tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 22, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
other countries -- and i know that you all know this. other countries, germany, scandinavia, they do that. they provide free college education because they know that investing in their young people is what will make their economy strong. [cheers and applause] and the other issue is that millions of people some young and some not so young are really being crushed with high levels of student debt. and what we have got to do is to say to those people you will be able to refinance that debt at the lowest interest rate you can find.
now, i am criticized by the establishment, by my opponent. bernie, this is a very expensive proposition. you want to have public colleges and universities tuition free. you want to significantly lower student debt. that is about $70 billion a year. that is a lot of money. how are you going to pay for it? i will tell you how we are going to pay for it. this is how we are going to pay for it. remember eight years ago when the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior of wall street drove this economy into the worst economic downturn since the 1930's? [booing] congress bailed out wall street. well, it seems to me that now is the time to impose a tax on wall street speculation. [cheers and applause]
the middle class of this country bailed out the crooks on wall street. now it is wall street's time to help the middle class of this country. [cheers and applause] all right. this campaign -- this campaign is listening -- heh. [laughter] [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "bernie"] this campaign is listening to
our brothers and sisters in the latino community. [cheers and applause] and what the latino community is telling me is that they are tired of 11 million people -- 11 million people in this country who are undocumented who are living in the shadows who are living in fear who are living with a great deal of exploitation. and what the latino community is telling me that now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform. and a path toward citizenship. [cheers and applause]
now, in a democracy -- in a democracy, people can agree or disagree with immigration reform or anything else. but what people cannot do, what donald trump cannot do is engage in bigotry, engage in vicious insults against our mexican neighbors. [cheers and applause] that is not acceptable, and we will not tolerate it. [cheers and applause]
and if congress does not do its job, i will use the executive office and the powers of the presidency to do everything that i can to see that families are united, not separated. [cheers and applause] and our department of justice will take a very hard look at what the sheriff and people like him are doing. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "bernie"]
i am the son of an immigrant. my father came from poland and he came to this country not knowing one word of english. so i have some experience with the immigrant family situation. i am tired of seeing young people with tears running down their cheeks, worried that their parents or their brother or their sister will be deported. we're going to put an end to deportation. [cheers and applause] this campaign is listening to
our brothers and sisters in the native american community. there is no group of people in our country today who have contributed more to our culture, to our respect for the environment than have the native american community. [cheers and applause] and i don't have to tell anybody here that from the first days when the settlers came to this continent they cheated the american people. they lied to the american people. they broke treaties with the native american people. and today what we are seeing in community after community of native americans is outrageously
high level of unemployment, of poverty, of alcoholism, of suicide, of kids dropping out of high school. it is time for the united states government to treat the native american tribes with respect and dignity. [cheers and applause] and that is what i will do as president of the united states. [cheers and applause] i am a member of the u.s. senate committee on the environment. and let me tell you what no republican will tell you.
and that is the that the debate is over. climate change is real. [cheers and applause] climate change is caused by human activity. and climate change is already causing devastating problems in this country and around the world. and let me tell you what the scientists are also saying. and that is if we do not get our act together, if we do not transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, a bad situation today will become a lot, lot worse.
what the scientists tell us if we do not act boldly by the end of this century this planet will be between five degrees and 10 degrees farenheit warmer. that is catastrophic. and what that means -- what that means is more drought, more floods, more extreme weather disturbances, more rising sea levels. more acidification of the ocean. and more international conflict as people fight for limited natural resources. [applause] and that is why together we are going to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and tell them that their short term profts are not
worth the future of this planet. [cheers and applause] and by the way, while we are talking about environmental issues, we have got to end fracking. [cheers and applause] there was a piece in the paper the other day. it's not just flint, michigan that is suffering from severe water problems. it is hundreds and hundreds of communities all over america. fracking will make that situation worse. end fracking.
i have been criticized by my opponents for saying this. so let me say it again. [applause] and that is health care is a right of all people. not a privilege. now, the affordable care act has done some very good things. but we have a long way to go. [applause] today in america, 29 million americans have no health insurance. many of you are underinsured with high deductibles and copayments. is that right? [applause]
and every one in this country is being ripped off by the greed of the drug companies. [cheers and applause] drug companies charge us the highest prices in the world for medicine and the situation is so crazy that one out of five americans cannot afford to fill the prescriptions their doctors write. that is crazy. [booing] and then on top of all of that, it turns out that we are spending far far more per capita for health care than any other country on earth. [booing] and that is why in my view we have got to move toward a medicare for all health care system.
[cheers and applause] everybody here tonight knows that in our history as a nation , real change always takes place from the bottom on up, not from the top on down. [cheers and applause] real change takes place when millions of people look around and say the status quo is not working. it has got to change. change took place a hundred years ago when workers were being treated as if they were animals. said we are going to form a union whether the employer likes
it or not. [cheers and applause] real change takes place over the last hundred years when african americans and their allies said racism and segregation and bigotry is not what this country is about. we're going to change it. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "bernie"] 100 years ago, women in america did not have the right to vote. [booing] what women and their male america,id, that in
women will not be treated as second-class citizens. [cheers and applause] what they said is that women will be able to control their own bodies. [cheers and applause] ten years ago if there was somebody in this room who said i think gay marriage will be made legal in 50 states in this country by the year 2015, the person next to him would have said what are you smoking? [laughter] which raises a whole other issue.
but what happened? what happened is the gay community, against ferocious hatred and their straight allies -- [cheers and applause] -- what they said is that in america people should be allowed to love each other no matter what their gender is. [cheers and applause] that is how change takes place. and we are at that profound and pivotal moment in american history today where millions of people are looking around them and they're saying is it right that so few have so much?
and so many have so little? is it right that the united states of america, this great country, is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care or paid family and medical leave? is it right that when we have seen in recent years a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires that we have today the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth? is it right that in this nation the men and women who defended , us, our veterans, some of them are sleeping out on the street? but what the american people are saying is we can do much better. [cheers and applause]
and what the american people by the millions are understanding is you're not going to do much better if we go back to the same old same old establishment politics and establishment economics. now, i am the only candidate for president who will tell you this truth. and it is not a happy truth but it is the truth. and that is no president, not bernie sanders or anyone else , can do it alone. we need the people who have the power in this country and that is wall street who has endless , amounts of money, corporate america, whose greed has done us so much damage, the corporate media which determines what we see, hear, or read.
wealthy campaign contributors. they have enormous power. the only way that we transform this country and take them on is when millions of people stand up and say enough is enough. [cheers and applause] and that is what this political revolution is about. it is involving people many of overwhelm have given up on the political process to get involved. to stand up, to fight back for justice. on tuesday there is going to be
a very, very important primary here in arizona. so please on tuesday make sure that you, your friends, your family come out to vote. let us see arizona help lead political revolution! [cheers and applause] 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]
and 40 republican delegates. we will have reports and speeches from several candidates on c-span. c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. tuesday morning, marsha blackburn of tennessee on president obama's trip to cuba and her work on the selected investigative panel on infant lives and women's history. virginia on ay of report that group released designed to promote a domestic american prosperity agenda aimed at growing the economy and achieving political consensus. we will talk about the house hearing on heroine and opioid trip and president obama's to cuba. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern. it on thetune to
weekend, it is authors talking about new releases. >> on c-span, they can have a longer conversation and delve into their subject. >> book tv weekends. --y bring you all author after all third after author. >> i love book tv and i am a c-span fan. >> on june 23, the u.k. holds a referendum on whether to leave the european union. conservative mp liam fox on his support for leaving the eu. it is an hour.
>> good morning, everyone at welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. i am vice president here, and i have the great privilege of directing our europe program. what a delight to welcome honorable dr. liam fox here today to discuss a very important upcoming referendum and the united kingdom, about its continued membership in a reformed eu, loaded words, as i am sure dr. fox will help us more clearly understand. dr. fox was elected to parliament in 1992. he has served in a number of distinguished leadership positions, including cochairman of the conservative party in 2003. perhaps we know dr. fox best here in washington when he served as secretary for defense from 2010 to 2011. dr. fox is a doctor, and he is in the house to help us understand british politics, the implication of a potential brexit. one word before i invite you
forward, dr. fox. we are privileged to have you here with us. last year, we had a discussion before the general election, and all the polls showed a very tight race. we were not sure. it looked like labor could be gaining. and dr. fox said with clarity, dr. fox said the conservatives will win and it will be a majority. we all looked at you and we went, right. we know what happened. at the end of the conversation i will ask dr. fox to put his crystal ball on the table to tell us how the u.k. referendum will work out and if his predictions ours accurate as last years, we may have some bookies. with that join me in walking mean dr. fox. -- welcoming dr. fox.
dr. fox: thank you for welcoming me. is a great opportunity to get to talk about the british referendum here in the u.s. no one should understand the arguments that we are making better than americans. those of us who want to leave the european union want to regain control of our online making. we want to control our own borders and we want to control our own money. those arguments for sovereignty out to resonate better here than anywhere else. but instead, we seem to be getting an argument about none of those things, simply asking what is europe's phone number and we have to i think get the debate going on the side of the atlantic for reasons i will come to in a moment. the agen the u.k. under
of 58 has had an opportunity to determine whether we stay in the european union are not. parentshanged since my voted in my father voted to join the common market. my mother voted against it. they still affair it up over that one -- never made up over that one. the european union has changed fundamentally from what was originally going to be a trading at economic organization and to an organization that moved ever closer to political union and that is at the heart of the debate that we have. we will come back to this but a lot of people in britain would have voted for a looser arrangement, a more economic arrangement with the reform -- reformed european union but this is not on the table in the referendum. the eu is not fundamentally reforming and it is continuing along its plan and i do not want
to live in a country whose identity be subsumed into a greater political identity. i think the history of of super-nationalism is not a happy one area in so the three reasons getting control of our laws and borders in getting control of our money, since 1996 at the european council, where the big decisions are taken about the direction of policy, and 72 occasions, the u.k. government either the labor or conservative government has objected to policy being made on againsts of it is britain's national interest. on 72 occasions we have lost on attempts to block what was happening there. it has resulted in a range of laws and applied to the united kingdom, some very trivial. we have had everything from european applied laws on u.k. sales of u.k. mineral water in
the u.k. to the sale of picks between farms to our lifeboat service becoming answerable to a brussels-based maritime safety lord. dashboard. we had drives were the drivers were allowed to not drive on .ritish roads with europeans falling below the standards we would have allowed in the u.k. but nonetheless, irrespective of safety concerns, we have had the law applied to us. when you look at the way in which these laws are applied, they tended to be regulations of our market, interference and constitutional issues. at the european parliament level, we are increasingly following the lisbon treaty. more power has been vested between 2009 and 2014 at we -- we opposed a number of measures, some 86% of the occasions where the majority of british mep's oppose legislation, we were defeated. there is a clear pattern
emerging that more of our laws being made -- it is difficult to put an exact number on it, but about 13% of our primary education and about 50% of our -- legislation and about 50% of our secondary legislation is now made outside the united kingdom. i find that simply from a quiteon of sovereignty unacceptable. then we come to the issue of our borders. this is probably the most explosive issue in this referendum in the u.k. for the largest number of voters. in the last 10 years, we have had 1.162 million net eu citizens settle in the united kingdom. as long as we are members of the european union, we have no ability to restrict eu migration into the united kingdom. for a relatively small country, geographically, that has put huge pressure on school places,
on housing, on health care, in particular, areas where that is resulting in backlash that is not conducive to good social stability. the irony, perhaps, of all this is that many of those supporting britain remaining in the european union, the goldman sachs european commission from the establishment-supported campaign, are the people least likely to worry about whether we require a public school place or access to a doctor or public housing. so there is something of an element of the peasant's revolt developing in this referendum. ordinary voters against what we see as a well-funded, extremely cruel eu establishment. and we have all seen in western countries and recent years what an antiestablishment movement
can look like politically, and i believe we are seeing one develop in the u.k. at the present time. the second element about the border issue is that we have seen 1.5 million plus migrants moving it to the european union from syria, afghanistan, somalia, and pakistan in the last year. the question is, where do they ultimately end up? for us, the point is this -- when those 1.5 million plus we are expecting this year, when they get citizenship from any european country, whether it be hungary, germany, austria, whatever, they will automatically have a right to come and settle in the united kingdom. the united kingdom's economy is
growing much faster than any other in europe. we were introducing a much higher minimum wage in a very short time, which will be a magnet for many of those coming. the germans, those coming into germany, they do not know whether they are economic migrants, genuine refugees, or sympathizers with some of the islamist groups, or they may be an infiltration. some of those groups are in that migrant population, and we will not know. i think that is a security risk that we are taking. into all of this makes, we're now told the president obama becoming to the united kingdom. i understand that he will be taking part in a rally in support of britain remaining in the united kingdom. let me put this as gently as i can. we have a strong protocol of noninterference in domestic issues of our friends and partners. believe me, that is massive domestic interference. if the president would not come before our general election because of protocol, why is it acceptable in this decision
which is purely by the british people and about our destiny? the president is entitled to his views and will be entitled to express them when the u.s. has an open border with mexico. and a court that is able to overrule the supreme court. when that is met, he may get his advice. the third policy, money, this is an area that is increasingly controversial in the u.k. we pay and that sum to the european union of about 10.5 billion pounds. the problem with this is that our contribution is largely dependent upon our success versus the success of the continental european economy, and that is largely the euro zone. britain state outside the euro,
because it was a political project. it had an unsigned architecture is that allowed countries to join. we have seen the results were millions of young europeans are being sacrificed with the single currency with countries like spain having youth unemployment. but when the british, grows faster than the eurozone because of the eurozone's problems of their own making, our budgetary contribution goes up. because our gdp is accelerating faster than theirs. so we have been forced to subsidize the failure of a project that we purposely stayed out of because we believed it was doomed to failure. try explaining that to british
taxpayers, that they are getting a good deal out of that, and it is a difficult one. we have to look at all of these elements, and then we get to the political element that is perhaps causing the biggest friction. it has been dubbed project fear, to try to get the british public so afraid, disliking the current trends. we're told there will be darkness and a leap into the blackness the day after we were to leave the european union, that we would be isolated. let me end on this thought before we open up the discussion. the day after britain would leave the european union, we still have a permanent seat on the u.n. security council. we still have one of the world's top 10 economies here we still have one of the world's biggest defense budget to it we would be at the center of nato, the center of our common wealth.
still members of the g7 and the g20. it does not some like grand isolationism to me. and this idea that britain can only cope in an era of globalization, one which we are uniquely suited for it we had the european union holding our hand, with its hand in our pocket at the same time. i think it is time for people of britain to regain their birthright, to determine their own destiny, and that is a decision for us to make. and i hope all those who believe in sovereignty, our ability to make our own laws, control our own borders, control our own finances, will respect our right to do so and will not interfere. it is simply none of their business. [applause] >> well, you have given us
plenty to talk about this morning. thank you so much. we will go into a discussion ourselves, and then i will let our audience jump in. i know there are a lot of questions. i would like to start with the politics surrounding the referendum and what some are calling the ides of march, meaning ian duncan smith, former secretary of work and pension. the politics around this referendum seem to be getting more difficult for the conservative party in a cameron government, not better. and some ways, this whole referendum was a way, my wor, to put the act the schism that was growing within the conservative party, as well as a popularity of the united kingdom independence party. describe the politics. did mr. smith's resignation, was it about the budget or about europe, about a leadership challenge to david cameron?
help americans understand what is going on in the government right now. dr. fox: as a conservative member of parliament, we are being booked government opposition simultaneously, and we have effective opposition to speak of with the labour party. they almost got wiped out at the general election. there is and always has been a really strong division inside the conservative party, largely based on sovereignty, which is a much more an issue to conservatives than two other parties. but, and quite a big but, we now know from all our polling that this is a schism that runs right through the british public. polls are pretty much neck in neck. the public is totally taken aback by the parliamentary decision had half the members of parliament are signed up to leave the campaign in one form or another. much bigger than the governments predicted. i think that is because the feeling on that is not shared by all of those at the top of government.
so you have parliamentary parties in the conservative party in the country, which are even more in favor of leaving, probably about 70%, and you see where the political problems come from. the decision of a referendum was largely a response to the anti-european party. i said we were going to win the general election, and a number of my senior colleagues were not sure we would win the general election outright. one of the consequences of winning that election would be that we were transported very quickly into the environment of the referendum. i'm not sure everyone was exactly prepared perhaps emotionally for what that would
do. as i kept telling colleagues, as soon as we get to referendum territory, friendships would be rattled. him and he it would be inevitable that we would get to this point. we would simply have to take this through to june 23, and it is going to be bumpy, and it will be difficult for the government to get any legislation through. it will be a possible for them to get any legislation that originates in europe. for people at myself, we will not say vote for legislation while saying to lead the european union. it makes for a difficult legislative period. what i said to my colleagues is we have a five-your parliament and we cannot have an election until may 2020, and we will have to govern the country, the majority party, and how
difficult or easy that will be depends upon how nice we are to one another. and that is in the run-up to and during that referendum. so a little bit of respect for one another's views, little less personalization of it all would not go amiss. i really regret the way some of my colleagues have spoken about this dispute. it will make it difficult to put humpty back together again. >> absolutely your comment about preparing for this referendum. on the economy, my concern is that we are all not preparing for june 24, the day after the referendum. we have already seen markets respond quite negatively after prime minister cameron secured his deal with the eu, brought it
back. it is like the markets work up and said, oh, my gosh, this thing is going to happen. polling getting tighter. it seems to me the government is not preparing for the potential of a decision. it wants to focus on remaining. yet, i do not see that campaign helping me understand what happens the next day if there is a global shock. you have some saying there could be a pretty genetic increase in gdp, unemployment. it is scenarios. dr. fox: a lot of money from the european union. >> cbi and others have said -- i mean, we do not know what is going to happen. dr. fox: anybody who says that there is a risk-free option is not telling the truth. there are huge risks remaining in the european union. the euro zone is going to
integrate more as a result of its problems. so the architecture of the european union will change anyway. if we stay, the one thing you can be sure of is you cannot vote for what it is today. it will change in one way or another. i think the eurozone will have to go into closer economic and political union. i think that will create two european unions, the eurozone and the non-eurozone countries. it is very interesting question about the role of government. the problem we have at the moment is there is a conflation between the government, acting international interest, and the
leaders of the government acting in the interest of the campaign. in british politics, before we have a general election, the civil service will sit down with the opposition parties to ask them what their legislative program would be and their contingency planning for a change of government. yet, our current government refuses to allow the civil service to do contingency planning for a leave vote. that seems irresponsible. it is being done because the government is acting with the remain campaign, accepting that there may -- refusing to accept there may be a leave vote. the government is acting as the remain campaign. it needs to be resolved. the government will meet over the nature of the question for the referendum and the government's ability to exempt itself from existing legislation the govern referendums in our
country. there is no risk-free option, because there is a risk to leave. there is no actual plan. the way it works is we probably will use the lisbon treaty, at which point we would then go to our european partners and say the british government has decided to leave, and we are giving notice that weird triggering the two-year period of exit but there are constraints on reality of what will happen, because i saw that report this morning. if you read the subtext of the report, it is very unlike the headlines of the report. that is what people do when they commission these reports looking for specific answer. one of those constraints is the nature of our trade with europe. we have a huge trade imbalance with the european union as a country. 10 years ago, in 2005, about 55% of our trade was with the
european union. the last quarter of last year, it just drop to below 40% or it we are increasing our trade with the rest of the world, our number one trade partner being the u.s., and our trade with europe is shrinking, largely as the european economy stagnates. we are told, you will never get a trade deal, never get a good trade deal with europe. well, that would be a bit odd, because we export 67 billion pounds worth of goods and services more to us than we to them. so are we really being expected to believe that mrs. merkel will say do not sell bmw to britain as a punishment. or mr. hollande will say to not sell that wine to britain, or do you think the leaders will tell the people, you must have lower profits and higher unemployment to punish the british?
it does not chime with reality. countries do not trade with countries. companies sell to consumers. if they make goods and services at the right quality at the price people want to pay. there are lots of fluctuations in the global economy, currency being one of them. i think people have to be rational about all of this. this nonsense this morning from the cbi that we would lose one million jobs, what they are actually saying is if you look
at the worst-case scenario, you would actually create a million jobs fewer than you might create in the best case scenario the between now and 2030. there are variables in that. >> how is the leave campaign addressing the economic consequences? europe is stagnating. the u.s. is doing ok but no one needs to shop at what is the leave's campaign response to that? dr. fox: it is not risk-free. i think the elements that would provide the so-called shop are not necessarily there. britain is producing trading nations. we had the fastest-growing economy and we are least likely to suffer from some of the shocks that are being undertaken in europe. the biggest problem was with the european union itself, which is much more dependent on selling to britain. so there is an incentive to get a free trade agreement done as quickly as possible. that diminishes our risk. it is almost inconceivable that markets are not pricing in already some of this risk we
have seen, fluctuations in currency. although those tend to self correct recently. in any case, for us, and it is about our ability to prepare for a more global future. i do not view this referendum as being about leaving the eu. i think it is about rejoining the rest of the world. the dying embers think of is increasingly of little importance. again let's leave the politics aside and i will come back to this concept which is
counterproductive. u.k. is such a big market for american experts and vice versa, what would be the point of introducing friction into that relationship western market does not make any sense economically unless you're willing to say we will punish our manufacturers and consumers for something as abstract as the british decision to be members of the european union and have this be in brussels. what is perceived as threat does not go down well. a time to ask year where at the beginning of the week our european allies were telling us how important it was for them that britain stay in the european union, how they would miss us, we would share -- shed tears of britain left. within today's president hollande said they would be unknown consequences if we left.
we were told we would be targeted economically. from the eurozone moderately? ?- really we went from being best friends to a protection racket within several days. if we did not pay in every year that things would happen to us. i'm not sure if it is a great thing to be in an organization that promises a punishment beating if you -- unless you agree to give the money. the something would not go down well from a american perspective. telling the british people they have to do something when it is their own national free will that is being tested. it does not go down well. europe mr. barroso telling us those who want to leave should visit european war cemeteries. correct me if i'm wrong here, but the reason we have the european war cemeteries is because continental europe was unable to contain its extremism
in the 20th century. the growth of communism. we were able to help europe diminish the impact of its own folly twice in the last century to rewrite history in this way. many of us find it offensive. fine, let us stick to the arguments about trade and politics and those who want britain to remain in the eu. let them make the case for super nationalism. let them make the case that we should submerge our identities. i don't think super nationalism has a good track record. the last example i could think of was the soviet union and that did not and that will. -- that well. what is happening in europe at the present time with tensions and tendencies, i think britain is better outside that for all the reasons i have given.
>> let me pull on unity a little bit because a big question mark is issued decisions to leave the u.k. have implications for scotland perhaps initiating a second referendum? some have argued this is not about the eu. it is about the unity of the united kingdom itself. obviously, you have very strong connections and understanding here. -- of the politics. dr. fox: being scottish, i do. when people normally ask my politics, are normally describe them as an ugly constructive free market skeptic. >> that is a strain. dr. fox: at least we have the benefit of clarity. we had a referendum in scotland. the people of scotland voted to remain part of the union.
i don't know which bit of that the scottish nationals did not understand but they lost the referendum. people of scotland voted to be part of the union and this is the decision taken by the union. in the referendum, every vote counts equally. it is equally weighted in a referendum. scottish nationalists have made it clear that whether we are in the eu or not, we will draft another referendum on independence when we can win it. it seems bizarre that people say i don't like being in the eu but i will vote to stay because the scottish nationalists may call another referendum. you end up in the eu you don't like it you have a referendum anyway for the worst of both worlds. we should leave the internal elements aside. frankly, because i am in that kind of mood this morning, you do not hear english politicians
saying that if there is a narrow leave vote in england but it is outweighed in scotland and wales, that they will try to break up the country because they did not like the result of people give them. we live in a union. it is a union decision. we have to accept that decision whatever turns out to be. looking at the polls, none of us can tell at the moment. what they do tell is it is very evenly balanced except when you look at the willingness of voters to go to the polls. those who want to leave have a very high probability of voting whereas those who want to stay have a much lower when. -- one. if the campaign continued, we know it is not very good but we know it would be better to stay inside than outside is hardly a call for arms for voter turnout. >> talk about the security dimension of this.
you touched upon it in your remarks. i look as if a decision is made to leave, i see the u.k. for two years solely focused on a very difficult negotiation, not able to play its role in nato and other international organizations when we have pressing challenges and we need a strong u.k. what is your response to that? how can we through this period -- again, this isn't leave or remain. how do we ensure that the u.k. plays a very strong role in the world? dr. fox: people do make this case that if we end up leaving, we will be so preoccupied we will not be with to do anything else and i believe as a country we can walk and chew gum.
we are able to do more than one thing on the international stage at one time. there are important elements of consequences on the security side, but i think it is being positive in fact. if you look at the nato budget at the present time and how much is contributed by the eu countries who are members of nato, it is a frighteningly small sum. if you ask british audiences how big you think that proportion is, they think 40% or 50%. when you tell them 24% and if you to the u.k. out, it would be 17% whereas the u.s. is contributing 74% to the nato budget, that is ridiculous. the eu is an important part of our security. nato has kept the peace since world war ii, not the european union.
that is not to say that everything about the european union is bad. i don't believe that is true. but nato is the cornerstone of our defense. the trouble with nato in recent years in my view is that it has forgotten its political role. the u.s. has been too happy to hand over a lot of that political roles of the european union, which has a very different global perspective from the u.s.. i think if britain were to be outside the european union will first of all, because european defense is france at that point effectively, it removes the pretensions from the eu that it is the global defense force whether overtly or potentially for the future. i think that would force the u.k. to have a stronger focus on the political role of nato, which i think has been sorely lacking in recent times.
i see no evidence of a forthcoming summit of that being back on the agenda when it ought to be. i don't to the downside that. -- i do not see the downside of that. idc giving much-needed shot therapy. i do see it getting much-needed -- shock therapy to the remaining countries in their european union that they better start thinking about their own security because there is not going to be the pretense of the u.k. umbrella. >> president obama in an article that appeared in the atlantic recently complained that the u.k. and other allies have not paid their fair share. do you believe the u.k. has paid his fair share in global security? dr. fox: we are one of only four countries meeting its gdp commitment. i would like to see it done at a higher level. i also want to see budgetary consolidation in the u.k. you have european countries, a large number of them and i would not name them whose contributions are verging on laughable in terms of wider
european security. i sent along with bob gates to our european allies and say you him and him and cannot have it him cannot have it both ways. you cannot complain that you are very heavily influenced by american foreign security policy him and him and then fields when your hands in your pockets to develop -- fail to put your hands in your pockets to develop a voice. you cannot expect to have a free ride on the back of american taxpayers which a lot of european countries have done. i would exempt the u.k. from that. there was a bit of irritation that we were being lumped along with other countries who have not been pulling their weight, particularly in the likes to the way the u.k. has alongside the u.s. in afghanistan and iraq to be lectured we did not play our part in our security.
>> some suggested that the one person that will be celebrating a leave decision will be vladimir putin. dr. fox: well, i don't think that his invasion of georgia or his annexation of crimea or impressions into ukraine were pulled up by the members of the european union unless i am greatly mistaken. this is one of the great calculations. we have the strength of putin because of serial appeasement by the west.
you had a cyber attack on estonia. he invaded georgia. we did very little, and he still has troops there today. in crimea, we did some sanctions. it is our weakness to respond. putin, it has emboldened him. one of the key factors is british european union involvement is fanciful. >> now it is time to get out to the referendum. there is a lawsuit being put for by british patriots the have lived outside of written for the last 15 years. we are confident it will be held on june 23. dr. fox: it will be held june 23. a lot of people wanted to be held later in september. we have elections in london. a new mayor in london. we have scottish elections and other local elections and political parties did not want the referendum people for these
elections for a lot of conservatives in particular, they are not actively fighting the local elections because they are out fighting the referendum. that has been in other little piece inside the parties honor. it will be june 23. it is a very big day. the pollsters and academics tell us that for all of the pressure that is being arrived by this, that we can expect a relatively poll. heather: this is a historic vote. dr. fox: i think europe energizes people who care about europe. a lot of folks see it as an abstract pursuit. that does look to be what the polling is telling us at the moment. if you are looking at the scale, a very high proportion of those who say they want to leave our
between 8-10 -- are between eight-10. it does look like a big differential turnout so my guess would be a high turnout. -- a highain below turnout favors remain. a low turnout favors leave. i think that is where we are going. it will be june 23. when we wake of june 24, whatever happens, things will not be the same. heather: in the london elections, there are a couple of other regional elections, will they tell us anything? is this truly local? dr. fox: they will tell us nothing about the referendum. what is interesting about scotland compared to other parts of the u.k., there is a very large don't know voters. my suspicion is a lot of that is i want to say rather than just don't know given the pressure from all the parties in scotland. i think a lot of voters want to leave with we are not willing to tell the pollsters. in the last few weeks, there has been one other movement you
alluded to at the beginning. there is a much better guide than where people are putting opinions, and that is where people are putting their money. movements from what is a very heavy remain vote with the bookies to more of a shift. there is no doubt there is a real change going on. the question is how many voters are interested, and how far does the tide come in? when you asked me the crystal ball question -- heather: we will do that at the very end. the top three issues on voters's minds, migration number one. europe or economy and the impact. sub say the external events may shape the referendum as much as the internal deliberations on it. how is migration -- how is its
implications for the syrian migration crisis that europe is expressing right now? hi any thoughts as we look at migration questions as we go to june 23? dr. fox: well, one of the reasons that the remain campaign did not want a september referendum was that he did not want the summer of migrant pictures across our tv screens. i think it is too late for that. we have seen the same pictures again and again. it looks like europe has lost control of its southern border. him himhim that will also be very controversial in the u.k. but the events in paris and cologne very widely covered in the u.k. media.
the information being if we don't have proper control of our borders, we're much more porous to threats that might come in. i am open to have a point system for the u.k. i believe immigration can bring the economic benefits if it is the right immigration. what we have seen in europe is that it has not been an attempt to save fine, -- say fine, let's pick the people who will be best served, whether they are refugees and so on. britain has a different policy from the eu because we said we will take syrian refugees, but we will only take them from you and can't -- from u.n. camps where we know who they are. mrs. merkel is in trouble because she said we will take whoever runs fastest furthest and that left trouble for children being stranded on the
other side of the situation. you have a lot of single young man who could get to germany quickly before the germans eventually put up the gates. that has been a big worry. it a lot people's minds, it is who are the migrants coming at europe and what will that impact have? when you look at the u.k., you have clearly the best performing european economies at the present time leaving the euro zone wall behind. to put that in context, we are constantly being told in the referendum in britain that membership of the european union is key to our economic success, which does beg the question why is it then that over 20 countries with the highest unemployment, 16 are in the european union, and why of the top 10, only one is not in the european union that is turkey?
if it is so great for economic performance, why is it not working for almost everybody else? the governor of the bank of england told us that britain gets the lion's share of edwards investment u.k., which must be because of our membership of the eu. think about the logic of that. if we were getting inward investments because of the eu, we would get a proportionate share of investments to monopolize your. we are getting -- investments to lion's share. we are getting the lion's share because we are doing something different. i think it is driving people into the leave camp. saying we cannot believe some of the stuff we're being told. on economics or anything else. heather: i have monopolized you much too long. let us bring in the audience. if you can state your name and affiliation, we have microphones available. we will collect a few questions and let you weigh in. at the very end, we will get your prediction.
with that, i saw a hand up here. thank you. >> tip. i want to frame the question a little differently. if they vote goes through, the usage of potential rebalancing of britain to the commonwealth, specifically canada, australia, and other countries. historically prior to the european union, that was the focus of british trade and investment. heather: wonderful. we will take that one right here. thank you. >> hi. my name is evan reed. one of the things you mentioned was that there would be this rally that the president is going to be participating in.
i am in the process of putting together the visit, and i know nothing about such a rally. he will be having lunch with a green, a bilateral meeting with cameron, and a press conference. if there are questions about exit, he will express his views on that. he will be doing a public event as he does whatever he goes. as far as i know, the major theme is not the exit. i think maybe this rally idea is a rumor that has been started because it seems like some people would be afraid of him coming in speaking although i am not sure why they would be. we recognize completely that this is a question for the british voters to decide. they will vote. we will not. however, you alluded to the fact that maybe none of our business. we do think it is our business because we think it has to do with strengthening the transatlantic relationship and the relationship between the u.s. and the u.k.
so as british voters go on the 23rd and drop their ballots in the box, we would like them to be about to consider what their cousins across the ocean have to say. we are not planning on telling people how to vote. my question for you is can you give me examples of how it would be in the best interest of the united states of america for the u.k. to leave the eu? thanks very much. heather: i think we will let you have at it. dr. fox: first of all, there is an emotional attachment to the commonwealth in the u.k., but our external relations will have to be based on our national interests. that will be economics and trade. we will want to be able to exploit market as best we can. we want to free ourselves from as much european regulation as possible to give ourselves the maximum freedom to operate in a global market with huge
opportunities. if you look at britain's trading performance at the countries where our trade is growing, the countries you see, obviously china and india, as we are looking at our turkey and africa and australia, and none of the countries are in the european union the present time. i see it as a huge economic opportunity. it would require us to rebuild our diplomatic services, which have been increasingly swallowed up into the european union's service and i think that would be a good thing because i want us to be free to project our own values as widely as possible. that is more possible in some countries than others because of a historic linkages with the u.k., which many countries face. i like to hear there is no rally. that is the best news i have heard today. not because i think it will help you remain campaign anyway but it would have been a terrible breach of protocol.
i do however go back to the point i made. the arrangements for the european union in terms of loss of sovereignty, lawmaker, border control our arrangements the united states would never tolerate for the united states. being told we should stay in an arrangement that is so optimal for the u.k. because it might sue the u.s. is not an argument that will be done well. with you to make decisions that are good for us. our allies need to learn to live with those decisions whatever they turn out to be. it will give potential new impetus to the political elements of nato. we will not be so tied into contests of european foreign security policy, which i think are usually overblown. -- hugely overblown. i think it will give britain a chance to develop as an exporting and importing market
and in the global economy in ways. we are being lowered with interferences in our market performance. when you look at the laws the european union is stacking up, for the impediments to our concept the free market goes. i am a conservative free-market liberal. i have not a social democrat, and i don't want to live in a social democratic european dictated economy, which i think is clearly failing. the direction of travel will continue to do so. we want to be free from those restrictions. i think one of the reasons it will benefit the u.s. is that will apply soccer of each of the european union. it was aged unless you want to lose other free market members, you better start reforming. i will tell you an anecdote as to why that is important. i was in an event in bruges
before the last european union and i said to them more than a third of european voters at these elections are either going to vote for parties that will want to leave the european union or destroy the european union with the rise of the political right in the political left. i said there's this trend not where you? -- does this trend not worry you? if one third want to destroy it, that means two thirds are happy. that is where we should continue at the present time. that logic says that until 15.01 if i want to destroy the entity, you would not listen to the voice of the opposition. that seems utterly crazy.
that is the direction they are going in. a british exit will provide a shock to the body politics in europe to show that what happens when members become disillusioned with the project. i see that as a huge benefit to the people of the european union as well because despite what the prime minister and other say, there is no reformed european union offer in this referendum. heather: the question is does it matter to the british people and the american president thinks it should or should not do? for me, that is the challenge is thinking through how president obama will frame this. we already know we want a strong u.k. and strong eu, but does it matter what america thinks? it was suggested we don't need europe because we have the united states.
we have the u.s.-u.k. special relationship. what we have been hearing from the administration is do not think you can lean on us. we want you with your. how does that reaction reverberate back into british public opinion about what the president says? how does that work? dr. fox: electorally, i would not think it is a big performance. american opinion is not necessarily the opinion of the administration. there is more for the administration to think of that the european union. and economic trading opinion and american export of any is something we want to take into
account. you have a week and failing eu. maybe it is not possible to have the two at the present time. in that case, i want britain to be a free and independent country because of the things we have done in our country is what we have been great to do them. subjugating our sovereignty is not something i believe is britain's destiny. in my parents' generation what they voted for the eu, in my view, the soul that our birthright to make your own laws in our own country. i am not willing to do that to the next generation. heather: it is the witching hour. what do you think will happen at the close of the day on june 23? dr. fox: it is entirely turnout dependent. any turnout about 60%, we will remain. any turnout below 60%, we leave. heather: well, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first.
thank you, dr. fox. this has been a very lively and stimulating discussion. thank you so much. this is part of a series csis will be producing open till june 23. we will have other voices but we are so delighted that you kick us off. and a very important decision. they have no say but it has an impact. i feel the same we about the u.k. referendum. i have no say but it will have a big impact on my work. we will look forward to watching the outcome. please join me in thanking dr. fox. [applause]
tuesday morning, marsha blackburn from tennessee on president obama's trip to cuba and her work on the panel of infant lives and women's history month. virginia, who is the cochair of the democrat coalition on a report released designed to promote to growing the economy and achieving political consensus. we will also talk about today's house hearing on heroin and or avoid abuse -- and opioid abuse. tuesday, securities and exchange commission chair mary jo white testifies on the president's sec budget request. that is live on tuesday on c-span2.
lewsury secretary jack testifies tuesday on the state of the international financial system. live coverage of his remarks before the house financial services committee start at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton gave the keynote at the american israel public affairs committee annual policy conference. she focused on the importance of strengthening the u.s. israel relationship and criticized republican candidate donald trump. this is 40 minutes.
[applause] sec. clinton: thank you so much. [applause] it is wonderful to be here and see so many friends. i have spoken at a lot of apac conferences in the past, but this has to be one of the biggest yet and there are so many young people here. thousands of college students. [applause] from hundreds of campuses around the country. i think we should all give them a hand for being here, and beginning their commitment to this important cause. [applause] you will keep the u.s.-israel relationship going strong. you know, as a senator from new
york, and secretary of state -- [applause] -- i have had the privilege of working closely with aipac members to strengthen and even -- deepen american ties with israel. we may not have always agreed on every detail, but we have always shared an unwavering, unshakable commitment to our alliance, and to israel's future as a secure and democratic homeland for the jewish people. [applause] your support helped us expand security and intelligence, cooperation, developed the missile defense system, build a global coalition to impose the
toughest sanctions in history on iran, and so much more. since my first visit to israel 35 years ago, i have returned many times, and made many friends. i have worked with and learned from some of israel great leaders, although i don't think someone ever forgive me for banishing him to the white house balcony when he wanted to smoke. [laughter] now i am a candidate for president. [applause] i know that all of you understand what is at stake in this election. our next president will walk into the oval office next january, and immediately face a world of both perils we must
meet with strength and skill, and opportunities we must seize and build on. the next president will sit down at that desk, and start making decisions that will affect both the lives and livelihoods of every american, and the security of our friends around the world. we have to get this right. as aipac members, you understand that while the turmoil of the middle east presents enormous challenge and complexity, walking away is not an option. [applause] candidates for president who think the united states can outsource middle east security to dictators, or that america no longer has vital national interests at stake in this region, are dangerously wrong.
[applause] it would be a serious mistake for the united states to abandon our responsibilities, or cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to anyone else. [applause] as we gather here, three evolving threats -- iran's continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to delegitimize israel on the world stage, are converging to make the u.s.- israel alliance more indispensable than ever. [applause]
we have to combat all these trends, with even more intense security and diplomatic cooperation. united states and israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever, and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries, and to advance our shared values. [applause] this is especially true at a time when israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings, and vehicle attacks at home. parents worry about letting their children walk down the street. families live in fear. a few weeks ago, a young american veteran and west point
graduate named taylor forest was murdered by palestinian terrorists. these attacks must end immediately. [applause] palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence, stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs, and stopped paying rewards to their families. [applause] because we understand the threat israel faces, we know we can never take for granted the strength of our alliance or the success of our efforts.
today, americans and israelis face momentous choices that will shape the future of our relationship, and of both our nations. the first choice is this -- are we prepared to take the u.s. israel alliance to the next level? this relationship has always been stronger and deeper than the headlines might lead you to believe. our work together to develop the iron dome saved many israeli lives when hamas rockets began to fly. [applause] i saw its effectiveness firsthand in 2012, when i worked with prime minister netanyahu to negotiate a cease-fire in gaza. if i am fortunate enough to be a
-- if i am fortunate enough to be elected president, we will ensure we have a strong and enduring national interest in israel's security. [applause] we will never allow israel's adversaries to think a wedge can be driven between us. [applause] when we have differences, as any friends do, we will work to resolve them quickly and respectfully. we will also be clear that the united states has an enduring interest in and commitment to a more peaceful, more stable, more secure middle east, and we will step up our efforts to achieve that outcome. indeed, at a time of unprecedented chaos and conflict in the region, america, america
needs and israel strong enough to deter and defend against its enemies, strong enough to work with us to tackle shared challenges, and strong enough to take all steps in the pursuit of peace. [applause] that's why i believe we must take our alliance to the next level. i hope a new 10 year defense memorandum of understanding is concluded as soon as possible, to meet israel's security needs far into the future. [applause] that will also send a clear message to israel's enemies, that the united states and israel stand together, united.
it is also why, as president, i will make a firm commitment to ensure israel maintains its qualitative military edge. [applause] the united states should provide israel with the most sophisticated defense technology, so it can deter and stop any threats. that includes bolstering israeli missile defenses with new systems, like the arrow three and david sling. and we should work together to develop better tunnel detection, technologies to prevent arms smuggling kidnapping, and , terrorist attacks. [applause] one of the first things i will do in office is invite the israeli prime minister to visit the white house. [applause]
and i will send a delegation from the pentagon and the joint chiefs to israel for early consultations. let's also expand our collaboration beyond security. together, we can build an even more vibrant culture of innovation, that tightens the link between silicon valley and israeli tech companies and entrepreneurs. [applause] there is much americans can learn from israel, from cyber security to energy security, to
water security, and just on an every day people to people level. it is especially important to continue fostering relationships between american and israeli young people, who may not always remember our shared past. they are the future of our relationship, and we have to do more to promote that. many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, known as bds. [applause] particularly at a time when anti-semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in europe. we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate, and undermine israel and the jewish people.
[applause] i have been sounding the alarm for a while now. as i wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major american jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against this. many of the proponents have demonized israeli scientists and intellectuals, even students. to all the college students who may have encountered this on campus, i hope you stay strong, keep speaking out. don't let anyone silence you, bully you, or try to shut down debate, especially in places of learning like colleges and universities. [applause]
anti-semitism has no place in any civilized society, not in america, not in europe, not anywhere. all of this work, defending israel's legitimacy, expanding security and economic ties, taking our alliance to the next level, depends on electing a president with a deep, personal commitment to israel's future as a secure democratic jewish state, and to america's responsibilities as a global leader. tonight, you will hear from candidates with very different visions of american leadership in the region and around the world. you will get a glimpse of a potential u.s. foreign-policy
that would insult our allies, not engage them, and embolden our adversaries, not defeat them. for the security of israel and the world, we need america to remain a respected global leader, committed to defending and advancing the international order. an america able to block efforts to isolate or attack israel. the alternative is unthinkable. [applause] yes, we need steady hands. not a president who says he's neutral on monday, pro-israel on tuesday, and who knows what on wednesday, because everything is negotiable! [applause]
well, my friends, israel's security is nonnegotiable. [applause] i have sat in israeli hospital rooms, holding the hands of men and women whose bodies and lives were torn apart by terrorist bombs. i have listened to doctors describe the shrapnel left in a leg, and arm, or even a head. that's why i feel so strongly that america can't ever be neutral when it comes to israel's security or survival.
we can't be neutral when rockets rained down on residential neighborhoods, when civilians are stabbed in the street, when suicide bombers target the innocent. some things are not negotiable. and anyone who doesn't understand that has no business being our president. [applause] the second choice we face is whether we will have the strength and commitment to confront the adversaries that threaten us, especially iran. for many years, we have all been rightly focused on the existential danger of iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. after all, this remains an extremist regime, that threatens
to annihilate israel. that's why i led the diplomacy to impose crippling sanctions and force iran to the negotiating table, and why i ultimately supported the agreement that has put a lid on its nuclear program. today, iran's enriched uranium is all but gone, thousands of centrifuges have stopped spinning, their potential breakout time has increased, and new verification measures are in place to help us deter and detect any cheating. i really believe the united states, israel, and the world are safer as a result. but still, as i laid out in a speech at the brookings institution last year, it is not good enough to trust and verify. our approach must be distrust
and verify. [applause] this deal must come with vigorous enforcement, strong monitoring, clear consequences for any violations, and a broader strategy to confront iran's aggression across the region. we cannot forget that tehran's fingerprints are on nearly every conflict across the middle east, lebanon, to yemen. the guard corps and its proxies are attempting to establish a position on the goan, on which they continue to fund palestinian terrorists. in lebanon, hezbollah is amassing an arsenal of increasingly sophisticated
rockets and artillery that well may be able to hit every city in israel. tonight, you will hear a lot of rhetoric from the other candidates about iran, but there is a big difference between talking about holding tehran accountable, and actually doing it. our next president has to be able to hold together or global partnership and impose consequences for even the smallest violations of this agreement. [applause] we must maintain the legal and diplomatic architecture to turn all the sanctions back on, if needed. if i'm elected, the leaders of iran will have no doubt that if we see any indications that they are violating their commitment not to seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons, the united states will act to stop it, and we will do so with force if necessary.
[applause] iranian provocations like the recent ballistic missile test also are unacceptable, and should be answered firmly and quickly including with more , sanctions. [applause] those missiles were stamped with words declaring, and i quote, "israel should be wiped from the pages of history." we know they could reach israel, or hit the tens of thousands of american troops stationed in the middle east. this is a serious danger, and it demands a serious response. [applause] the united states must also continue to enforce existing sanctions, and impose additional sanctions as needed, on iran and
the issue. israelis and palestinians could continue toward greater cooperation between israel and arabs. i know how hard all of this is. i remember what it took just to convene prime minister netanyahu and president abbas for the three sessions of direct face-to-face peace talks in 2010 , that i presided over. but israelis and palestinians cannot give up on the hope of peace. that will only make it harder later.
all of us need to look for opportunities to create the conditions for progress, including by taking positive actions that can rebuild trust, like the recent constructive meetings between the israelis and palestinian finance ministers, aiming to bolster the palestinian economy, or the daily on the ground security cooperation between israel and the palestinian authorities. but at the same time, all of us must condemn actions that set back the cause of peace. terrorism should never be encouraged or celebrated, and children should not be taught to hate in schools. that poisons the future. [applause] everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to settlements. america has an important role to play in supporting peace