be ister:
more opt mily effective with our allies. if we -- only 2% of the ascribed, and if we focus on where canada will make a real ifference. the speaker: the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, i was lieutenant colonel in the canadian forces. i underwent those cuts. in the speech last week the government said it would be streamlining our current forces capability. prime minister, instead of deficiencies, what
part of the armed forces will be faced with budget cuts? the speaker: the hobyorble minister of defense. honorable minister: this government is making sure that the canadian government has the capability. oiler government plans to make sure we have the right resources at the pointy end where our men and women need it the most, thank you. the speaker: honorable member. >> mr. speaker, instead of supporting our allies in the fight of terrorists here and abroad, our country will simply be staying on the sidelines. will the minister of defense tell us why canada is not being a leader? in the fight against terrorism. the speaker: minister of global affairs. >> mr. speaker, canada will do its share to fight terrorism effectively by focusing on training. the training of military forces, police forces.
for governance. strengthen and we'll do it soon, mr. speaker. the speaker: honorable member from the lady smith. it >> mr. speaker, 26 years after 14 women were murdered simply for being women, for daring to study engineering, violence against women remains unacceptably high. working together we in the n.d.p. believe we can work together to end violence against women. but federal leadership is required. the new government promised the strategy on gender violence, including immediate inquiry into the terrible issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. can the minister please tell us
when our government plans to call this important inquiry? the speaker: it the minister for the status of women. honorable minister: thank you very much, mr. speaker, for the member's excellent question. we are very excited to move forward on this file. murdered and missing indigents is a national tragedy that not only affects women but their families and communities. so we intend to move forward incredibly quickly and with great deal of respect. we will do this by ensuring we work with families and communities and national stakeholders to make sure we get it right the first time. thank you. >> mr. speaker, 26 years after
the tragedy, too many women are still victims of violence because they are women. according to the shelters federation, 10,000 women were turned away last year alone. when i worked at a shelter, i, too, had to turn women away. women of victims of violence must have connection to this essential service. will the government invest in shelters? the speaker: the minister for the status of women. honorable minister: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker, for the excellent question. as former executive director of a homeless shelter in thunder bay, i can tell you there is nothing more heartbreaking than providing women a safe shelter. taries my honor to work on this file and ensure when women need a safe place to stay, barriers will be eliminated and more than that that we move forward to transitional housing that will eliminate the need for the cycle of sheltering. thank you very much.
the speaker: honorable member. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the newly minted minister of trade continues to confuse canadians with statements like it's not her job to promote trade. he's she's not ratifying t.p.p. until americans do. this has been years in discussion is now the gold standard on environmental and tabe chapters. when will she stop stalling and ign this deal? the speaker: minister of international trade. honorable minister: thank you for the question, mr. speaker. our government supports free trade so strongly i couldn't wait to answer that question. we understand how important it is for middle class prosperity. we also understand on a deal
this big it is essential to consult canadians and have a full parliamentary debate. i must say to my honorable colleague that he is a little bit mistaken on his fact when he suggests we could be signing the deal now. the deal is not open at the moment yet for either signature or ratification. and he might want to have a coffee with honorable member from abots ford who is well versed in the details of how rade deals work. >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, the government is closing its eye to the problems facing farmers. in the thrown speech there was no mention, no mention of it. not a word on agriculture. the liberals banned the word
agriculture, agricultures, farmers from their dictionary. mr. speaker, our producers under supply management want to know if the agreement on compensation under the t.p.p. will be respected. can the minister of international trade -- can she clarify her position with respect to this compensation? . >> thank you, mr. speaker. our government supports free trade and we understand the importance of international trade for the economic growth of the country and for middle class prosperity. as regards to the t.p.p., we will be transparent, fully transparent, and hold a full debate in parliament. finally, we will defend the interests of all farmers and there, i said it, canadian farmers, with my colleague, the minister of agriculture, i've
already met with farmers on this subject. this is the commitment we made, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning the world trade organization ruled that the united states country of origin labeling was in fact blatantly protectionist. this is a rule that has cost our farm families over $3 billion on an annual basis. our government was prepared to move expeditiously, as soon as this ruling came out. now, i wonder, you know, the invisible minister of agriculture has been invisible on this and other files. i'm wondering if he'll stand in his place, finally do his job and defend the interests of farm families. the speaker: minister of international trade. >> thank you for the question, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the discriminatory legislation was in place for eight years during the previous government rule and they did -- i welcome ble]
the ruling by the w.t.o. the fourth time the w.t.o. has ruled in our favor, with a record $1 billion quantum. we are pursuing this matter. i welcome the fact that the house of representatives has repealed this. we're calling on the senate to do the same. senator pat roberts has already today, chairman of the agriculture committee, called for repeal of it. and i would like to say to the honorable member who -- the speaker: honorable member or vancouver center. >> mr. speaker, this morning the w.t.o. sided with canada for the third time on the matter of discriminatory u.s. crude legislation. the w.t.o. arbitrator has found that the nullification and impairment costs canada about $1 billion a year and costs mexico about $228 u.s.
annually. now, will the minister tell us how this ruling will affect canada's pork and beef products? the speaker: minister of international trade. >> i thank the honorable member from vancouver center for her question and i'm delighted to be back in the house with my cherished colleagues. we welcome the w.t.o. ruling. this is a vindication of the canadian position. we are working very hard in washington with the senate and we are very pleased congress has already repealed this and i do want to say to canada's beef and pork producers, the minister of agriculture is foormer farmer, i'm a daughter and granddaughter of ranchers. we are on the side of canada's producers. we're in your corner and if we ave to retaliate, we will.
the speaker: the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, this new vernment was not given and canadians expect due diligence. on june 2 when the truth and reconciliation report was released, the current prime minister pledged his unwavering support for all 94 recommendations. the full list, no exceptions. can the minister of the indigenous affairs give us the full cost of keeping this promise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the member for her question. the work that we will get to do together on this really important file. we are so pleased to see that already the provinces and territories have taken up those calls to action that are there. that the universities in this country have already committed to help with the things that are theirs and we will be able to do this. it was inappropriate for us to
cherry pick out of the 94 recommendations and with political will and leadership and partnership, nation to nation, we're going to get this done. >> thank you, mr. speaker. during the election campaign, people told us they wanted to keep their home mail delivery service. in my region, families lost their home mail delivery. including 20,000 in one area. the minister is going back on her solemn commitment. can she commit that there will be no further community mailboxes installed acrossed country? -- across the country? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my honorable colleague
for her question. yes, we certainly can commit that there will not be any more roadside mailboxes installed. we put a stop to that. which meant that anyone who did have roadside mailboxes would get their door to door mail delivery resumed. so, we are at a position, mr. speaker, where we have commitd to home delivery. we are going to have a complete review of canada post. and they will determine the next step. the speaker: the honorable member for yukon. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i once again represent the people of the yukon. over the past several months, canadians have made it clear that they not only want a new tone in leadership in ot warks but they also want a more accountable government. during the election, the prime minister made a commitment to implement a prime minister's question period. i now ask, mr. speaker, if the
prime minister could please update this plea on the status of this important promise. the speaker: the right honorable, the prime minister. prime minister: canadians voted for change and we're committed to delivering that change. we're committed to open, honest, transparent government. i have asked the government house leader to work with other parliamentarians to reform question periods so that all ministers, including the prime minister, can be held to greater account. i know that the house leader has already initiated discussions with other particle minutetarian -- parliamentarians in the opposition and i look forward to participating in prime minister's question period ometime in the future. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the past 15 years, there have been rfeds on reforms. in all three voters rejected proposals. so it seems a bit undemocratic or even anti-democratic for the
government to assert in the throne speech that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first voting system. wouldn't it make more sense for the government, once it is designed a new system, to follow the example of british columbia, ontario and prince edward island and allow canadians to vote directly? honorable minister: mr. speaker, i thank the honorable member for his questions. in this election, canadians were clear that they are expecting us to deliver a change. this will be the last federal election in our history and we've committed to listening to canadians, not just in british columbia, but coast-to-coast to coast, and including them in a process and in the conversation that will change the history of this nation's democracy.
>> mr. speaker, my question is or the prime minister. in last week's speech, we saw that the government would undertake provinces to put in place a new health care agreement. during the election, the prime minister sent a letter to his quebec counterpart saying that the 2004 health agreement, where quebec had the right to opt out with full compensation. will the prime minister respond to quebec's request and establish at 6% the increase in health transfers while respecting quebec's right to pt out with full compensation? honorable minister: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to speak about the canadian health care system, which has provided health care to canadians now for well over half of a century. in offering universal publicly insured health care. it's something that canadians hold dear. on the matter of the canada
health act, we sincerely uphold the canada health act and its principles, including yoofrlt. i have already had the wonderful opportunity to be able to speak with my counterparts and we will be meeting together in january to discuss a new health accord, which will provide ongoing health care for canadians in the years to come. the speaker: the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, my question is for the minister of health. the quebec national assembly adopted legislation that would make it possible to include medically assisted dying as part of the continuum of care. in accordance with the strict will of a person who is in the term nail phase of life. the prime minister even lauded quebec's legislation. account minister of health guarantee that the sixth month extension requested by the
federal government will not be detrimental to the coming to force of quebec's legislation? the speaker: the minister of justice. honorable minister: thank you, mr. speaker. -- and you to my thank you to my honorable friend for the question. the topic of physician assisted dying is highly complex, sensitive and we need to ensure that we have a discussion, a real discussion, with canadians that focuses on health care, that focuses on personal choice, and ensures that we protect the vulnerable. we are committed to ensuring and working with parliamentarians and asking this house to strike an all party economy to examine this issue and proceed -- committee to examine this issue and proceed -- [inaudible] the speaker: the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, the prime
minister plans to go ahead with a new canada benefit and we'll see the details of that measure in the next budget. in the meantime, parents are still being ripped off because of taxes on the enhanced universal child care benefits that came into force in the summer, and the botching of the child care tax credit. will the prime minister commit for king the uccb tax-free 2015, even if he intends to mutt in place a new benefit -- intends to put in place a new benefit in the next budget? the speaker: the honorable minister of finance. honorable minister: mr. speaker, i'd like to start by thanking the honorable member for her question. we intend on bringing forward a new canada child benefit in the course of our budget, 2016. we believe this is the appropriate way to get at this issue and will do so expeditiously, in order to ensure that canadian families
can do better as they pursue their options for how they want to raise their children. of. -- their children. the speaker: this is the end of question period for today. routine proceedings. [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] >> the canadian house of commons. moving on to other business now. wrapping up the first question period for the new prime minister and his cabinet. here in the united states, the pentagon releasing a statement regarding an air strike on an isis target that happened back in november. the target was in libya. the department of defense confirmed an iraqi national with longtime al qaeda operative and the senior isis leader in libya is a dead as a result of that air strike. the pentagon noting that while it was not the first u.s. air strike against terrorists in libya, it was the first against an isil leader in libya and demonstrated that the u.s. will, quote go after isil leaders wherever they operate. meanwhile today on capitol hill, the house will be gaveling back in at around 3:45
eastern time to work on suspension bills, including one that would phase out the use of microbeads in cosmetics and other products. also working this week on 2016 spending, current government funding expires friday. before the house gavels in, a look at israeli defense minister -- israel's defense minister, talking about u.s.-israel relations at the annual forum hosted by the brookings institution center for middle east policy. he spoke there friday for about an hour and 15 minutes. we'll show as much as we can of his comments ahead of the house gaveling back in.
>> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, please help me in welcoming the gentleman. >> thank you, thank you, thank you all for being here. this is our 12th forum. i want to take this opportunity to thank all the folks at brookings for their hard work, thank you, martin, thank you, tamara. thank you the rest of the brookings team. and thank you to the team in srael.
, ris, beirut, isis, douma hooties -- huteys, libya, russian airliner, al-nusra , ont, al qaeda, hezbollah oko haram, sinai, assad, hamas and many more. all the names, places and organizations i just mentioned are united by a common theme. this team can be summarized in two words. chaos and confrontation. everywhere we look around the world, there is mayhem. and no one, no one, is better positioned to address these challenges and to speak with us
about them tonight than the , aeli minister of defense known to his friends as boogie. a little background on boogie. the minister has been israel's minister of defense since march, 2013. after serving as vice premier and minister of strategic affairs. before entering his political life, he was chief of staff of the israel defense forces between 2002 and 2005, at the peak of the second intifada. throughout his career, the minister has played an instrumental role in keeping israel secure and in strengthening the ongoing security and military cooperation between israel and the united states. but there's another side to boogie that i'd like to share with you. , we are staunch
supporters of the fidf. at the fidf is we take care of the well-being of the young men and women who defend the jewish motherland. and i can attest to the fact that minutester -- the minister has not just committed himself to the protection of israel and its people, but he also carries a personal sense of responsibility toorts -- towards every single one of these young men and women who protect the jewish motherland. and for that, we are forever thankful to you, minister. [applause] so tonight, the minister will be having a conversation with a . asoned veteran
an associate editor and a distinguished columnist at "the washington post." and the author of eight spy novels. filled with tension, with nothing to do with reality. all fiction. [laughter] but a lot of fun. so, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome defense minister nd my friend, david ignacious. david: well, thank you. it's nice to be called seasoned. , he gh i would note that said to me, it sounds like a salad. so maybe not so great. it's great to be here with boogy. i'm going to call him mr.
minister, unlike everyone else in the room. and i want to begin with the issue that i think everybody ere is thinking about today. we have had a terrible tragedy in san bernardino, california, and we have learned that the , ooters, certainly the wife tashfeen mehalik, has -- malik, has had a connection online, at least, a sworn allegiance online to the leader of isis. which means that we're now living with the kind of terrorism in our midst that israel has lived with really for all of its history. mr. minister, i want to ask you to begin by giving us some dos and don'ts. based on israel's experience. you know what we ought to do, you also know what we should ot do.
he minister: good evening. it's good to be here. thank you for inviting me. it's good to be among friends here. and i can't start answering the question without mentioning both the former minister and member and sandy. i knew most of them while i was in uniform. both of them were committed and devoted for the security of the state of israel and god bless them. , isis, your question or, as we call it in the middle east, daiish, is not just a group of terrorists. this is an idea.
how to have a sunni caliphate as soon as possible, to defer for al qaeda. so if you fail to take over country after country and then to have the caliphate, daiish, they want a caliphate now. an instant caliphate. thinking about having everything now. and this idea, which is played all over the world by social media, and another innovation of the modern time, we have to deal with it everywhere. now in san bernardino, in paris , in canada, and of course in our country as well, although
we managed to contain daiish regarding the threat in our country, and regarding the daiish threat around us, they prefer to deal with israel just in the end. we claim that we are considered by them a dessert. the main course is around us. but this is a global idea. now, how to deal with it. we have to fight daiish everywhere. especially in the islamic state. in syria. in iraq. but we have to look around, especially in the islamic world, trying to find the hearts and minds. it's easy to say, it's so difficult to do it. actually in israel now, the weight of terrorism is part of the social media influence
effect. individuals were affected by this idea, whether they're daiish or something else, or even nothing. ffected by the idea. terror is available in to order to kill the non-muslims. whether christians, jews, buddhist or whatever. or muslims who are not going their way. this is a challenge, i believe a global challenge, in which, i believe, the united states should be the leader of the western world in order to meet this challenge. david: so i need to ask you what every commentator is asking. is president obama being a strong enough leader in this moment? does he need to speak out more as commander in chief? our -- ster: going to
[laughter] -- going to our tough neighborhood, the middle east. syria is a very good example to demonstrate the difficulties and the challenges. what is happening now in syria is we have daiish in the islam part of syria, generally speaking. e have a regime, we have interests, we have moderate sunnis and so forth. unfortunately, in the current situation, russia is playing a most significant role than the united states -- a more significant role than the united states. we don't like the fact that king abdullah of jordan is going to moscow, egyptians are going to moscow, the saudis are going to moscow. it should be -- it should have been very different.
and we believe that the united states can't sit on the fence. if you sit on the fence, a vacuum is filled, in syria, as an example, whether by iran or the shi'a, supported now by russia, or by daiish, by isis. it shouldn't have been. that's why we claim that the united states should play a more active role in our region. and there is opportunity. the new geopolitical decision of the middle east of today is we have the shi'a axis, very solid one, iran, the assad regime, hezbollah, yemen, other shi'a elements in bahrain, saudi arabia. today supported by russia. we have other axis, very complicated. we deal with gaza.
turkey, a member of nato, leading of today. very complicated. they're not on the same page. neither is the united states. nor with us. then we have the global jihad element. the enemies of every -- of everybody, daiish. but we have the sunni game. the most significant camp in the region looking for leadership. and it appears to be that we, israel, are on the same page with this camp. not just with egypt and jordan, which we share with them, with saudi arabia, with kuwait, united arab emirates, north african countries like morocco. looking for leadership. so, i think -- david: so, i think i hear you saying, in the interesting contrast between vladimir putin and president obama, that president obama needs to take leadership of the
sunni camp if he's going to have any hope of success. maybe with israel as a silent partner. so, let me just ask you. you heard us, as we all did, susan rice talk about the administration's strategy, their surge so far unsuccessful to find sunni partners on the ground who can wage this fight. what advice would you offer about how we can give stronger leadership and maybe end up having the sunni partners we don't have now? the minister: what is needed is to orchestrate the sunni parties, the sunni elements, going back to syria. we don't believe that the only to have iran on hedge moany ying
in syria, they enjoy that in iraq as well, trying to gain it in yemen, not quite successfully, because of the sunni coalition, very interesting. sunni coalition fighting back. it's a new phenomena. now, to use this to approach sunni tribe, sunni elements in ria, as an example, it is so needed. and in order to avoid what is called boots on the ground, western boots on the ground, on one hand, and you can't defeat daiish without boots on the ground, let's empower the local boots on the ground, mainly the sunnis. it might be other elements in syria who are looking for something different and they don't want little iran with bashar al-assad's regime. no daiish. this is an opportunity. and this camp should be
orchestrated and led in order to make it in a better way. david: there are people and they include sunni tribal leaders that i talked to, other sunni leaders who say, look, we are not going to make the kind of commitment that you're talking about unless the u.s. has more, we say skin in the game, has more of a commitment, meaning there are more u.s. troops committed. and i want to ask you, as israeli defense minister, do you think that's right? do we need to think about having more troops in this fight? the minister: western troops in our region should be as a last resort. it's better off to empower, to support, to finance, to arm local troops, to fight for their case. they don't fight for us. they fight -- looking to the -- [inaudible] -- as an example. when they were supported, they
lost cubanny. but when the united states decided to support, and other western parties decided to support the kurds they started to win. and they defeated daiish in their territory. in the syria kurdistan. this is the case in iraq as well. we know many elements who need to fight for their life. not for western interests. for their interests. they should have been supported from the very beginning. but it is not a lost case. still chance to do it. david: susan rice also talked a very interesting part of this strategy, which is the effort that secretary of state kerry has led in the talks in vienna to try to work towards a ceasefire. and he's managed to get around the same table, strange collection, iran, saudi arabia, turkey, russia, united states. is israel comfortable with that
process, with us sitting down, drawing iran into this regional diplomacy? what do you think about that? the minister: we worry about it. -- [inaudible] -- daiish in one hand and iran on our border. you know, we have very clear strategy regarding syria. we don't want to intervene, we are in a very sensitive position. to declare whether we are for us or against us, we don't intervene. although we have our opinions about it. but the only things we have solved in the last two years from the syrian side in the goalen heights were rpetrated, operated by the revolutionary corps.
he operated three different factions to open a terror front against us. now, unfortunately, as part of he deal, the iranian deal, one of the implications of the iranian deal is more confident iran perceived as part of the solution in the readiness to fight daiish. and gaining hedge moany everywhere, in iraq and now in syria. he's ignored. they try to open a terror front against us. now, to leave us in such a situation is going to be a challenge. we are talking about the iran regime after the deal.
feeling more confident, waiting to get more money. to use this money to produce more weapons. they have quite an advanced defense industry. to procure more weapons. to procure more money, more weapons, they talk about $20 weapons.eals for then they will be able to finance and to arm hezbollah as they do today. with less money. to finance hamas, the islamic jihad in the gaza strip, they are not able to smuggle weapons because of our activities and the egyptian activities, so hey provide them the know-how, how to manufacture -- [inaudible] this is iran supporting the
huteys in yemen. i'm not sure it's in the interest of the united states, smuggling weapons from iran via oman to yemen, supporting other elements in the region to undermine regimes like saudi arabia or bahrain. we have to realize that the . enna process david: so the question you're faced with and we're faced with also is whether it's more dangerous to your interest, let me ask you as israeli defense minister, to have isis strong in syria, or to have iran strong. because it looks like right
now, like there's a choice there. that you're not going to have the isis coalition, given that russia's come down so strongly with iran and bashar al-assad, without some continuing iranian presence, so let me ask you, isis or iran? what's the bigger threat? sorry, but that's the question. the minister: i said there is a third option. to support the sunnis. to support the kurds. to support the drudes. -- druids. who are ready to fight isis. and most of them, of course, want to fight al-assad. they don't want iranian influence in syria. and the i have answera process is -- vienna process is very complicated and it comes to the russian presence in syria.
the russian presence in syria they launch an offensive, thought about an offensive, to take over -- [inaudible] -- in order to gain more territory for bashar al-assad's jet stream, -- regime, not going to happen because of the military difficulties, the incompetence of the syrian armed forces, the lack of determination of the iranian revolutionary regard corps, troops on the ground and hezbollah, activists on the ground. it seems to be a failure. nevertheless, they try to conclude it by any kind of political sentiment with whom? you can't settle it with the internal elements in syria. daiish and are not around the table. even the sunni moderates and
the kurds are not around the table, so they decided to go to external parties. we saw contradictory interests, how can you manage? in one hand, you have russia and iran, their interest is to keep assad in power. on the other hand, you have turkey and saudi arabia, they're not ready to hear about al-assad in the future of syria. and you have the united states and other parties with their own interests. to respond to the problem for about 18 months, this is actually the idea, to have 18 months to have elections. our understanding regarding syria, that syria is going to suffer frp instability for a very, very long period of time. we can't see the end of this tragedy. of civil war. 300,000 casualties, 10 million
refugee, part of them in the country, part of them outside of the country. a tragedy. but there is no way to conclude it. we claim, you know, you can make omelets from an egg. you can't make egg from an omelet. and it has become omelet. [laughter] so all these ideas, launching military offensive for three months and then concluding it .- syria is going to stay and the sunnis will be able to get rid of daiish in syria. by being empowered by the west. this is only good options that might come out of this situation.
david: so i think we all appreciate what was a very frank and direct set of answers about syria. it's not what the administration would want to hear. it's not what u.s. policy is. but it was very, very frank. let me turn now to the question of iran and the iran nuclear deal. israel was against it. srael fought to stop it. your prime minister obviously went to great length. but it -- but here it is. and we're now in the pathway toward implementation of the deal. so i want to ask you, as defense minister, as the senior representative of your government here, what your top concerns are in this next phase of implementation, what are you most worried about in terms, not of whether the deal happens or not now, but in terms of how its implemem -- it's implemented?
the minister: yes, we can still consider the deal as an historic mistake. and talking about the nuclear issue. what we have achieved regarding the deal is to delay the iranian nuclear program for about 10 to 15 years. t's around the corner. what next? now, not incidentally, now we have the egyptians and jordanians approaching moscow to get the know-how to construct civil nuclear facilities. not incidentally. as a result of the nuclear arms race in our region. talking about proliferation, we are there already. we should be ready. then, we have, as i said -- david: when you say, we should be ready. let me drill down on that.
is there a way to prevent that proliferation or the things that the u.s. should be considering that would reduce the danger of this nuclear jeanie getting totally -- genei -- genie totally in the hands of every player? the minister: the key is iran. there were talks originally that someone else has a nuclear capabilities, it was not an excuse to any party in the region, to try to acquire this capability. i'm not talking about iraq or syria. i'm talking about egypt, about turkey, about saudi arabia. but they can't tolerate iran -- nuclear iran. [inaudible] we don't -- [inaudible] nevertheless, this is a key element. whether iran will become nuclear or not.
it will affect the whole situation in the region. and by one way or another, the ea of nuclear iran should be stopped. nevertheless, we should be ready to defend ourselves by ourselves and i talk about our relationship with the united states in a minute regarding what should be done, regarding ulpabilities and other things. but now we have iran not suffering anymore from political isolation. and waiting to the sanctions relief within a couple of weeks. having more money to spend on what? to produce more weapons, to transfer more weapons to hezbollah, more money to -- to hamas and the islamic jihad? and one of the implications of this deal is the arms race --
the conventional arms race in our region. talking about $200 billion procurement of arms by now the sunni regimes. we are now on the same page. but who knows what will be in the future? david: so the corner stone of this deal, as the president tried to present it, as presented erry has it, all the senior officials of our government, is the idea that we'll be able to verify iranian compliance, that we have, through the safeguards in the agreement, through our intelligence capabilities, we will be able to know the high degree of confidence whether iran is cheating. and i want to ask you, as we begin this implementation phase, are we kidding ourselves? [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]
>> we've legal -- we'll leave the rest of this. you can watch it any time online, c-span.org. the house now gaveling back in shortly to work on suspension bills. including one that would phase out the use of microbeads. the plastics that are sometimes found in cosmetics and other products. also workinging -- working this week on 2016 spending. current government funding expires on friday. and house speaker paul ryan says by the end of this week, that might not be enough time. they could be in a little bit later in session throughout december. o ause 8 of rule 20,
e r ll postpefurer procdingonotions to suspene rules on which a nays are orded onhi the votencs clause 6, rule 20. recorded votes will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i move the house suspend the rules and pass s. 614. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 614 an act to provide access to and use of information by federal agencies
in order to reduce improper payments and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney and the gentleman from virginia mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. mr. mulvaney: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mulvaney: the story behind this bill, this is a senate bill but the house bill is almost exactly the same. the story behind how this bill comes to the floor is one of those stories that it should make folks confident that the system can work. i was on i got a question from one of the constituents about all of the money that they've heard the government wastes by paying the wrong people, paying dead people, or paying people way too much money.
and i remember it specifically, mr. speaker, because shortly after that, my uncle passed away. and when my uncle passed away, i was named the executor of his estate. one of the things i remember very specifically, this is the first time i was an executor of an estate, i got a notice 10 days after he had died, something very short, two weeks, from the social security administration saying, you are going to get another check for your uncle. don't cash it or else you can be in a lot of trouble. i thought, that was really neat. here's a federal agency that's actually doing its job in very short order and very efficiently. and i filed that away. a couple months later, my good friend from north carolina, mr. meadows, who is the subcommittee chairman of the government operations on the oversight and government reform committee, was having a hearing about all of these payments that we are not supposed to be making. i had a chance to ask some questions and i told that story of the government witnesses who were there. i said, how is it that this works so well in the social security administration, but we
have all these tales of all of these improper payments going to other people? and they said, well, congressman, that's because the social security administration has a really, really good database and they process the information very well when folks die. i asked what i thought was a relatively straightforward question, why don't they share the information with the other federal agencies? and that was the genesis of this bill. that's what we set out to try and do. try and take circumstances, take examples, of where the federal government actually does its job well, and use that as a model that can be shared by other parts of the government. the bill, by the way, that we're talking about, is s. 614, there was a house version of it that i worked off of, just because i'm a little more familiar with it, h.r. 2320, the language is exact -- is almost exactly the same. i want to thank mrs. bustos, mr. connolly, and also mr. carter and mr. westmoreland of georgia, who are the original
co-sponsors of this. the bill does two very specific large things and one smaller thing. it expands that social security database. so it takes this, again this example of something that actually works the way that it's supposed to, and letses other folks use the -- lets other folks use the -- use the information. what does that mean? states will now be able to use it. state contractors will be able to gain ac sose -- access to. it the judicial and legislative branch will be able to gain access to it. an example of having this really good information that has not been shared broadly throughout governments, local and state and federal, and we're seeking to fix that in the bill. the other thing the bill does is to expand the -- what is called the do not pay portal. this is a database that is managed by the united states department of the treasury. and contains, again, really good information about who's passed away, how much money people should be receiving, who's moved, who's entitled to benefits and who is not.
and by the way, there's a third thing that the bill does, mr. speaker, it seems inevitable that we cannot pass a bill here without asking for a report. that goes along with it. but i think it's probably commonsense to say that at some point in the future we'd like the treasury to tell us if it's actually working. it's not very often, mr. speaker, that i come up here and tell you that there are examples of the federal government doing its job well. but, when we do find those examples, i'm very happy to get up and admit it. as a small government conservative republican, ordinarily i'm the one who says government doesn't do anything right. but here, parts and parcels of the federal government are doing their job well. and if we can take that example, take that model, and expand it to other parts of the government, we'd have a chance to solve what is a real problem. we spend about $125 billion last year on improper payments. payments to people who should not have received it. paymentses to people who had passed away. or payments to people in the
wrong amount. $125 billion. we just had a major fight on this floor two weeks ago over spending $80 billion extra in the budget bill. yet we spend that much again on improper payments every single year. in fact, it's one of the fastest growing line items in our budget, that $125 billion represents a 15% increase over the previous year. it's one of the fastest growing areas of our government, improper payments. so i just want to thank mrs. bustos, mr. connolly, mr. carter, mr. westmoreland in the house for helping bring this bill to the floor. i also want to thank senator carper from delaware and senator ron johnson from wisconsin for shepardsing this through the senate. this is their bill we're taking. if the senate has the same bill as the house does, the senate gets all the credit. but that's -- sometimes it's interesting to see what you can actually accomplish around here, mr. speaker, if you don't worry about who gets credit. but i do want to thank the folks who took the time and the effort to shepherd this very
sound, well considered and partisan bill to the floor today. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: i rise in support of the federal improper payments coordination act for the house this afternoon. and i'm pleased to join my friend, mr. mulvaney, from south carolina, in sponsoring the house companion of this bipartisan legislation. he's already mentioned the co-sponsors. i also want to thank our senate partners for their work on this important initiative and i want to assure my friend, mr. mulvaney, we're going to be marking up a companion bill to this tomorrow in our committee. and hopefully we send it over to the senate with the house number on it. fair is fair. this is the latest series of commonsense, good government laws we've enacted over the last decade. as we work to reduce, if not
outright eliminate, billions of taxpayer dollars in improper payments made by federal agencies. my friend from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, pointeded out just how large a number this is. $125 billion a year. now, over a decade, that's $1.25 trillion. that exceeds all of sequestration. we wouldn't have to make any cuts to investments or raise any taxes to deal with sequestration if we just dealt with this. with the g.a.o. reporting nearly $125 billion in improper payments, it's clear that more can and must be done to deal with government waste and fraud. today's legislation would expand the use, as mr. mulvaney indicated, of do not pay initiatives, and judicial branches with our state partners. that initiative was the result of the improper payments elimination and recovery improvement active 2012, which
was also a product of our committee, and i was pleased to co-sponsor it at that time. the do not pay initiative was launched by treasury and leverages multiple data sources. many of which were form -- were formally siloed to create a central comprehensive list that federal agencies can quickly reference to determine whether an individual or organization is in fact eligible to receive a federal grant benefit or contract and it also allows them to verify such payments after the fact. for example, this initiative has prompted agencies to better share the reporting of death information, to help reduce federal payments for those obviously we've lost, or for those who have had their identities stolen. today's legislation would require the departments of defense and state to report information on deaths that occur overseas more quickly, so that agencies can better detect fraudulent payments or recoup improper payments as necessary.
just last week, the office of management and budget delivered its first report to congress on the do not pay initiative, which it says resulted in more than $2 billion in stopped payments. that is to say, savings for the u.s. taxpayer. and obviously we can, with this bill, increase that number even more. based on the early success, it makes good sense for us to expand the use of this valuable tool, to the legislative and judicial branches, as well as our state partners, so they have the ability to quickly verify payments or the eligibility of recipients to receive such payments. this commonsense proposal was a welcome suggestion from the g.a.o. in its latest report on improper payments. i'd also add that the oversight committee will continue this work, as i indicated, with a markup tomorrow. mr. speaker, again, i want to thank my colleague, mr. mulvaney, for his leadership on this matter. and i urge our colleagues to
support this important reform to our government, in making it more efficient and accountable to the taxpayer. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from -- the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: at this time i would yield three minutes to my good friend and the co-sponsor of this legislation, mrs. bustos of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. for three minutes. mr. boustany: buste thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. boustany: -- bustebuste thank you, mr. speaker. as one of the -- mrs. bustos: thank you, mr. speaker. i am so proud to rise in support of the federal improper payments coordination act of 2015. the goal of this bill is straightforward. simply to save taxpayer dollars that are currently going to waste and to make the federal government more effective and more efficient. each year the federal government spends billions of
dollars in improper payments. this not only wastes taxpayer dollars, but it also erodes the public trust in government. just last year, as my colleagues have pointed out, improper payments by the federal government rose to $125 billion. that's more than $1 trillion over a decade. that's according to the office of management and budget. it's also an increase of 15% just up from the year before, where it was $106 billion. so we're talking about real money here. in tough times, working families have to figure out how to cut costs. to get their budgets in line. we all know that. well, i think it's time that washington do the same thing. that's why our bill takes reasonable, reasonable steps to improve information sharing between federal and state agencies, to prevent these improper payments. this also helps modernize federal agencies by putting 21st century data analytics to work in identifying and
eliminating governmentwide waste and fraud. the status quo is plain and simple, not acceptable. at a time when so many working families have to tighten their belts and cut costs, they expect congress to act responsibly with their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. this bipartisan legislation represents a commonsense approach to a problem that is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. this is undermining the effectiveness and the credibility of the federal government. thank you that, congressman mull veiny, thank you congressman connolly. this is an indication we know how to work together and i want to applaud my colleagues for joining in efforts to protect taxpayers. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: again, i want to thank my friend, mrs. bustos,
leadership on this very important issue. in closing i want to say to my friend from south carolina, part of improper payments is also fraud. and the biggest chunk of that is medicare fraud and we need to help -- the help of u.s. attorney's offices to go after that. i'm aware of one u.s. attorney eefs last year that identified and recovered $3 billion of medicare fraud. now, i believe there are 99 u.s. attorney's offices in the united states. if every one of them made going after this fraud a priority, i assure you, we could significantly reduce improper payments by a commensurate amount. so, i would be glad to work with him and my friend, mrs. bustos, on a bipartisan basis to address that aspect of this as well. again, i want to thank mr. mulvaney for his leadership and for the bipartisan approach we've approached this legislation with that we have no more speakers on our side, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers.
i urge adoption. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 614. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. upton: i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1321. the clerk: union calendar number 283, h.r. 1321 --
the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman move to suspend the rules and call up the bill as amended? mr. upton: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1321, a bill to prohibit the sale or distribution of cosmetics containing synthetic microbeads. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone each will control 20 minutes. mr. upton: i ask that members may have five legislative days to insert extraneous materials on the record on the bill. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: i would rise today in strong support of h.r. 1321 the microbead-free waters act of 2015. franknered with my friend
pallone from new jersey on this very important bill to begin the phase out of microbeads which is the size of a pinhead from personal care products on july 1, 2017. many folks might be wondering what is exactly a microbead. many of you at home are using products that contain micro beads. they are the tiny little scrubbers, toothpaste and nearly invisible, smaller than a pinhead. once they are flushed down the drain, that's when the problem begins. they are so small they flow through the water filtration systems including the great
lakes. they are norm to absorb pollute apartments and mistaken by as food by fish. microbeads are causing mega problems. as someone who grew up on lake michigan, i understand firsthand how important it is to maintain the beauty and integrity of our great lakes and our water systems. the great lakes have survived. survived pollution, oil spills, discharge from refineries. zebra mussels. we are going to fight any activity that puts our beloved great lakes in jeopardy. state a local governments have created a patchwork of different laws. this bipartisan legislation will also preempt all state and local laws related to microbeads in cosmetics which will create
certainty for manufactures. i would urge all my colleagues to join me in ending this pesky problem of microbeads. and as michigan's newspaper said this past spring, there is no reason keeping our faces feeling clean, should require us to trash our lakes. i would urge all members to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i rise in strong support of h.r. 1321 the microbead-free waters act of 2015. it sets up a strong program to ban the plastic use. and i would like to thank chairman jupt ton working with me to move this important legislation. they have been in use in
cosmetic products for many years. these beads are used as removing dead skin cells from the skin. while these plastic particles are not harmful, studies have shown these particles that are washed down the drain are making it through the wastewater treatment process. we must put a stop to this unnecessary and avoidable pollution. mr. speaker, studies conducted in the great lakes have turned up high levels of microplastic. in addition to contributing to the buildup of plastic pollution in waterways, they can be mistaken by fish as food and i have serious concerns about fish and other life potentially inguesting this. numerous natural alternatives to plastic microbeads exist in commerce including apricot
seeds, walnut seeds. several personal care products have announced plans to phase out the use of plastic microbeads. beginning with illinois in 2014, nine states have enacted some form of a ban on plastic microbeads. in my opinion we need a install solution. our nation's waterways don't respect some state boundries and making it to our natural waterways. the legislation before us today is the product of a bipartisan product. chairman upton and i have worked to strengthen and clarify a number of provisions in the bill by setting up an aggressive timetable for the phaseout of these products which begins in 2017, earlier than the currently enacted state laws. the legislation bans the use of
biodegradeable plastic, a loophole that has been discovered in state laws. they contain a provision allowing companies to transition as an alternative and little is known about the ability of these biodegradeable products to break down. the language we use to define the scope of this bill was carefully chosen. plastic microbead is defined as a plastic particle that is less than five millimeter in size. this definition limiting the scope to these products in all nine-state passed laws and focuses on the prohibition of products containing micro beads. preemption of state laws and cosmetics. while i'm not a supporter of state law, it is more protective and implementation will occur sooner than in any state law
currently in place. limiting pollution in our nation's waterways has been one of my top priorities and helps create the environmental protection agency in 1970 after the river in ohio caught fire. we must continue our efforts to protect america's waterways and by banning microbeaded in personal products we are taking the steps. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. i thank chairman upton and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: i yield myself one minute. i want to take this time to thank my colleague shes mr. pallone, this was his legislation which i co-sponsored. we moved it through regular order. lots of hearings and unanimous votes in full committee and subcommittee. and as i have talked to members of the great lakes coalition,
our colleagues in the great lakes' states, republican democrats and also our senators, there is huge interest in getting this bill to the president. it will indeed make a difference. the phaseout time was appropriate so in essence we are telling the manufacturers to stop making it and a time them to see the products off the shelf so that ultimately they will not be in cosmetics or toothpaste. so again i want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and look forward to passing it on a bipartisan vote. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: let me thank the chairman again. as he pointed out this truly has been a bipartisan effort. there are also -- there is also a senate bill that is bipartisan that this matches, which i think was a strong indication we can
get this bill not only passed here but in the senate and get it to the president's desk. i should point out this is one of those occasions which happens quite a bit where the industry is actually in cooperation with us and the cosmetic products industry supports this initiative as well. for all those reasons, let's get the bill passed. and i urge all my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1321 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection the title is amended. mr. upton: i move that the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to
>> draw near and give their attention. tonight on c-span "landmark cases," baker versus carr and ruled that federal courts could intervene. chief justice earl warren called it the most important case. here's a portion of the actual oral argument. >> these 11 tennessee voters live in five of the largest
cities of tennessee. they are the intended and actual victims of a statutory scheme which devalues, reduces their right to vote to about 1/20th of the value of the vote given to certain rural residents. >> population shifts in states like tennessee had a majority of voters move into the city. yet the rural districts with now smaller population held voting power. so a group of voters from nashville, memphis and knoxville challenged the disparity. the case of baker v. carr became a milestone and has continuing relevance today as the term one erson, one vote is still being debated. theodore olson and douglas smith .
the inside story of how the supreme court brought one person, one vote to the united states. that's live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3 and c-span radio. for background, order your book available for $8.95 plus shipping. >> tonight on "the communicators" terrorism and the use of social media and how it is used by various terrorism groups to radicalize and recruit new members from around the world. we are joined from vice president of the middle east research institute and c.e.o. of the counterextremism project. both guests recently testified at a house oversight committee on radicalization, social media and you look at the look at
hollywood and madison avenue, there is more of us than there are of them. if you look at the narrow space where people are searching for this type of stuff and this subworld, this subculture, so in this niche, they outnumber everyone else who is sending a different message. i think we ought to have a robust discussion in the united states that these companies are now really on notice that their plaintiffs are being abused. a lot of which we propose that limit and demise the ability of terrorists to use these platforms. we have to have a real robust discussion at some point, do these platforms become material support. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on
c-span 2. >> a look at the federal government's security clearance system and ways to improve it bush and als from clinton administrations. they were at the wilson center for about an hour and a half. >> good morning, welcome bright and early to the wilson center. i'm jane harman, recovering politician for many years, too many for some of my detractors. i spent time in the house of representatives working on security and intelligence issues and numbers of people sitting here are my friends on a
bipartisan basis. and i'm very excited that we are doing something truly useful this morning which is to host a panel discussion on security clearance, a next gen overhaul. and if you don't understand what that means, you probably should leave the room. today's problems are digital. but too many of our policies and politicians are and logged. anyone who has held a clearance knows what i mean. parts of our system fits the 19th century like the paper time cards. bottom line, if we want a work force that is secure and talented, our approach to security clearances needs an overhaul a.s.a.p. the way we do business right now has three serious problems. we are not getting the right people in the door. more than ever we need
individuals with language skills working in national security. but it's too hard for a native arabic speaker to make it to the f.b.i. we also need folks who know their way around a keyboard but as f.b.i. director says it is hard to attract that talent when you have zero tolerance for past marijuana use. second, we are not catching the problem who pose an insider threat. whatever you think of edward snowden and i don't think well, it was too easy of him to get the access. we have to get smarter about using big data, open source collection and behavioral and litics to flag risks. are we getting smart enough? third, after people make it into the system, we are not securing their information. that's a disservice to our
dedicated public servants including those in deep cover. we must do better. with the right texan the right approach, we can. and we have a phenomenal panel to suggest some 21 century solutions. introducing our speakers is a close friend of the wilson center. chris recently chaired the national intelligence council. and he now serves as a visiting professor at the elliott school of international affairs and contributed to a fabulous book on intelligence oversight that we are putting together. it will be released soon from oxford university press. chris before that had 25 years, i think we just calculated that. my er of a century with
predecessor here. served here 12 years and was enormously valued chairman of the house foreign affairs committee and received the presidential medal of honor. chris was on the house foreign affairs committee for 15 years d was deputy director of the 9/11 commission with lee hamilton. please join me in welcoming him now. [applause] >> thank you. with profound thanks to the wilson center and president harman for sponsoring today's discussion. i believe if we have a national debate on this question that the views that you will hear today will prevail. the case is compelling. it's my honor and pleasure to introduce the members of the panel and i want to start with
directly to my left, the honorable charles e. allen who is the security reform council chair and for the past six years he has been a principal at the chertoff group. mr. allen has over 50 years of government service. he served as an under secretary at the department of homeland security and assist ant secretary before that. also the assist ant director of central intelligence for collection. i have the highest regard for him. further to my left is the honorable joan a. dempsey. executive vice president of booze, allen. she served under president clinton and executive director of the foreign intelligence advisory board.
given her responsibility, her direct successor in that function is the director of national intelligence. ok. ving to my right here is the honorable randall forte, director of program security in the cyber domain team at raytheon and former assist ant secretary of state at the department of state. a very fine organization. and all the way to my right is douglas thomas, director of counterterrorism relations at lockheed martin. he was the deputy director for unterintelligence and he chairs the national counterintelligence operations board. so the case i put to all of you
is that the experience and depth of perspective of those represented on this panel i think deserve attention. and with that, why don't we begin with the first question and the question is why do we need security clearance reform? just simple and straightforward as that. i'll ask everyone to speak for roughly three minutes to the question and i'll begin with randy. >> thank you, chris and thank you, jane, for hosting this event which i think is an important dialogue to have. i'm curious, people in the audience here, how many of you drive a 1950's automobile today? anybody in the audience have a 1950's telephone? anybody here whose television set is a 1950's model? anyone? when you go to the dentist, do you expect 1950's dent is try or
something a little more advanced? ok. so 1950's is a business model is pretty much over except in the . curity clearance and mindset of how security is done. and check is bespoke those boxes and assume that somehow that is yielding something. when it does not. and for many, many years, that process has been oblivious to the changes in technology. it's not surprising that the federal government was slow to recognize and respond to the p.c. revolution in the 1980's and slow to recognize and respond to the worldwide web developments in the 1990's and
slow to recognize and respond to the social media revolution that was taking place in the early 2000's and seeing the same thing in mobility. not a lot of ability to grasp and understand and understand the impact of these which continue to double in their speed and effectiveness every 12-18 months. so we have a system today that old, it is inefficient, ineffective, obsolete, slow, inaccurate and as we have learned with the o.p.m. announcements of the last several months, it is corrupt. we can't even trust the information that is held in the various data bases because foreign powers have allegedly have had access to that. not just taking it but manipulating it. we are looking at a broken system.
it is broken and unreliable. this should be the opportunity to recognize this is 2015 and in a few weeks it will be 2016. we are 15% of the way through the 21st century and yet still relying on this system which is meyered in the last century. we need to look to the new technologies and figure out a better way to do business. >> i wanted to mention that we are live on c-span and next i would like to turn to charlie allen. >> pleasure to be here at the wilson center again. i think what randy just outlined sort of sets the stage for the rest of the discussion here, framework that we have to use new and better technologies. when i was at c.i.a., i thought the security clearancees worked
reasonably well, trying to transfer n.s.a.-cleared officers and get them assigned to my staff. when i went to the department of homeland security where i was the under secretary to secretary chertoff, i found the process very slow and very difficult. when i left government in 2009, it was my view that it was vital that the intelligence and national security alliances where i was asked to be the senior adviser through the president, i said i want to form a task force. that task force has turned into a council, more permanent body. why? because we found the problems that were very, very difficult. there were great inefficiencies in the way we did business.
that the costs were extremely high. that whether you in government because the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act, the office of personal management in 2005 took over from the department of defense. most of the responsibility for security clearances, the processes in government did improve because in 2004. we would not have weapons systems or payloads in space if we didn't have contractors. i found that that was extremely slow and very difficult and that the government literally was oving at glarblee speed.
we had a huge backlog when the office of personal management took over the responsibility. it had been worked on hard by jim clapper who was the assist ant secretary of defense. at any given time, we published a pip in 2011 wri said 10% to 20% of contractors who were to be put on a contract could not work because they are p.r.'s. periodic investigations were out of date. that cost literally thousands of billions of dollars when you think of the department of defense and homeland security. i found that very staggering. i had one experience where we had a cleared officer from b.i.a., who was born or had relatives in vietnam.
he had been polygraphed for counterintelligence. i wanted to transfer him from d.i.a. to department of homeland security. we waited nine months to get that clearance passed. and approved by the director of security over at homeland security. that was -- when i arrived at the intelligence of national security alliance had this burning issue. it has turned into a permanent council with subcommittees and we have randy here who has worked on the technology subcommittee and doug thomas who is working today on a new subcommittee on the insider threat. so it has expanded and become permanent. improvements have been made but we have oceans and oceans of a ces to go before we have sufficient -- policy and
security do not align. acquisition and security do not align and the way we do business in government. that is the background. i wanted to give history before we move into our discussion. >> thank you. i would like to turn to joan, please. >> i want to pick up on a couple of things. i agree the way randy put the challenges today in context. he is right. we need a new approach to personnel security inside the government. i want to pick up and give a couple of examples what charlie allen was talking about. the government has to pay attention to costs and cost is a big driver. the cost to personnel security are frequently hidden. the government doesn't know what personnel security cost it. i have specific examples that i want to give you this morning. and while this story is true, the name was changed to protect, well, me, because of privacy
information. but everything else in the story. john smith is a technical expert in quantum computing. very hard to find american citizens who are willing to subject themselves to security clearances and work for the government who have these kind of skills. he is cleared at the sensitive come parted information level in the department of defense and projected to be billed to the government at $195,000. very specialized, skilled individual with a very high clearance. that number breaks down to $3,755 per month, week. now john is scheduled to move from one intelligence community organization contract to a different organization contract. and his clearance, remember, he is fully cleared. his clearance has been submitted
to the imagining agency so he can be crossed over to work on the new contract. his company will carry the cost of employing john $15,000 a month for this highly skilled individual. who ultimately pays that bill? it's the u.s. government because that cost is embedded in the rate that the government pays for that individual. the agency to which john is moving needs only to execute a polygraph to move him. we estimated six months for that crossover. unform, it took 10 months and we paid the bill $150,000 to keep john on what we call the bench while we waited for his polygraph to be scheduled, which it was, but we didn't know during that time that it would be. that is a huge cost of one individual. and that was a fairly simple
process. the second one is a little harder. we had an individual who was cleared for t.s. with a polygraph but was married to a foreign national. his wife was indian. he was in an advanced technology office in d.o.d. and wanted to move him to an i.c. technology office. he had a bachelors of science in electrical engineering from the california institute of technology and ph.d. from cornell university. not a whole lot of citizens that have those qualifications. he had 40 technical papers. his clearance. he was fully cleared, took 294 days to cross over because he had an indian-born wife. she got american citizenship before his clearance crossed over and started the process after we submitted his
paperwork. these are two individuals out of the thousands of contractors who do highly specialized, highly skilled information for the intelligence community. we have to fix this problem. with that, i turn it back over to chris. >> doug. >> thank you, chris. good morning. one thing we are going to see is a common theme and we need to using technology. one of the things that has changed and somebody mentioned the o.p.m. breach. that's kind of a big deal. and that sends shivers up my spine because this about some of physician ti occasion. the bad guys have much more information at their fingertips and will make our job a lot harder. i look at this panel but it's decades of experience in the government looking at this
problem. i think all of us could be probably a little bit embarrassed with where we are today because as randy said and joan said, we have been approaching this problem set, clearance reform for 50 years now and time to start leveraging the technology on the front and throughout the whole process of someone having a clearance. >> i'll finish with a few points as to why we need reform. secret clearance costs $400, top secret clearance costs $5,000. the costs are $1.6 billion. that's a lot of money. we do hundreds of thousands of clearances each year. now if we use technology, yes, there will be a cost up front, but the cost of doing those
clearances and monitoring people going forward -- what's the cost of a bank transaction? it's a tiny fraction of a cent. that's the model we need to move to. ok, so let's start the next round and turn it right back to doug, what changes do we have to make? doug is our speaker to start. >> i'm trying to remain optimistic. and wing the o.p.m. breach the principals are being briefed on that this week, i'm hearing they are going to stand up a new agency calling the national investigative service agency and not sure where it's going to land yet. will have a new director and new focus. i'm trying to remain optimistic. what really needs to happen, on
the front end, we probably need something before we hire somebody relative to -- what the insurance companies do and what the credit card companies, you have a risk score and don't stop there. what you need to have is continuous evaluation of the people that you grant a clearance to who by virtue of that has access to the keys of the kingdom. it is not that hard and quite frankly, some people might get concerned about the costs up front. they are not that big of a deal. but the money you save over time with continuous evaluation 24/7 is phenomenal. >> why don't we turn to randy. >> first of all, let's acknowledge the government needs to -- it's like going to a.a.
you need to acknowledge you have a problem. this terribly obsolete system. the second thing is to make a clear decision that we are going to move forward with the technology platform to solve this problem. the numbers that are being used here, hundreds of thousands of this -- maybe a total of 10 million people government and contractor have some form of clearance. that's ball park. when you go to the private sector, that's a small number. 10 million isn't a big number if you are visa, mastercard or american express. if you are amazon or google. 10 million if you were to use some of those systems, you would have to dumb it down to get to a small number as 10 million. there is a lot of technology that is available. we are hearing about the days, weeks and months, sometimes
years. scurept clearances should take a fraction of a second. how long does it take when you take your visa card? do you stand there for 298 days and wait for a green signal to come back? no. it comes back in a blink of an eye because the data bases are being questionereyed in the fractions of a second. all this action of crossover, periodic review and delays, if security clearances took one second and if they cost one cent, we could all get security clearances. we have to figure out how to use the technology to change the fundamental way these processes go forward. and i think that if we can -- yes, there will be upfront costs. we had to pay upfront costs to ome up with that i.t. layer.
and all of the other technology companies have to do that. that's an investment. the $1.6 billion and i'm betting that is off. it doesn't count for the delay and downtim that those people are waiting for their clearances to come through. and that is billions and billions of dollars that are being wasted. moving to a pleelt digital platform -- and yes, there will be 2%, 3% of the individual cases that will require hands-on treatment and somebody with went and lived in an ash room in tibet. but the vast majority of the population could be done using an all digital modern technology that would give you a considerably greater insight into the behavior and the future behavior since these are
becoming predictable. google knows you are getting sick and target knows you are pregnant before you are pregnant. that is today's technology and we will be doubling every 12-24 months. these capabilities will be able to flag the snowdens and the mannings, not after they have taken the train over the george and completely annihilated it. we will end up with a secure dividend once these things are implemented. >> joan. >> i agree with the way randy characterized this. every director of national intelligence has come in with an agenda to improve personnel security and they have spent time, money and effort to do it. we have had a lot of reform initiatives. i think what we have never come
to grips with, we see security as a supporting function. getting our t as jobs done or allowing us to get the jobs done if it's done correctly and if we concreted security as a mission rather than an administrative function, then i think we would be able to spend the money and solve the problem. we are pretty good at solving missions but because we don't think of it as something that hinders or helps our mission, we don't treat it with the same seriousness as we do with mission issues. that affects us in our ability to deal with this problem. >> charlie. >> i want to emphasize what has been said by other colleagues. we are in a new era and have new technologies. continuous monitoring is
something that the director of national intelligence supports. certain agencies are moving ahead in that realm as well as others in the intelligence community and the department of defense which has a very vast population of people who hold clearances, whether secret or top secrete. but the progress is quite slow. i think we have to align the policy level as well as the security levels as well as the contracting because today, it's seeing metropolitanned and separated and the security officer for a chief information security officer that monitors networks is far removed from some of the very rapid and more efficient ways we can do this. and i trust doug in his judgment that a new independent or essentially independent agency will be stood up to replace what
the office of personnel management did. the office did not have the infrastructure or capabilities or the resources when this was decided back in 2004 and d.o.d. handed this responsibility? 2005 to o.p.m. tore execute this. they did not have the security or counterintelligence expertise to handle the problems we have today. i think that's a given. it is my strong belief, however, that we have the opportunity now not to build in, if there is an independent agency or semi-independent agency or the vulnerabilities of the past where policy, security and the whole practical business of doing security clearances seem to be separated and divided. they have to be a unified way. in 2008, there was a performance accountability board established and under this administration, there has been continuing
efforts to find efficiencies. but generally, as we have seen from the snowden, from the manning events and the davis events at the navy yard, we have not been very successful in doing all this. i think right now, i'm undergoing an update of my top secret clearance. i had to fill out a form with the help of a special assistant who understands all the technology to fill the darn thing out. and you would think since i was investigated by c.i.a. many times starting in 1957, that perhaps i could have a shortened form. no. i had to do the entire thing again. and i'm sure someone will interview me and read back to me the 120-odd pages to me with
each question saying this is correct or is this incorrect. that is obsolete. neighborhood checks are very obsolete. particularly in washington. you don't know your neighbors. there are mr. chairman efficiencies that technology can bring to this. it requires risk management and unification between the security gurus and the policy decision makers. let's hope we have embarked onal new generation or way of doing security clearance reform. >> let me round out -- talking about the process of security re-investigations. so once you get a clearance, you are supposed to be re-investigated every five years if you have a top secret clearance, every 10. tcheas not just very effective
because people's behavior changes over time. even if you were clean as a whistle on the day of your security clearance, things happen to people. there are changes in lationships, drugs, alcohol, personality changes and in our current system there is no way less you come upon that 10th year anniversary, of checking on people. the system of continuous evaluation enables you to identify problem employees and most of them are not going to be spice. -- spies, but people who have trouble in their personal lives and will leave them vulnerable to potential intelligence operations by hostile powers. but the point here is with the continuous evaluation system we
can do much better by our employees. we can identify their problems through improved human resources and get good employees back on track so they are productive and we high protect our people. by protecting the people, we can protect our secrets far better than we do today. let's move onto the next round of questions and that would be, what has to happen in order for these ideas to be successfully implemented by all parties? who would like to start on that? >> i guess i can go. i think the designation of an organization sets how important it is. securing the network. enhancing technology and aggressively pursuing correspondentous evaluation throughout the entire process.
and those are the four basic things to keep this alive and well. >> when i look at this issue, we are not trying to find a cure for cancer and not trying to solve peace in the middle east. this is not a darpa problem. there are plenty of examples and plenty of exemplars that exist in the private sector today that would solve 99% of this problem which is what makes it so maddening when charlie says we have been doing it for more than a decade and others have participated in this. we have the solution set out there. doug has created an extraordinary program at lockheed martin. they have gone through the hoops and the lawyers have looked at it and figured out how to handle the privacy issue and looked at
the key technologies. u.s. government just went and took tlt lockheed model we would be more secure today than we were yesterday. and there are a lot of -- credit card companies have been doing this for decades. financial institutions have been doing this for decades. this is not gee, we have to figure out how to get to the moon. and we need to copy it effectively and a lot of companies would be able to do that. what is the critical need? simple, it's leadership. we need to get senior leaders involved in this. but, you know in the top, two, three things they are going to do. for all the reasons, people, if we really do believe people are our most important asset, coming up with a system to better protect our people from the
kinds of challenges and threats that are being directed against them and if somebody does have an issue to identify that early on before they badly go off the rails and get a good person on track and keep the value so we don't have to go through a snowden where we do damage assessments, but at the very least taking adverse action, then if only because this would better protect and better serve the people that are working in these agencies or in these organizations, that to me is the best reason to go forward with this system and do so. >> charlie. >> i want to reinforce what doug and randy have said. it is a matter of getting policy. it's business processes as joan said as we were meeting prior to
this formal session, we have to improve our business processes much as it is, but the policy side, the security side, the contracting side all has to come together in a more unified way and has to be strong, great leadership and leadership in intelligence and leadership in this administration and the new administration coming in in january 17 to really begin to change this and change it dramatically and do the risk management that is required. i have been investigated many times. but i agree with chris. you have to always do the checks on people when they are updated and periodic updates are needed. demonstrate that certain crossovers -- i'm talking about contractors that it differs widely among the agency and the
metrics we achieved, we had a number of companies participating including people sitting on this panel. some agencies can do crossovers very quickly. one in particular. others surprising, some of the agencies that you would think doing crossovers would do it in a hurry and it drags on, not just days, but sometimes months. that is hard for me to comprehend. so continuous leveraging the technology, changing the policies and updating the policies and when you are being updated for about the 15th time, find ways to focus on what may have changed and many other individuals, that would be an issue of concern. let's not go back and figure out when our parents were born and when they died. [laughter]
>> there is nothing more to add to that. this is not about reform. this is about a fundamental change, a recognition that security, personnel security is essential to accomplishing the nation's security. we can do this. it's not as hard as the many years of trying would indicate. but if we treat it as a mission challenge and problem we can solve this problem. >> the one aspect that i would like to speak to on how to ccessfully implement >> you agree to have your background investigated. what we are proposing is to update the nature of that background investigation to the
21st century. instead of 127 pagets of forms, listing your dead relatives, submitting your neighbors' and colleagues to background interviews, that we move to a digital background investigation. there is data that is publicly available. the government should not in this endeavor, in my view, look to data records that are other than that those available to the public at large. but the power of assembling and integrating and annual liesing those is a very powerful tool for evaluating people first when they get their clearance and to evaluate them continuously as employees thereafter.
on that score, amazon knows more about you, google knows more about you and knowing how political campaigns work, the republican national committee and the democratic national committee. and very sophisticated data bases looking at voters, they know an awful lot of you. those entrusted with our nation's secrets should be analyzed with those same public data sets and we can do a much, much better job of protecting our secrets and protecting our people who protect our secrets. any other comments from the panel here before we open it up? information that people willingly decide to disclose or access when they are using their business computer systems. it will be a government or
private sector. ov. you log on from .gmp you have no expectation of privacy. one of the true heroes, a woman with the u.s. army, got a pilot project undertaken where they would look at a subset of cleared people in the army and wept and looked at their online behavior using their internet address. once you do that, if you log on to facebook if you are logging on from any personal account, all bets are off. you have no expectation of privacy. hey had 10,000 secret or top secret people. 125 people who were otherwise perfectly within bounds within the security. they were all good to go. were instantly suspended because
they found serious violations of security policy. just a couple that stick in my mind. ne was looking for a hit man from his army. and t passed my urine test where can i get some pot. they took a look at what was going on digitially that they had northwesterly looked at before. and that was just one tiny example. 10,000 out of 10 million people. these tools are very powerful and that was a couple of years ago. and if we leverage this technology we will get more insight than we ever had before. .
there are other institutions that have figured out a way to do so that is respectful of privacy. for those that served in government, you sign those documents, the two or three page tiny five type list of all the things that you're waiving and you're giving permission for the government to do, and as chris said, now we're taking it into the 21st century. instead of that being paper and pencil, it will be a digital investigation going forward. and therefore, be that much more effective. >> ok. -- t question for >> i want to add to your to-do list fixing the timecard roblem at the wilson center.
. my comment is my former employer, the united states congress, who employed you too, chris, and maybe others of you fortunate people, how much does congress need to do? how little can congress do and still have this transition occur? >> congress can play a certain role of helping a certain agenda. if someone makes this a priority, holds hearings, drafts legislation to create a 21st century technology platform for clearances, it ill drive the process.
there has been no public debate on this topic and that is why we had not change. inertia has brought us to 2015. i believe that public discussion and strong congressional interest can help drive change. >> public discussion starts right here at the wilson center. >> let me call on john cannon. >> thanks very much. it's great to be here. terrific discussion and great to see you all here. you're all aging gracefully. [laughter] >> you made the point the intelligence community overall is behind the technology curve for at least 50 years. i buy that. you've also said that with regard to the issues associated with security clearances we've known about these for at least 30 years and i would say at least 20 years i know that some of the issues you raised about
cost, both the financial cost but also the cost of the loss of expertise the intelligence community needs, we were working on those 25, 30 years ago also. having spent 14 months with the f.b.i. recently, the point i would make is i think to some degree we have slipped back from where we were 15 or 20 years ago. partly it is because i think you're dealing with the very strong head winds that come out of the wikileaks and the snowden revelations because i was surprised to learn, for example, the agencies don't accept each other's security clearance processes. what i see is that adds to the cost because you get -- you get a polygraph and a clearance at the f.b.i. and then d.i.a. won't accept it. when you go into the -- go into the intelligence community, into the government, the very enlightened -- views i totally
agree. and i would love to see the instate with regards to the intelligence community with the digital world but i just don't see it. i think we have gone back. i think at the congressional level i think there is a reluctance to deal with these issues or to spend any money that's going to fix them. i see the administration level not enough concern to pick up the issue and run with it. and the intelligence community itself -- grant, you made the point. think very well that the inefficiencies in the current system, the inaccuracies in the current system have a cost. but what happens to leaders and the leaders are critical to all of this. the security system is able to convince them that while there are inefficiencies, the -- what we do discover in current
processes do protect us and it is not worth the risk of changing. so i think if you're going to get anywhere on this there's going to be an alignment of leadership between the intelligence community, the white house and the congress. there's got to be a coalition of the willing that will pick all of this up. i think congress is critical in this. congress is not really picking that up. neither is the congress. but i think most critically the leaders of the intelligence community are not buying into the fundamental change that is necessary and that you have described so well. >> ok. charlie. >> i'd like to respond a little bit to what john had to say because i think he's spot on and historically correct. some respect we've lost ground as a digital revolution that randy described so well accelerates. we have -- we have moved at glacial speed in many respects in modernizing our processes,
our policies and particularly our security processes. we have spent about three years trying to decide last -- it took three years, i believe, 2014 to get 1 to suitability requirements defined by the administration. i could be wrong on the dates t it took a long time to determine some fairly elementary stuff. we're working at parts of it and working very hard and very laboriously but you're talking about the big unity between the intelligence, homeland security, defense communities, the administration and the congress is really lacking. as the chair of the security policy reform council, we get interest from democratic staffers, republican staffers occasionally but very little -- very little leadership on this homeland security
committees, there was a lot after the snowden events. there was a lot of -- and after the o.p.m. brief. there was a lot of politics. the administration a bit defensive. republicans and the administration very critical but then it passed. here we have this major storm, this major thing that we all are concerned about. my wife just got her letter from o.p.m. on friday. you know, because it has personal identifiable information about her that i had to put in my fs-86. so we are moving again very slowly. the unity of effort on it, nonpartisan, crossing the aisle that jane talks about so strongly is lacking. >> i would add, john, i agree with you. i think you're absolutely right. the other area where we have similar dysfunction inside the government that affects the
contractor world is on the acquisition side. both security and acquisition is very rules-based processes and environments in the government and those rules have evolved over 50 or 60 years. it's very hard to get off of that kind of rules-based approach to these very challenging but very important functions that the government needs done. i almost -- i agree with you 100%, but i have seen it backfire so many times when we've tried to get both bipartisan and bicameral and, you know, all parts of the government working together. you begin to despair that we can actually do this. > i'd like to add one thing to john. when you talk about entity that need to resolve this, you talked about congress, you talked about the white house and the intelligence community. i would throw in the private sector as well. you would be very surprised how
far along some of the companies are with regard to resolving this problem set. joan: as my lawyer, chief lawyer reminds me often, the fourth amendment applies to the government's involvement with its citizenry, not with my employer's involvement with me. so there are things that we can do in the private sector that actually moves this problem further down the road. >> ok. we'll take a question in the back and then come up front. sir with the tie. >> mike with senator warner's office. thank you very much. very important discussion and obviously a topic of great concern, especially both regarding the loss of productivity, taxpayer dollars in terms of the lack of clearance reciprocity but also after what we saw with o.p.m. the security clearance process. maybe i can defend congress a
little bit. so senator warner sits on the intelligence committee. two years ago the intelligence authorization act for fiscal 2014 had a whole section, section -- title 5 of our thorization legislation that the d.n.i. to conduct and ensure continuous monitoring takes place in the i.c. and clearance reciprocity. that was passed into law almost two years ago. i wonder if -- so it's clearly an item of concern on the hill. maybe not as publicly, but maybe part of the problem is akin to cybersecurity where -- especially in the private sector we've seen cybersecurity relegated to the realm of the chief information officer and not the c.e.o., which is fine until there's a breach which causes the loss of personal data for hundreds of -- tens of thousands of people and then
the c.e.o. has to resign. and so maybe that's -- i don't know what else it might take to get that level of perm assistance because clearly we've had the breaches with snowden and o.p.m. as you point out as far back of 2011, talked about the costs. and maybe it's this new agency. i somehow personally don't hold a lot of hope for it. maybe that's the first step because there has been this bifurcation between the intelligence community, the d.o.d. and the o.p.m. and the private sector on this as well. so any ideas of what concretely congress can do i think would be very helpful. thank you. >> thanks, mike. comment. >> i think it's -- you know, made their ress has views on this. i think there maybe needs to be an additional amendment to the next authorization that says by
date certain and choose a date, i think it could be done -- in the private sector we say six months but government we say three years just to allow for the fudge time but by january 1 employ a y should fully digital, fully automated background investigation for u.s. government and for, you know, related contractors, period. something along those lines. ok. this is this new agency, if it's n.s.a. or d.n.i., i got to start january 1, 2018 and start walking this back and where do i have to get to this point, the old saying, if you know you'll be hanging a fortnight you will be concentrated. if you know a date certain your minds will be concentrated and you might see -- and also if there is a date certain then the oversight committees can on
all the routine hearings so, mr. director, how's it going on the deadline? you only have x's, months, years, anything you can do to help? how is that going and that could keep the focus and attention on it. i hate that. i don't think congress should be micromanaged in anything. if the executive branch would use their own authorities and responsibilities to reach these conclusions and do this because it's the right thing to do and makes sense for all the reasons we talked about but it doesn't seem to be the -- charlie talked about risk management a number of times, one of the iron laws of bureaucracy is risk aversion. they'll keep doing the same thing over and over and over again whether it's, you know, 10 years or 100 years obsolete until somebody tells them not to because it's safer to keep doing the thing that's always been done. it will take some leadership and i think probably some outside influence by the likes
of the oversight committees to really be the action forcing event. >> charlie. charlie: thanks, michael, very much. we recall the legislation and the authorization bill and that did help prompt and move things along. our intelligence director, clapper, believes strongly and continuous monitoring and various projects and processes and pilot efforts under way. we still have not moved fast enough. i'm sure director clapper would agree with that. but at the same time the intelligence national security alliance is planning for a screening event that we would like senator warner to come speak again about the importance of this. the incoming president will be in touch with you and with the senator. >> ok.
thank you. question upfront here. >> my wife got her christmas card from o.p.m. on friday as well. there is frustration about how slow and how glacial this process is even with its importance. yet, in the aftermath of the o.p.m. breach, which is pretty a watershed moment, within a week we had awarded a $300 million contract to do something that i think was really pretty stupid and having our credit checked as if our fs-86 was the key to getting a new credit card. so it's not that we can't act in emergencies. i think we choose not to act. and i wonder if you could talk about the die vergens of those two actions. joan: my guess is every one of us got our o.p.m. letters since we all had government experience. and, doug, you probably have the most insight into this. doug: yeah, john, that's a good point. shortly after the o.p.m. breach happened, couple of us wrote an
p-ed and charlie put it out. it had to do what we were reading in "the hill" and the media. the focus was much more on identity theft than the o.p.m. breach. i will tell you that breach had nothing to do with identity theft and if it happened i will be a little bit surprised but it had to do with a nation state having the most granular information on everybody with a clearance and my concern with that is, like i mentioned before, the sophistication, spearfishing, the sophistication of human approaches but this is a 30-year problem. so keeping people interested and excited about this breach being a 30-year problem is going to be somewhat difficult but that's exactly what this s. > please, ma'am, here.
>> hi. i'm an attorney and first of all, i have to -- sorry. i'm from indiana and i've known him really my whole life and he's very close friends with my >> hi. parents and i sent him an email to congratulate him so that was a very important event and i know he was pleased to be name presidential medal of freedom. so we shall congratulate him for that. and i'm sure you all miss him here too. anyway, i am happy to be here today. i'm a victim of the o.p.m. process. i'll be very brief but i testified some years ago before congressman donna edwards and jerry scoresy, the subcommittee about due process for security clearances and o.p.m. did a background investigation on me and i did not get denied a security clearance but they simply stopped the process in mid stream so they created this file which congressman edwards
held up a hearing which contained really information and i never got the chance to rebut it and i was in -- rebut it and i was in court. i mean, they never say -- i had other so-called faults and i have information but i never comment. portunity to they just simply stopped in mid stream and so the process has never worked and i mean, i think the people it didn't work for, as i was telling someone earlier today, are the people that are the terrorists or snowdens or something, but somebody like me didn't work for me either. what kind of a system has it worked? i'm considered a security risk? this is a nonfunctioning system, and the costs are just astronomical, as you've all pointed out, in terms of human capital, expenditures, time, cost, money, etc.
so i would really like to participate in -- because i think i can put a face on what's wrong with this system. it just simply does not work. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comment. let's see. over here on the left and then we'll go back to the right. >> thank you. my name is larry and a beneficiary of the system and an ex-defense intelligence community participant. my thought is focused on what many of you have mentioned here and some of the illustrations with marijuana and the rest. it's the implication of how much risk we're willing to bear as we move to this automated process. i understand that this is a wonderful notion that will drive policy changes as we go forward. imbeded in those al-- embedded in those algorithms is risk and
there are studies and other functionaries in this business that deal with the issues of trust. but i don't hear in your discussion here much notion of how the really -- i would call them ultra-conservative intelligence community people embed risk in this system and how to overcome that as you drive it forward with automation. >> ok. thanks. i think doug, would you like to speak to that? doug: sure. i think that's a good question about risk. so sustaining a program in this industry is not that much problem in nontitle agencies. they all have very strong privacy concerns. what we did in our company is we stood up a program lock stepped with the lawyers and the privacy side, locked stepped with h.r. and corporate . it's not -- it's a team sport. we put privacy at the top of
that issue. we put governance at the top of that issue and what our program does, it looks at behavior. it doesn't do any profiling of people at all. it profiles behavior. it looks at the digital behavior and it looks at a human behavior baseline behavior and together we make a decision on whether or not we're going to act on that or not. if you think about the data in our tool, it's all objective data. there's nothing subjective about the data in the tool. and it is all publicly available information. the subjectiveness of the tool is the red signs. the wait you assign to it and what you do with that information. to the folks we hired in our company is we are trying to very much look out for the employee as opposed to just looking out for badness. if you think about problem ets, insider threat, suicide ideaations, workplace violence, they all have behavior that's gone on in somebody's life. so the program we developed, we're looking out for that kind
of behavior that's atypical in someone's life for us to perhaps act on. >> can we transfer that thought process to the government? >> well, sure. i think we come back to, you know, leadership. left to its own devices, security -- we talk about risk management. randall: the amount of risk that any security teashment will ever accept, whether counterintelligence or some personal security is zero. every single time. zero. they want zero risk. there can be no compromise. and as has been point out, too often the executive leadership in the intelligence community and the government has basically sort of listened to, well, we don't want to spy. if the go to the headquarters nd look at a hall of fame, there has always been failures. there's always been spies. there's always been thieves. there's always been, you know, abhorrent behavior that's gone on in this current system. so to use that as an excuse not
to do something going forward is literally truly ridiculous. and yet the executive leadership deferred. so if you're going to have real risk management and make real decisions about risk tradeoff that has to be when the private sector -- we would call a senior executive level kind of decision. that's got to be the ex-com with the d.n.i. sitting there and all the agency heads sitting around the table. we used to meet once a month with charlie. put it on the table and what are we going to accept? we can't have zero risk but we don't want to have 100% vulnerability. so what are we willing to accept? how can this technology, these new digital technologies allow us to have better insight into behavior and patterns of behavior and so on and so forth and figure out where we want to set the various standards for these things? and then make a decision, work with the congress. don't just sort of do this
haphazardly and go to the hill. here's what we think. yes, some people will slip through the net but there have been people that have slipped through the net, looking at snowden, nick ols, ames, hanson and so on and son on but we think this system -- because of the benefits we talked about but will give us truly more security at the end of the day. get everybody to buy into it and move the system forward and we'll learn. i'm sure doug and their system has learned, you do a little heretweak you move the syndicator up. that's not important. you move it down and you get on with the new process. >> other comment? >> yes. i'd just like to say if we do leverage these emerging technologies, i believe we'll see a change not only in and you and policy talk about the ultra conservative counterintelligence, that person, he or she, has a real responsibility. charlie: but i see, i believe, nd i know that current people,
prominent in counterintelligence in the agencies, the intelligence community welcome this as a way to do better risk management. there is more enlightenment among counterintelligence experts. yeah, they have to be hard nosed, whether it's the bureau or c.i.a. or in defense, but i do believe there is -- this gives us hope for the kind of change that you want. >> just one comment on the question and that is, we have to ensure here that we are not parochial. christopher: that it's not only in the united states of america where people are engaged in this question. i can assure you that hostile services are looking at digital evaluation tools, of key u.s. government employees and i think it's really important that we act to protect our people first before other people take action.
>> chris, that's a very good point. one of the white paper we put out a couple years ago now pointed out that even if the intelligence community security community and counterintelligence community didn't believe a single word we had to say about these digital tools and technology, the rest of the world did. unless you wanted the rest of the world using the technology against our people, and they will, then you better understand them enough to be able to protect our people from the attacks of the chinese and the russians and, you know, the iranians and fill in the blank. randall: just about everybody out there is trying to penetrate or otherwise do harm to the u.s. government. if only on those grounds, that should be predicate enough to be able to move forward on those. chris: there was a woman in the back. lease. >> i was wondering if you could tell us what continuous
monitoring is and how it works at lockheed and also how the employees are trained to -- how they're told their data is being used, what kind of publicly available data you're using and how the employees are rained about it. doug: i look at continuous monitoring. the program i was asked to stand up across lockheed martin was to stand up counterintelligence and insider threats across the enterprise. can't do that with a handful of people. you have to leverage technology for that. one of the things we did once we built our tool is we went out with a very robust campaign to inform the employee population why we need something like this in our company. ok. because we build national security, right? the government should have an expectation that product we're providing them hasn't been
compromised. countermeasures built in to defeat it. so it's really for their benefit that we have a program along these lines. one of the things that we didn't do is we didn't use the word report. ok. we didn't want our employees reporting to us. we wanted our employees to be engaged because what you don't want is you don't want a snitches. you want employees to buy into this program for their benefit, for the company's benefit and for national security's benefit. as far as the type of information, we are bringing into the tool, some of it has to do with the sweeter tools we have on our network so we have a digital baseline for each employee and some of it is human behavior baseline. so it's the type of stuff that we already collect within the company. it's existing data within the company. and then publicly available information. i mean, it could be arrests, it could be liens, it could be bankruptcies, those kinds of things but it's publicly available information. i think selling this internal to lockheed martin was a little bit of a -- building a program
that's legally sound and regulatory sound quite frankly is fair leasing. is it in line with your corporate values is a bigger question you have to answer. and with a we've done is we built a program along those lines because we have such a strict governance process. chris: ok. got three people here. the gentleman here and the gentleman there and then the lady upfront. up here. >> thank you. ph.d. candidate in norfolk, virginia. i'm waiting for a security clearance but -- from your government to my government in italy. i will hope to work with you when it arrives. it was not 126 pages. it is five pages. i don't know how it works but my question is, what is the kind of collaboration between the u.s. government and foreign
militaries or in military organizations because maybe our best practice is not overcrossing but overlapping between, you know, countries that collaborate at least in these military organizations. thank you. >> i'm really not an expert. there are natea -- there's classified information with nato but i just -- i don't have -- i have not had the experience of looking at the security practices. i know the u.k. in particular and some of our close intelligence partner, countries have similar systems that have been on sort of along the same lines. randall: the vetting processes, the brits, i believe, call it. but how much technology they have introduced, that's not something that we've looked at. i guess we've been so focused on trying to drag, get our own -- our own process into the 21st century that we have not done that. benchmarking. but that's actually an interesting idea to go and
check with nato allies and some of the other countries with whom we have close, you know, japan and australia and so forth that we have close relationships and see how they do business and maybe learn something from them as well. doug: i think your question stunned us because you said you only had a five-page paper. [laughter] chris: ok. sir over here and then the lady in front. >> hi. i'm a retired intelligence officer. i get it about the digital continuous monitoring. what i'm interested in and i heard some illusions to it is, will we have more nuance in the adjudication of the information that's turned up? we have this vision that adjudicator is this sort of straight laced presbyterian and he wouldn't understand why you would want to vacation in the rmer soviet union or have an
-- vocation as an exotic dancer. hijab rying to clear a wearing muslim? can you address that? chris: that's a great question. charlie. charlie: i know we have those kinds of examples but having done a classified study for one agency on their process -- their security clearance processes and their -- including their adjudication and all the other aspects of -- that was one i did pro bono of a period of about a year, i found the adjudication very nuanced, very enlightened. it's not -- it's not a cal vannist making some predestined decision whatsoever. it's very sophisticated. and it -- all agencies has to be senior officer that does a
final decision on the adjudication. it's not -- they don't accept what your neighbor or your so-called friend who doesn't really like you has said during the interview process. it's sophisticated and very mature and i want to say i'm very pleased and surprised what i saw. it was very well done and very mature. randall: i think the technology, you know, first of all, you can set the parameters anyway you want. one of the advantages of using a digital model, we will take in so many types. it is a big set for a group or individual. we will have a much richer basis of data upon which to make decisions about people. but we'll also be able to set up basically individual norms for anybody that has an intelligence community access or clearance. your norm is different from my norm. you show up at a certain time, you do certain things online, you leave at a certain time,
you travel, your expenditures is unique to you. mine is unique to me. everyone has than own footprint or signature so when there's a deviation from that norm, if you're suddenly showing up at 2:00 on a saturday -- 2:00 a.m. on a saturday night, sunday morning when you never have before, binge, a light goes off. why is that? maybe there was a crisis in your area, you got called in and so it's -- check. it's perfectly ok. or maybe your supervisor, i don't know why he's in there. there's no good reason for that. maybe we should take a focus. that's a notional situation. i think the -- you know, the issue, you can build the adjudication into the algorithms as long as someone is behaving within norms and then there's dave yens from established patterns. there may be certain websites that are, you know, somebody's on silk road and trying to buy heroin or ecstasy, bing, that should go off for everybody,
not just a particular individual. but you can bespoke those parameters for the individuals, which i think will go a -- give a little more clarity into individual behavior. and at the end of the day we probably -- when those little red lights go off or the alarm bell rings, then you want to have a human, who's trained in understanding the technology and what these applications are and how the system works to be able to make a human judgment to get to this -- you know, lady's issue that she mentioned at the end of the day, if you are going to take an adverse action against somebody, you want a due process that's built in. and automation will only take you so far down that road. i think the tools will get out a lot of that. ok. she's a hijab wearing -- she's got a norm. plug her in and let her do her job. soon as it deviates, then take a look at it. then otherwise go with god. joan: hugh, if i could just add to that. one of the success stories -- and there have been some improvements. no question about it.
one of the improvements has been the time for initial clearance adjudication for people who have never had a clearance before. has gotten much, much better. unless you've had any extensive foreign overseas time or have relatives overseas so the very people who we would like to have who have the experience and the background and the cultural understanding to be good intelligence officers almost impossible to get them through. they go do something else because they get so, know, strung along with the process and can't get along so that's still a big issue for us. chris: just on that point, the reason i'm here before you today is because my frustration came to a boiling point on this question because a former student of mine who had a grandma in the former soviet union, it took him four years to get his clearance. now, that's not a good business model for government, the
private sector or anybody if it takes you four years to bring onboard the talent that you would otherwise want to hire today. please. ma'am, upfront. yeah. >> hello. my name's linda. i've been a foreign service officer or about 30 years. my question is -- i'm just thinking about the navy yard shooter and about the incentives that the companies have like in that case to not pay attention that the hotel is reporting the guy's talking to the micro wave and yet there's this -- microwave and yet there's this pressure, let's get the backlog down, we're paying them by the clearance, by the investigation so the people we're working as the investigators, you know, we're pressured to get through them and do them as quickly as possible. how do you fix these perverse
incentives? charlie: i think in the past, i think the new digital approach is a way to do that because there was -- there were pressures in defense before the responsibility went to the office of personnel management. i remember general cunningham had a half a million periodic reinvestigations to conduct, hopelessly behind. that was when the 2004 legislation occurred, it was felt we had to find a way to improve the process and giving it to o.p.m., which was not really equipped, in my view, to take on this responsibility. nor was it resourced. frankly, i believe that the answer lies in the future because i think -- i think as of now we're not where we have to be. it's where we have to go in the future and the private sector i think in many respects. i know another company, couple other companies that are trying to do what lockheed martin's
doing. chris: ok. i think we have time for one more question. the gentleman in the back, i hink we have to close to that. >> thank you. my name is andrew and i work for the navy. does the fact that the manning and snowden leaks has something to do with politics or coercion from a foreign entity affect the type of information that we collect as part of this process? do we need to ask more questions besides, have you ever tried to overthrow the government, or is the current information enough? do we need additional questions or more computer auditing of classified systems, that time of behavior, or do we need to fundamentally change how we look at someone's perceived loyalty? randall: i think it will require some changes.
in the case of snowden, i've seen some port mortgage ems, they looked back what he was doing digitally, there were half a dozen or eight warning signs that any one of which would have seen minor or benign but when you put them all together there was clearly a pattern that should have -- if somebody had that entire set of actions and behaviors they might have reached a conclusion that something abhorrent is going on here. i think we need to look across the spectrum. i think from stupid to evil, you know. on the stupid side you have people that just click on -- well, let's see what happens when i click on this link and, you know, the whole network goes down. and then you have evil, people that are just willing to commit treason for money and i would put snowden very close to evil because, you know, he was clearly somewhere between psychopath and sociopath, narcissist and my view of the world and so forth. but the beauty of the
digital-type model is you can -- and doug and his company, a lot of others have -- you set the parameters. you figure out how many data sets you want to lock at, where you want to rank things in terms of priority and what level e a higher concern if somebody does this, well, that's not such a big deal but if they do that it's a very big deal and then the algorithm figures out how to figure out that and they go to the bottom line. i think the solution to what you're suggesting is in the technology and, yes, it will require us to get out of the analogue, incremental paper-based, you know, file card, you know, index sort of model that is the way a lot of this stuff has been done istorically. doug: he's using the word evil and i don't think he meant that. along what you're saying is, i hate the phrase connecting the dots, but that's kind of what you're doing, if you will. just because somebody has one
or two or three concerning behaviors in the system does not m.v.p. they've done anything wrong -- in the system does not mean they've done anything wrong. then you have a question mark on somebody's issues going on. and you just need to peel it back. what it is, it's a very proactive approach to this problem set. and what i've seen in my time, anyway, is i think we've approached this very reactively in the past and that's not good enough today. joan: i would also add i think it takes a partnership with government and industry too because frequently government has no idea if they detected information and so we need to also share information, particularly when there is a heightened concern. so i think that's part of the olution as well. charlie: right now government really doesn't do that sharing
with the private sector. if they see red flags about an individual who's a contractor, they tend to hold it inside and the initial investigation whereas the private sector sometimes has -- and will have in the future far better insight on employees and contractors and what they represent. your question is very pertinent. is there new loyalties today, are we world citizens versus united states? western civilization, etc.? those are -- i think we have to have some new selectors that will try to differentiate and pull out the issues of loyalty. chris ok. and so with that i'd like to thank joan dempsey, charlie allen, randall fort and president jane harman and the wilson center and thank all of you for your good questions and your attendance today. thank you. [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] >> all prns having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to give their attention. >> tonight on c-span's "landmark cases" -- we'll look at the case of baker v. carr that ruled federal courts could intercede in disputes over reapportionment and drawing of districts. and he called it the most important tenure. here is a portion of the oral
argument. judge rhyne: they live in five of the largest cities in tennessee. they are the intended and actual victims of a statutory scheme which devalues, reduces their right to vote to about 1/20 of the value of the vote given to certain rule residents. >> by the early 20th century, population shifts in states like tennessee had a majority of voters from rural areas move into the city. yet, those rural districts with now smaller populations held voting power equal to the power of larger urban districts so a group from nashville, knoxville challenged the disparity and took their case all the way to the supreme court. the case of baker v. carr became a major milestone in supreme court activism and has the term one person one vote is still being debeated. joining us in the discussion, theodore olson, former slitor
general and douglas smith, author of "on democracy's doorstep," the story of how the supreme court brought one person one vote to the united states. that's live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span and c-span radio. for background on each case order your copy of landmark cases companion book that's available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> tonight on "the communicators" -- terrorism and the use of social media. we'll examine how social media is used by various terrorism groups to radicalize and recruit new members from around the world. we're joined by alberto fernandez, vice president of the middle east media research institute. and mark wallace, c.e.o. of the counterextremism project. both guests recently testified at a house oversight committee hearing on radicalization, social media and the rise of
terrorism. >> if you look at the world, if you look at the production of media worldwide, if you look at hollywood, if you look at madison avenue, there's no doubt that there's more of us than there are of them. but if you look at the narrow space where people are searching for this type of stuff and this type -- the subworld, the subculture, and so in this niche they radically outnumber everyone else who's sending a different message of kind of counterterrorism message. mark: i think we need to have a robust discussion in the united states that these companies have -- are now really on notice that their platforms are being abused. i think they have to put policies and procedures in place. a lot of which we have proposed, that limit and deny the ability of terrorists to misuse these platforms. if they don't, i think we need to have a real robust discussion at some point, do these platforms, do they become material support for these terrorist groups? >> watch "the communicators"
tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the heads of several federal agencies will testify on capitol hill tomorrow about the stability of the u.s. financial system. including the chair of the s.e.c., mary jo white. and the trector of the consumer financial protection bureau, richard chord ray. their testimony is mandated by the dodd-frank regulation law. you can watch live coverage tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> ian read, the chair and c.e.o. of one of the world's largest drug companies, pfizer, sat down for a discussion on the pharmaceutical industry, drug prices, government regulation and the future of the health tech industry. "the wall street journal" executive breakfast took place in new york city in late october.
>> we got lots to discuss. a lot is going on here. we have topical things but there's been so much going in the world of pharma, in health care generally. we've been world on "the wall street journal," merger activity that's going on in the health sector. of course there are massive changes going on in the world in the way health care is organized so we are really delighted to have for the next hour this really fascinating and timely discussion so, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome ian read, chairman and c.e.o. of pfizer. and deness berman of "the wall street journal." -- dennis berman of "the wall street journal." dennis: well, good morning. ian: good morning. dennis: anything you'd like to tell us about? [laughter] ian: ok. tack your lead.
dennis: pfizer in discussion th alogran, $150 billion-plus. thoughts. ian: it's amazing what "the wall street journal" will do to fill the room. no comment. we don't comment on peculation, on potential m&a deals. dennis: if you don't mind -- i am not picking your pocket. ian: we don't need this on anymore? dennis: no. not to comment but pretty vocal to your investors about consolidation. why should pfizer obviously a big company already, what's the value in getting bigger from here? ian: well, we've laid out, i think, in discussions to our investigation investors that we have various future scenarios. one is to continue to look for organic growth.
our in-line products are doing well. we have a number of really exciting new launches. that's why we had a really good quarter with growth from pegnar and the emerging markets. so i always look at b.d. not as a strategy but as a way of facilitating strategies and accelerating a possible return to shareholders. we have a balance sheet that's substantial. we can do b.d. dennis: business development. ian: if it will help shareholders. or we could also sit down and decide to do a split. if we decided that was the best. our we would do a b.d. deal and then do a split. dennis: yes. ian: we have luckily a whole series of strategic alternatives, and we're driven by what we believe will produce the best long-term value to
shareholders. dennis: so scale seems such an important word to health care. two huge yields going on there. if you look at pharma, if -- for some reason you strike this deal, it's a $500 billion worth of pharma deals. in 2015 alone. if you look at hospitals, you look at the consolidation there. if you look at drugstore chains, wal greens and rite aid. a deal broken in "the wall street journal" as well, that's working there. what the heck is going on with every part of the health care system getting bigger and bigger? ian: well, i think the pressures on the providers are being driven by change in the health care reimbursement system and that's true both i believe for payers and for -- and for the providers. i don't think the pharmaceutical industry is yet being driven to consolidate because of the consolidation of the other parts of the system. i think the consolidation is being more driven by companies that have the cash and want to
look for ways for accelerating their portfolio. now, i do think there will come a point, if we continue to see concentration on the other side, and if we do see more government involvement in health care than we have today that consolidation would be a route the industry would need to take. dennis: why would they need to take that? ian: well, generally when you do business with governments, it doesn't work very well for free enterprise. you don't get an ability to recover the value of your product. you're dealing with an obsolete purchaser. and that tends to force consolidation to remove costs. to give you more help so you can have more weight in the negotiations. and unfortunately it reduces innovation. it reduces the opportunities of innovation. dennis: how did you feel when
hillary clinton, especially, and there are others in the presidential field basically went after drug companies like yours, not by name, but certainly those at your level? what's your response to that? ian: well, my response is pricing is always an issue. access is always an issue. it's important for patients and consumers. we are vitally important to the health care system. can you imagine going into your doctor or into a hospital and not having pharmaceuticals? can you imagine doing an operation without modern medicines? you couldn't do it. so we're an important part of it. unfortunately we're an easy target because we don't interact directly with consumers. we interact with intermediates. we have huge restrictions in our ability to talk to
consumers, and so i think for politicians in a political moment they tend to try and make news and get votes by doing what politicses do. i think good public policy will dominate. i mean, pricing has been an issue in the united states for 40 years to 50 years. it always will be. it peaks up in election periods, but we always come back to what the real public policy is, and the real public policy is where pharmaceuticals are some 10% of the total health care costs, we've been that percentage for decades. we have built-in pricing mechanisms that reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals by l.o.e.'s. if you look at pfizer's price increase in 2015 for the company it was net after rebates and everything about 6%. but if you look at it in a
different sense, if you look at it in a sense of what was the cost to society of our innovations, there was no increase. dennis: why do you say that? ian: because the process that have lost exclusivity, which is a mechanism to reduce price -- dennis: right. ian: and if you look at the five-year period of 2010 to 2015, our prices in fact, if you look -- if you're talking about prices of therapies that were in the marketplace and of have come into the marketplace and had price increases is every year 4% -- well, cumulative 4% negative. dennis: couple points on that. it seems, at least from a number i saw recently about a third of pfizer's revenue increases came from the rates in prices themselves. so in terms of like the net adds in your revenue, more of
it is actually coming from the price increases themselves. ian: well, i don't know -- dennis: so viagra was up 57%. ian: i don't get into the specific products. we look at the value they deliver. when we launch a product, we don't price it to recuperate full value to society. f you look at a study on stanton, it was a very reputable journal, it was over a decade or 20 years to have created $1.3 trillion of value for the u.s. economy by lives saved, quality of lives and improved productivity and the costs recuperated from the pharmaceutical industry was 30% of that. dennis: so maybe you've been underpricing drugs? ian: we never price our drugs to full social value because there's an affordability issue.
dennis: maybe it was underpriced. maybe lipator should had been priced higher? ian: you could make that argument. i feel satisfied we had the right price and policy on lipator. it was a -- enabled us to fund more investment in research. but the point i'm trying to make is we increase prices because expenses increase, because the f.d.a. requires bigger and bigger clinical trials because we have cost drivers and because we have a really risky business. and the drugs are adding value to society. dennis: right. you could understand the emotional response when a consumer, who are used to things that are old products getting cheaper in price, they see now -- they see in the news and perhaps they see when they go to the pharmacy themselves, they see the price going up and up. long -- you might be totally right. but the emotional response and therefore the political response is based on their
experience where things should get cheaper over time. ian: let me give you two things. number one, 12 million people use staton. it got 90% cheaper since 2005. . they get cheaper. that's the bargain with society. when they go off patent they become extremely inexpensive. number two, the cost to the consumer of our medications is really determined by the way the society decides to allocate its resources to health care. we have very comprehensive insurance in the united states. but it's no longer acting as insurance. it's acting as a service provider. an administrator of benefits. most insurance companies today, their risk has been taken out. they have risk corridors set by the governments for medicare,
medicaid, large part of the business is really no insurance. there's a government saying, here is the premiums, this is what you can charge. we have to authorize your premium increase. here are the subsidies. they in main become service roviders for the government. dennis: so how would you construct those incentives? ian: i think insurance companies need to have an ability to take risk, the ability to price their products, and the incentives should be a reward to ensure the long-term health of their patients. their rates get set on the diagnosis of a one-year basis, so depending if they have more cancer patients, their risks get
changed, but if new technology comes in, they can't recuperate the cost. i don't blame them. they can't recuperate because there's nothing in their risk corridors that says this new medicine that comes in, that is fabulously important for society, cures hepatitis c, saves the my hundreds of millions of dollars or a trillion over a long period of time, but we're not going to change your risk corridors this year for it. if they pay for it in that yearing it's a total loss for hem. dennis: you have real results -- ian: and real change in pricing. this is a very competitive industry. dennis: yet we know that outcome-based approaches are 1, hard to measure, 2, there are so many efforts by and large across the country -- how do we actually make that happen?
is this a political decision in the end or is this something that has to come from the bottom up? if people agree what you saying is correct, how does it actually occur? ian: you have got to let the marketplace work, and that is what we do not do. we do not have a marketplace that works. we have government interfering with what the risk of corridors are, what the gap is between your policies on risk. i think there is clearly a place for government, for people to provide a safety net. the government has gone way beyond that, so it interferes with the efficient working of the marketplace. you know, i think that is the ottom line where other countries believe that a marketplace with reasonable regulation can produce the best results or we believe a central government can dictate. and i for one don't believe that works. you just have to look at europe
to see that does not work. dennis: why doesn't it work in europe? ian: look at statistics for people who get cancer in the u.k. and see what happens. if you get cancer in the u.k., you do not want to be in the u.k. you look at the access to modern technologies in europe, heavily rationed, and it is very difficult to get an appropriate eward for your technology. dennis: let's say hillary clinton calls you up, maybe she calls you up and says let's meet for a drink. you all go meet for a drink, and this sounds like a setup for a joke, but it is not, it is a question. she says, "tell me the one thing i need to know as the potential president of the united states to resolve the potential problems here." what would you tell her? ian: i would tell her you have got to create full, appropriate regulations, you have got to create incentives for those providers, the insurance
companies and the pharmaceutical companies, to improve the long-term health care of atients. have incentives to do that. you also have to ensure that the patient has incentives, and we do not have that. there are not incentives for people to not smoke, to keep their weight down, not to become diabetic. some people become diabetic because it is unfortunate, it is genetic, but a lot of it is lifestyle. and we do not have those types of incentives in the system. dennis: does this eventually take us to a path -- somewhere in the near future towards genetic testing and being able to judge whether a person is making a behavioral choice or a ort of cursed by genetics? ian: i think sometime in the future, but it is not just genetics. there are so many factors. you can go so far, but you do need to have systems to say if you're supposed to take this,
you take it, and if you do not take it, there have to be consequences. if you are diabetic, you take medicine to control your diabetes. you have to have skin in the game. dennis: people don't? isn't their health enough? ian: well, patients get diagnosed that they need cholesterol treatment or within six months, 50% have stopped taking them. dennis: incredible. because? ian: people are like that. we do not understand it. we have done no amount of research -- the research we have done to try to increase the adherence to medication. it is a behavioral question. there are people on immune suppressant therapies who stop taking them. i do not think this is an easy solution, but the solution certainly is not a central government dictating the allocation of resources by interfering with the pricing mechanism.
dennis: let's stay on government for a second. this is my word, and i would use the word "insane" for a company's of pfizer's size to go for a transaction which would be tax inverting in an election year. without commenting on any exact transaction you have been pretty vocal about the tax regime and the issue of cash being trapped overseas. what is your view on it now? how is pfizer -- if so many of your brethren really have inverted across the u.s. shores? ian: my view is that i believe this is a country of laws. i think the laws are -- at least by congress are clear -- and i think i have a duty to move to increase or defend the value of he company for the
shareholders, and i also have a duty to our colleagues. i want them to have a company that is robust and can grow and they can have a career again, and i feel we are at a tremendous disadvantage right now in that race. i have foreign companies who have tax rates of 15% who can invest $2 billion, $3 billion more in research than we can. and we are fighting with one hand tied behind our back. and your comment to me -- tell me in the last 10 years when it was the appropriate time? what level of confidence you have that in the next 10 years we will see rational tax reform? dennis: you have already been through the process with your potential deal of too much political blowback on the issue. ian: no, i do not think so. i do not think there is any real political blowback. there was no political blowback in the u.k. the u.k. was quite willing to have us do that transaction.
we did not have a capital market system which would make for an efficient transaction. dennis: are you ready for pfizer's name to become an election talking point? ian: i am willing for pfizer's name to say we are doing what we need to do to make sure that we can continue to innovate, continue to bring cures, to continue employment, and to be a uccessful company. the problem is how tax code is usually disadvantageous to american high-tech multinational companies that i personally have been to washington for the last two years, i have talked to almost anybody who would listen to me, i have tried to get to this as an urgent issue, and i have been totally unsuccessful.
dennis: what is that conversation like? ian: they all understand, they all say yes, we know the tax code needs to be fixed, yet there is no political will to ix it. dennis: so that leaves you no choice, perhaps -- ian: with the assumption that even when there may be political wills, it is still going to be o guarantee of a competitive outcomes your european nations have a lot broader tax base, so they have corporate tax, they have personal tax, and they have -- this allows them to drive their corporate rate down to levels that the united states cannot. dennis: how much cash you have overseas? ian: it fluctuates depending where the money is that any one time. it can range between $20 million and $60 billion.
dennis: that is a lot of money. this is an argument for an version. you can, with your lower tax rate, do more investment with the united states. ian: yeah. you are a foreign company, the issue is it is not that we don't as a company want to be in the united states. i think the united states is a fabulous place to do usiness. you have great schools, great intellectual properties, rule of law -- most of the time. but so does everybody else who can invest in the united tates. there is no competitive advantage between being domiciled inside of or outside of the u.s. in fact, there is a isadvantage. if we make $1 in ireland, and we
will pay the irish government $.12 in tax, we have $.88 eft. if we bring it back to the united states, we have to then pay up a full u.s. tax load on that, so in fact we end up with .65. if you are a european competitor in a non-us domicile country, you make the dollar in ireland, you pay the tax there and you can bring the $.88, back to the u.k. -- back to the u.s. you can invest in the u.s., you can adjust to at 38% in the u.s. -- why is the tax code making it better for foreign companies to invest in the united states than .s. companies? dennis: a number of companies have voted with their feet. we have seen them one after the next. you guys are almost behind the ack.
ian: that's an element we're looking at. i'm not saying it is the only element. when you look at a deal, it is not just driven by tax philosophy. tax is expense. it is expense on the pnl. it needs to be managed like any other expense. you look at what is the price of the company you are trying to acquire, what is their future pipeline look like, and what do the financial synergies look like, and you look at that as a combination, so it is one element of the evaluation. dennis: another element of courses r&d expense. the stock has responded accordingly. it has done very well under your management. what is the current philosophy if you are talking to a group about r&d?
ian: my philosophy on that is that we need to have a sustainable engine for growth, so we looked at our r&d when i became ceo, we looked at in a fundamental way and say if we looked at what our success rates have to be in small molecules, what are the success rates in large molecules, what are the costs to bring products forward, when do we fail, how do we fail, fail early, fail often, how much do we have to spend to get a return on capital? dennis: you guys were overspending, basically peer were is there a power point were you solve the slide and you were like, "oh, my god." ian: no, it has been misjudgment. the more i get confident that the new pathway, the new knowledge, that the culture is right, that the scientists are eing productive. the more you build trust, the more you will understand. myself as part of the management
team, and the investors are the same way. uccess begets success. if we are productive, then our investors are willing to spend more. ennis: what happened to pfizer before it made that r&d equation out of whack? ian: lack of good leadership. look of appropriate cull -- lack of appropriate culture. and you know, we have taken a lot of steps to improve our science base, to improve where we are, the competitiveness of our science. and a certain elements, to be honest, is also very often luck in this is a very difficult exercise. if you pick the wrong area to go down and you make a mistake and you hit a blind alley and you do not know for 10 years, you may e wrong bet.
you just got out of whack. dennis: any drug company -- is there somehow a cultural, something that is out of whack, the veneration of r&d almost for its own sake, it is not at pfizer but across the ndustry. of course it matters. in your view, is it mattering more than it should? ian: scientists -- most people who come to us at pfizer want to make a difference, and scientists really want to make a difference, and they invest time and capital in these projects, and it is very hard for them to give up a project. so you need a culture that rewards a team that says, "we want to cure this. we spent five years our life on this, but it is not going to make it -- let's move on." that is part of the culture change we work with -- dennis: saying no.
ian: and we also at pfizer, frankly, we are right to change the nature of the necks of our cientists. -- change of ethe nature of the mix of our scientists. we were heavy in chemistry, we are still probablyne of the best chemistry -- innovative chemistry organizations in the world which is vital to pharmaceuticals. but we were slow in new pathways on biology and we were probably in the wrong places. you know, traditionally, pfizer put its research sites, manufacturing sites, and the big manufacturing sites where we had lots of water and ribbons. that is not very conducive to attracting the best cientists. you may attract the best scientists, but then 10 years later, you're not still attracting the same scientists, so i think our movement to la
jolla, our movement to san francisco, to cambridge, of certain scientists allowed us to be more competitive. dennis: let's say you had the 100 top ph.d. students from around the world and you say i want these three disciplines at the top of my list, what would you put there right now? ee an: still has to be design chemistry, genetics, epigenetics, biology, fundamental biology. has to be in those areas. dennis: can we talk about epigenetics for a second? it's a little bit of a detour. ian: do not strain my knowledge too much. dennis: i do not know much -- that is why i am asking you. let's talk about how medicine is moving in that direction. ian: from my understanding, there is a way the genes will change what proteins are made and how they are made in their structure depending upon the
environment and what the body receives. so two people can have the same genes theoretically, identical twins, but if they have different environments and the eat different foods and have different stress levels and different danger signals, they will have different outcomes. the genes do not dominate. it is what happens to the genes by outside influences. now, we may need scientists to clarify that, but that is my layman's terms. dennis: so working in that area -- ian: i think absolutely. even the microbes, right, in your guts dictate if you are oing to be healthy or not. some people have the wrong microbes and they become extremely ill. you have to have some pretty difficult procedures, where you transfer different flora into people's guts. dennis: on the other side of the r&d model is a company called valeant.
they've been under a lot of pressure themselves. when you see a company like that, do you think they're good for science, good for the business or not? ian: i think they are part of a free enterprise system. it is like the arbitrage in the stock market. everybody has a role in the ystem. they certainly pushed companies to be more efficient. they use, i believe -- i do not know much about the company -- but they use a lot of very sophisticated financial techniques to be able to take out companies who were undervalued. i believe it is a dead-end. dennis: what you mean by that? ian: there is no research. they are living off of underappreciated assets. they're coming in and selling them at close to the full value and making money from it, but you know, so, is it fundamentally helpful for science?
no. will the marketplace to care of t? yes. dennis: you are saying the company, at least as it is currently operating, is a dead-end. ian: i am saying it is a dead-end for research. dennis: is it a dead-end from a business perspective? it has to be. ian: eventually, you run out of assets, and in our business, you have to remake yourself every 10 years. from that point of view, i do not see that that business model is sustainable. dennis: right. their use of specialty pharmacies, it is sort of in the weeds around distribution, but it is important for them. do you guys do that? ian: i do not know what their use of specialty pharmacies are. we do use of specialty pharmacies, but there is no type f agreement that would
reportedly valeant and other pharmacies have. we used specialty pharmacies for oncology and other drugs for patients who need a high level of attention from pharmacies. dennis: if you read the report in the "wall street journal," you will see that yes, they are specialties, but really their speciality was getting the insurers to pay. ian: i do not know anything about their business model. dennis: ok. fair enough. a company you have had some experience with, what is your exact nature of your relationship with -- ian: i am not particularly aware of a profound relationship. it is not on my radar. i'm not aware of any contracts. i am aware of how we ethically operate in the marketplace, and am satisfied. dennis: but this is a blood testing company --
ian: i do not think we have a particular relationship. dennis: so not on your radar. ian: no. dennis: so where does pfizer go from here? you have done a great job of moving the stock. i think the streets feel better about it. from the r&d perspective, you have had some good success. what is the next iteration, what does pfizer in 2020 look ike? well, when i first came in, didn't talk about vision or mission. then later on, we moved and had the measure miss place to talk about purpose and mission. our mission is to become the premiere pharmaceutical company by the end of this decade. we describe that as being highly respected, having people want to ork for us, having life-saving
medicines, and being involved in conversations that can change or affect the structure and outcome of the industry. and having the right culture. i want people to want to come to pfizer. i want people to tell their families and their friends this s a great place to work. dennis: how do you have a culture -- change a culture of 80,000 employees? ian: with a lot of effort and slowly. and you need to get out and talk. you would be amazed how much the work of the c.e.o. and management is talking about it and making sure you act consistently. so we have something called own it, which is owning the business, and the next one, which was parole officer rble when i introduced it, n for no jerks, i for impact and t for trust.
dennis: why was no jerks controversial? correct, olitically they didn't like labeling them jerks. but we talked about behavior. but everybody knows a jerk when they see one. if you want to attract the best and brightest, there's no pfizer culture, there's just your manager. if your manager is a jerk, you don't want to be at pfizer. dennis: so your conversation with the lawyers went like what? ian: well you can't do this. this is, it's like putting a brand on people. it's naming them. they're, you know, you don't -- you can't say, you shouldn't be saying people are of this persuasion or that persuasion. i said, ok, we're not saying
you're permanently a jerk, but no jerk type behavior. it's recognition you should tell somebody and work with emthis and tell them if they don't change their behavior, we don't ant them in the country. dennis: you famously have a coin you like to share. ian: i do, i don't have it with me. but part of the problem is to get people who are the face and people who are intimately involved in the business to tell you the truth. and -- not just me, but to tell the organization what they believe. we have a saying at pfizer coined by somebody from australia who sent me the email saying, bad news early is good news. bad news late is really bad news.
right? so we need a culture where people don't feel intimidated and can stand up and talk. and take on the hierarch -- hierarchy of the supervisor. dennis: what's the hardest conversation you had with someone who said, you wanted me to tell you the truth, here's the truth. ian: it was thank you. if you knew this two months ago, you should have talked to me about it two months ago and we'd have had more time to fix it. we had a file, we brought -- we bought a small company, had a filing to the f.d.a., first time it ever happened we got a refuse tool file. i called the people together and i said, what happened? and when we talked to them, they said, we knew it was a bad file. everybody individually knew it was a bad file but nobody spoke up? so that's when we started talking straight talk. get the coin out say, look, may
not be your area but if you're uncomfortable with someone you have to -- with something you have to speak up. the coin is the way to say, the coin son the able, i'm protected, and i want to tell you what i believe is wrongful dennis: it's like the coverage in "lord of the flies -- like the conch in "lord of the flies" , then. but i don't think people know what'sen on the coin. ian: we have this here. dennis: we have a good prop. ian: everybody has one. straight talk is what you can put down if you feel you're in an environment where things have not been talked about, the elephant in the room has not been talked about, oops.
you slap it down on the table and you can use it like that. or on the other side there's own it. so you can tell a colleague, you know, own it. you're not owning it. and it happened to me actually. i was, very simple example but i as -- we discussed behavior, discussed behavior which is important in no jerks, and i was at the christmas celebration and we have a small instance really, ut very telling. we have a carol organization, and they were singing. and i don't have a voice. i was walking by and they said, you've got to sing with us. they said to it would be gate if you'd sing with us. i said, no, no, no. somebody said, own it. i had to go up and swing they sot -- sing, they got me. it sounds hoekey, it's powerful.
people now don't use the coin they say, i want to have some straight talk. dennis: it was a bridging mechanism for the culture. where did you get the idea? the guy in australia? ian: this came from a guy at the head of h.r., he was a top gun pilot before joining h.r. he came up with the idea of using this tool. dennis: is that pat ened? will it go off patent? ian: this is like our culture, it's a perm -- permanent competitive advantage. dennis: you mentioned that pfizer might split up into three parts a lot of different ideas being discussed. walk us through that possess of how you're thinking about that decision. because it's of course a very important one. ian: we have two basic businesses in the country as a result of being in the business
for a long time and also doing acquisitions. we have an in-- innovate i business focused on creating new cures and dedicates a lot of money into research and dedicates a lot of money into education and discussions with physicians and working on guidelines and thicks. then we have another part of the organization that is selling products that are off patent or about to go off patent. they sell them differently in emerging markets from the u.s. in the u.s. they sell them with phi people in a room and monitoring quality and monitoring shortages and monitoring what price levels are. in emerging markets, they do it with huge sales forces, selling on the brand. these are two completely distinction businesses that need
a different strategic set, different managers, different paces. the idea is, is the sum equal to the parts or smaller than its parts? is the slow-moving established product business, is it dragging down the value of the innovative, or vice versa? or are we not operationally being as efficient as we can? or are investors perceiving that we're taking money from the established business and subsidizing research, i.e. bad allocation of capital. dennis: i thought that's how drug companies work, you'd have older products that fund the new products. otherwise you end up like valeant.
ian: some companies don't. b.m.s. i think is more a pure innovator. patents become established. but ours is half-and-half. it's two big businesses, with competing strategic visions. so the question is, if we split those up, would we unlock value? dennis: what's the answer right now? ian: don't know. dennis: what will derp the answer? ee an: we're creating separate operating units, giving them as much autonomy as we can. we're going to start giving them balance sheets. then we're going to, at the end of 2016, latest, when i have the ability to do a transaction if i want to, i need three years of financials, we'll look at the company and say, do we believe these two divisions are
optimally working or not? could they work better outside? is there track value? if we look at the p.e.'s or what their p.e.'s should be as independent companies, does that give me a higher value of shares or share price? and can we tax efficiently realize that value? dennis: there's a saying on wall street that nothing happens for no reason. when you went through the steps with me, the thought in my head was, he's going to break up pfizer. ian: no decision has been taken. it may be i realize at the conclusion that the sum of the parts is equal to the hole and -- to the whole and investors are satisfied with capital allocations and there are no major difficulties in running those two businesses in the same corporate shell. decision has not been taken. dennis: and that decision will be by -- ian: end of 2016.
dennis: ok. we've covered a lot, are there questions from you? there are microphones, i think. >> you talked a lot about the pressures on pricing and the moves toward potentially outcomes a little bit about the questions on marketing, specialty pharma distribution. what about the positive sign. we have a health tech industry growing really fast, google life sciences and other things that can detect cancer early. a lot of innovation, using data analytics. does that cause you also to think about changing your business model? leave hink the biggest to change our business model would be gene therapy and it is coming. may have gene therapy for
some disorders and if gene therapy comes in and it's a one-time cure, it's really going o stretch the payment systems. how to you pay one time and then lose the patient because he's cured, if you're an insurance company? it's a real dilemma. but i think the technologies you're talking about will enable a more efficient and better use of pharmaceuticals. i think they're embryonic at the moment as but as they become more sophisticated, there's no such thing as an average dose. it's an argument fact of us in the being able to individualize the treatment for every patient. so treatments for breast cancer, i would like an artifact google or somebody would come up that would measure certain parameters in the blood that would tell the patient, can they adjust their dose to max mime efficacy while
keeping side effects within the right profile? then the dose would become perfect for every patient and we'd maximize efficacy wosme don't do that today, we take averages. then the doctor can adjust the dose through his or her experience with the patient. but it's suboptimal. so earlier -- early detection of cancer cells, i think that technology promises huge productivity but i don't see it as a competition, i see it as a facilitator of improving use of farm suit is calls. dennis: you would see a real-time monitoring device for cancer in a way? ian: yes, almost like diabetes has, or any medication you take when you're trying to measure the impact on parameters within the body. dennis: how far away is something like that? five years? 10 years?
ian: i would guess between five and 10 years. if you're going to pierce the skin, you have to say what's the benefit? you have to have a benefit if you're going to create a potential infection site you can't go to the food and drug administration and say, i'm going to measure these things and see what happens later. they're going to say, you're creating a hell risk, what's the benefit? so regulatory will slow it up but the science is promising and as we miniaturize and as you say this new blood test that the company is doing, these are opportunities. dennis: other questions? ian: thank you. thank you for sharing your thoughts with us this morning. just to slightly pick up on the previous question, many midge strays, whether it is ube for the transportation, hospitality like abnb, or entertainment like
netflix, you have disruptors chaining the pattern from a competitive standpoint and otherwise of traditional industries. when you look at biopharmaceutical, your sector, do you see as you look ahead such disruptive trends coming up and on that, do you anticipate that those trends would come from these sectors or do you see the trends come from countries that traditionally don't fall within the oecd? ian: i think the disruptor, the disruptor in our industry would product from mechanism in market -- to market in half the time. takes us, we -- the first indication of the parkway and from that it took us 19 years to bring the product to market.
zeljams. so anything, the disruption for our business model is technologies that speed products to market. and it's a huge creator of value. and a disruption would be gene therapy. disruption, i don't see the -- previous issues we're talking about being disruptors. a disruption would be political change. which would say that society is not willing to continue to support innovation. or they don't believe the model we have is for those decisions and they're going to supplant it. that would be disruption. i don't see disruption coming from countries that are not highly technologically advanced. >> you talked about a lot of
profound change in the industry, consolidation of providers, consolidation of pharmaceutical companies, as a result of that if you look out 10 year, would you see the pharmaceutical industry business model changing in some way? and how are you preparing options against that? ian: the business model is changing, there are two parts to the business model, to simplify it. there's what you do to get a product to market and part of that is what science you have, how quickly can you move, how quickly can you validate, can ou use biomarkers? so we hope to see the scientific progress and we hope to see the regulatory side catches up to the science. today we are stuck with a regulatory environment crafted in the 1950's. randomized clinical trials, not adaptive clinical trial, no use of big data for efficacy, only using big data for safety.
extremely professional but by its nature cautious f.d.a. where they only one -- count mistakes new york one counts all the great things they do, the things they approve which are great product. they only get hammered when they makes me takes. it makes them naturally cautious. but we do need society to say we're willing to take more risks system of that would change our business model. the science, the regulator the use of biomarkers. and then the communication with physicians, using better technology, using better weas of getting physicians to communicate their knowledge. dennis: what's the best way to get them to do that? communication with physicians? ian: everyone is experimenting with using electronic measures,
bringing them into conferences via laptops or phones. not sending people to conferences but sending them messages from the conference. the difference now, you've got a rep goes in to see a physician an often it's a very personal relationship that reps develop with physicians. they're extremely busy. and there are so many restrictions around what we can say to a physician, given the regulatory environment. i'll give an example. if we have an investigator who develops a drug, he has huge experience on this drug and we ask him to give a talk to 200 physicians, if somebody in the audience says, i've heard this drug can be used this way and that's not an approved use, we have to get up and say, you cannot answer that question. if we don't, we get intide the f.d.a.
dennis: can you buy lunch for them or not? ian: we can take them to lunch. but one-on-one is not very efficient. we use ipads, we can be in front of a doctor and they doctor would say, i'd like to ask this question, and our rep may know the answer but he's not allowed to give the answer. so he uses the iphone and puts the doctor on the iphone, ipad to a physician in pfizer who, medical to medical can answer the physician's question. it's just ridiculous. dennis: to that end, do we need p.b.m.'s knill? seems like middlemen who -- ian: i think if perform b.m.'s exist, they exist because of regulation in the marketplace. i'm a big believe for the that. and i think if you change -- if you change the way drugs are
reimbursed, potentially you wouldn't need p.b.m.'s but they aggravate volume and negotiate a better price. and that has good and bad. i mean, one of the issues with p.b.m.'s is they can restrict the flow of new technologies. if they have a large base of older products and they're making a lot of money on the rebates, and a new product comes in, they don't really have any interest in giving that new product to a physician on their farm lair because they're not make regular baits on it. so it is a positive and a negative system. dennis: so they're probably here to stay for the time being. i think we have time for one more question. >> diane coffey, peter solomon company. i have enjoyed your talk. but i have a question on washington. so the house of representatives has just changed its speaker, or
is about to. do you feel that they will be any more willing to consider some of the tax changes, not withstanding the fact that the house is still divided and has factions but will be run by somebody who has pledged and is interested in tax policy coming from the ways and means committee? ian: well, representative ryan, congressman ryan and d, -- he's extremely interested in tax reform. but that being said, there's no dynamic scoring. and i believe this is the biggest issue the united states has, that the budget office cannot dynamically score the impacts on policy changes. so it is very difficult for kuok to craft a policy -- to craft policy changes that will be very positive, i believe if the country and job creation.
with negative scoring if the c.b.o. so i, you know, i don't -- i think it's very difficult to see radical change coming out of congress in the political situation we are now. going into an election year. and you know, there are so many restraints which are good in our system where, until you have a majority in the senate, you can't get a bill to the president's desk and so the fact that one side has majority doesn't really mean anything because they can't get bills through to the president if he -- if the other side decides to play hardball. unfortunately right now, our political system, i think, makes it difficult to move things forward quickly. i'll give you an example on that on dynamic scoring and the problem we have with it. we have, the america invents act, passed about a year and a half ago.
an unintended consequence of the america invents act. part of it was to make the prosecution of the palents was faster, it was targeted at tech companies which have lots and lots of patents with short periods of dureation and patent trolls and you wanted an efficient manner to get in there adjudicate their patents. the unintended consequence is people are using toyota invalidate pharmaceutical patents. we can take 14 years to brick a drug to market, spend $2 billion and now it doesn't have the same standards as the hatch-waxman or district courts. its curates on patents is 80%. you have hedge fund people taking a patent into patent review and shorting the stock. they're using it as a way of making money othe fact that the
patent review is more likely to cancel the patent than no. we're trying to get this changed system of we go to congress, go to the senate, the senate says, well if we change it, and we give you that and establish the value we know is right, the c.b.o. said there has to be a pay-for. and i said, what? there has to be a pay-for because if the patents are protected it costs society more money. you guys have to pay money, you have to have a pay-for for the c.b.o. to score this as zero. i said, well, hold on. i thought patents were a good thing? i thought patents created wealth? i thought patents were a central part of our society? why doesn't the c.b.o. say if patents are being destroyed, people won't invest, less jobs, less productivity, less moneying therefore we score it positively. but our system is so crazy that we have to pay in a
pay-forere-establish the right to have a patent to survive. dennis: i hope congress gets one of your coins before it's too late. i want one of your coins, i think it's awesome. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed, dennis and ian, i have nothing else to say except that if washington pursued your no jerks policy we might all be in a better place. that was a fascinating discussion. we're enormously grateful to you ian for being with us. thank you again, dennis. thank you to all of you for being here this morning. i want to say special tribute and thanks to our sponsors, american express global corporate payments and lisa for joining us, we couldn't do it without your support that concludes this morning's session. we will -- that con cludes this
year's season of viewpoints breakfasts but we will be back this january with joe kaiser, president and c.e.o. of zemans, we'll try to have a front page story about them that morning. in the meantime have a wonderful day, thank you all for being here, and good-bye. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> tonight on c-span's "land mark cases," we'll look at the case of baker vs. karr, the 1952 decision that ruled federal courts could interseed in the reapportionment in the drawing of election districts. chief justice warren called it, the most important case in my tenure on the court. here's a portion of the oral
argument. >> these 11 tennessee voters live in five of the largest cities in tennessee. they are the intended and actual ictims of a statutory scheme which devalues, reduces, their right to vote to about 1/20th of the value of the vote given to certain rural residents. >> by the early 20th century, population shifts in states like tennessee had the majority of voters from rural areas move into the city. yet those rural districts with now smaller populations held voting power equal to larger urban districts system of a group of voter from -- voters from nashville, memphis and knoxville challenged the disparity and took their case to the supreme court. the case became a major milestone in spoufert activism and has continuing relevance today as the term one person, one vote is still being debated. joining us in the discussion, theodore olson, former u.s.
solicitor general, and douglas smith, author of "on democracy's doorstep," that's live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the land mark cases companion book, available for $.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> tonight, on the -- on "the communicators" terrorism on the use of social media. we'll examine how social media is used by various terrorism groups to radicalize and recruit new members from around the world. we're joined by alberta fernandez, vice president of the middle east media research institute and mark wallace, c.e.o. of the counterextremism project. both guests recently testified at a house oversight committee hearing on radicalization,
social media and the rise of terrorism. >> if you look at the world, look at the production of media worldwide if you look at hollywood, if you look at madison avenue, there's no doubt that there's more of us than there are of them. but if you look at the narrow space where people are searching for this type of stuff, in this -- this subworld this subculture, so in this niche, they radically outnumber everyone else sending a different message, a counterterrorism message. >> i think we ought to have a robust discussion in the united states that these companies have to -- are really on notice that their platforms are being abused. i think they have to put policies and procedures in place, a lot of which we proposed, that limit and deny the ability to have terrorists to misuse these platforms. if they don't, i think we have to have some kind of real robust discussion at some point, do these platform, do they become material support for terrorist groups?
>> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. republican presidential candidate donald trump this afternoon called for a quote, total and complete shutdown, end quote, of muslims entering the u.s. "wall street journal" reports that he made the announcement hours after a monmouth university poll of iowa republicans found him trailing five percentage points behind senator ted cruz, while a cnn poll released late monday showed him in first place with a 13-point lead. we'll be live here shortly with donald trump at a campaign rally being hold in mount pleasant, south carolina. until it gets under way, he's a look at a few minutes of democratic senator jeff merklee of oregon talking about donald trump on the senate floor. todap
called for the united states to ban all muslims from entering our nation. this is the single-worst idea that i have heard from any presidential candidate ever. it is inconsistent with our american values. it is inconsistent with our national history. the nation has looked back on events in our past -- segment, the chinese -- for example, the kleins exclusion act or the internment of japanese-american citizens -- and realized it was a huge mistake to make one significant group our enemy. it is inconsistent with the vision of our constitution in which all came to the united
states seeking to escape persecution and be able to practice whichever religion they chose. the founders of the united states did not seek to make our nation one in which only a single religion could be practiced. they did not seek to establish one religion as a preeminent religion. they instead wanted a place, a safe haven where people could worship as they pleased, which is the heart of our first amendment. this idea is wrong and wrongheaded. it is wrong in the context that we are not at war with islam. in fact, we are working in partnership with islamic nations to take on a terrorist group known as isis. it is wrong in that all patriotic americans of every religion are working together to take on this terrorist group known as isis.