tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 11, 2016 10:00am-1:01pm EDT
topics we mentioned today. host: things to all of our guests and the cdc for allowing us to bring you this program today. was the right back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great monday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up in about three hours, live coverage and discussion of the future defense department personnel policy. brad carson is a former acting director of the pentagon's personnel office who left his post while waiting for senate confirmation for over a
year. live coverage gets underway at 1:00 eastern. tonight at 8:00 eastern, women in military combat and its applications. a marine lieutenant explains why it took her 20 years to qualify as an expert shooter. know thatcruiter, you the standards -- you said you were not a good shot until last year. what stops you from being a good shot? >> i was convinced i was in a good shot, and when i told myself i was going to hold my recruits to a higher standard, it had to start with me. i forced myself to go tv electronic pistol range for months so i could become more confident with my weapon, and it worked. so it can be done. almost 20. >> 20 years of service and attribute that long, the basic school -- we went to basic school together. we all qualified right then and
there and there was nobody telling you at that time you could and should. >> clearly you are not familiar with language expectancy. sir butroll your eyes, if women are told through language, well, women can't shoot -- >> i was never told that through my entire 4 years. >> you may not have been told that, but if you look at the decades of shooting results, it is clear that was the case. when we changed the dynamic we saw the results. >> tonight's program on women in, it also includes current and former military officials looking at troop morale, recruitment, and training. the program starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> madam secretary, we proudly votes tof our delegate the next president of the united .tates
this morning's "washington journal" program focused on centers for disease control on this segment is about funding for vaccine-preventable threats. we will show he this until british prime ministers david cameron makes a statement about some of his overseas investments, part of the panama papers revelations. that will happen in about half an hour and we will have it live for you on c-span.
guest: it is important for the american public to stay aware of the zika virus. it can be linked to harm for pregnant women, certainly hard for the baby. you want to make sure people know what is going on. we are seeing increased in disease in puerto rico in particular that has us concern. we have met with over 30 states to help them get ready. host: who is going to be at this meeting today? will the president be there? guest: no, this will be an update for the press. host: the present budget for the cdc from just under $7 billion. how much of that this year is going to go to that zika fight? guest: there were not resources
within the zika regular budget but the administration has adapted some of the resources that were designated for ebola or the strategic national stockpile or some other uses to do with the emergency right away while congress considers the request. frieden, head of the cdc, has exposed concerns about using ebola funds for the zika fight. guest: you know, ebola is not over. there is still active disease in guinea and liberia and we know that we will not be lucky enough to have just one disease problem at a time. there is a very big yellow fever outbreak in and below right now. angola right now. we need to be able to address multiple threats at the same time. ist said, the zika problem
that our doorstep, it is in puerto rico. pregnant women are terrified their of the harm that may occur to their babies. host: it is celebrating its 70th birthday this year. what were the ebolas back in 1946 when the cdc started? when the cdc started, really out of an agency that was dealing with malaria, and malaria was one of the big concerns, but other infectious diseases like smallpox were also an issue. fortunately, we have eradicated smallpox. not something you care about every day. we are still dealing with malaria but also new things like zika at cdc.
host: when article i recalled you are virus hunter. guest: i spent years working on infectious diseases and vaccine preventable diseases. a lot of work on influenza, a lot of work on unusual viruses like the acute respiratory syndrome virus that affected china and toronto and other countries in 2003. but really, i'm about prevention and that is to keep our of my career. host: the doctor is with us for the next 40 minutes on "washington journal." the lines are split regionally. if you're in the central original time zones host: with zika, how close are we to a zika vaccine? always want to
vaccine when things are new and scary but they take years to develop it these to take 10 or 15 years to develop but with some new technologies we have the opportunity to fast-track that. the nih has candidate vaccines four zika but we won't have one ready for general use in the best case two years after that. it takes a while to do the studies to evaluate a potential vaccine, but there is also a regulatory process, and i would fda has been committed to rapid review of emergency products. last year, we were testing -- the fda was excellent in looking at all of the proposals rapidly. a fast-track review will speed up the time where the materials about the vaccine are being looked at.
you know, everybody is keen to get a vaccine for zika virus. what we need to do now is everything we can to protect pregnant women in the meantime. that means reducing mosquito bites with repellent a long sleeves, long pants. that means insect control and mosquito control. in puerto rico they are beginning that now. it really means good mosquito surveillance. you know whether they are resistant to the different pesticides. we are hopeful for a vaccine but we have a lot to worry about right now. host: in terms of the funding efforts for zika, what is the better way to spend our money right now? is it on the vaccine research or mosquito bite prevention and monitoring efforts? guest: we need to do both. we won't get a vaccine if we don't invest in that right now. the mosquito surveillance and mosquito control is urgent. it is actually an emergency. the big emergency plays in puerto rico.
we need to learn as much of the can about the virus so we can get better information to pregnant women about what to expect and how they can protect themselves. host: the latest numbers in the united states. travel-associated zika viruses, 346 cases in the united states. cdc with an updated map and numbers they put out. these numbers from april 6, last week to -- last week. explain what a travel associated zika virus is. guest: about 40 million people travel to south america, central america, caribbean every year from the united states. what we see is that travelers -- they can get bitten by a mosquito infected with the virus and come back and develop symptoms. so far in the continental u.s. the only people who have developed zika virus infection have been people who have traveled or a small number of people who have had sexual
contact with someone who traveled and got zika. if not gotten mosquito-transmitted virus in the united states but we have had that in puerto rico. and the virgin islands and american samoa. the mosquito that can spread zika virus is present in many states widespread in the southern part , of the u.s. and that is where we are worried we might see local transmission this summer. host: we are taking your questions this morning with dr. anne schuchat. sioux falls, south dakota. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, can a whole group of people get posttraumatic syndrome brought on by the federal government because they are taking half our pensions away and we are too old to get a part-time job
and a lot of us are in such poor health that we could not get a part-time job even if we wanted to? guest: posttraumatic stress syndrome is a difficult condition and there are many challenges in life that can trigger it. i am sorry for your situation and i hope the best for you. host: we go to john in rockville, maryland. john, you are on "washington journal." ma'am, i have two questions. in the hospitals and nursing homes in this country, there seems to be a large percentage of foreign input with respect to care. does the cdc get involved with that? my second question is, is the cdc considered to be a part of the executive branch of the government? what is the cdc exactly as an entity? guest: thanks so much.
the cdc works closely with the health care system. one of our priorities is to strengthen the link between public health and health care and to make sure there is quality services around. we don't accredit the hospitals but we do track things like hospital-associated infections and have made real progress in that area. the cdc is part of the executive branch. the largest part of the federal government headquartered outside washington, dc. our headquarters is in atlanta, georgia. host: how many centers are there? guest: 10 centers at the cdc. we cover the waterfront. we were a communicable disease center. now we are the centers for disease control and prevention. what we cover is infectious diseases and noninfectious disease. environmental health, injuries, occupational illness as well as global health.
host: what is the role of the principal deputy director? i pretty much cover everything around. our workforce is truly extraordinary. nurses,ts, engineers, public health responders committed to protecting americans 20 47. -- 24/seven. host: dr. anne schuchat is here to take your questions and comments for the next half hour of "washington journal." host: terry is up next in michigan. caller: i have a few comments. they have cut the budget so much on research and for the zika disease from which i think has obama has a request for extra couple billion dollars for it and it is held up in congress. i just believe there are so many
people now and there is so much money for drugs, companies, the incentives not to do a lot of research. you on seven or eight drugs and you can't get off of them because they get you kind of worked on them. or 15a mum on 12 different drugs. it is just pitiful. too many drugs, not enough money for research. this lady here -- people like this lady here is my hero. ,hat helps the needy and stuff not the trumps and the cruzes. people like her, god bless her. guest: thank you so much. research and innovation is vital. i agree with you that we do need to invest in that area. for the zika virus, right now we're tackling a mosquito that is quite difficult and without
investment and animation we will not -- innovation, we will not have more effective ways to control the mosquito. we need to invest in multiyear studies that is a critical to understand the long-term effects when a baby is born after the zika virus takes effect in the womb. host: he said a little under $7 billion, the budget request. how does that breakdown in terms of how the cdc uses that money? guest: you know, we pretty much have infectious disease work, not infectious disease work, occupational health, chronic diseases, a very big challenge. global health. and then preparedness, public health preparedness and response, that has been a critical program at cdc, the 2001, 2001 -- predating 9/11. billion, just under
$7 billion request. what are the things that go into that? guest: it is a real principal at cdc that we support state and a showovernment to make that communities are safe, healthy, and secure. to supportrogram local government preparedness and that has been vital for all hazards preparedness earthquake or hurricane or pandemic or something like the ebola virus. host: tim is up next from michigan. yes, i think the major problem with health care in today's society is that doctors and hospitals kill 440,000 people year in which is equal to the amount of malaria deaths worldwide. and if -- host: how, tim? caller: perhaps they should be sent back to school if they don't graduate in the top half the class. host: do you mean mistakes and
hospitals? caller: yes. guest: you know, the quality of health care is really important issue. one of the things cdc is focusing on his health care-associated infections. you're going to a hospital to get well. you don't want to leave it with a new infection. we have been making progress with simple approaches like checklists, when the lines are placed or when catheters are placed, really working hard to make sure that there are routines and protocols and ways in the intensive care unit and the other wards of the hospital to make sure people don't get infections that can be prevented. we think there is a lot more progress we can make but there has been progress in hospital. is up next in grand junction, colorado. caller: good morning. stdave been in the hiv a
prevention business for 30 years. what i see happening with this women are going to be demanding men wear condoms to matter what. no matter what. so i see the sales of condoms go up around the world. g've got my condom-vendin machines in over 80 countries around the world. host: check in grand junction, colorado, on the prevention side. guest: yes, we were surprised to find that sexual transmission of the zika virus was more common than we had expected. i was an early finding as we virusd to track zika among travelers. since that time we have put out strong recommendations about use of condoms to prevent the sexual transmission of the virus. what we recommend is that men returning from travel to a zika- affected area use condoms to protect their front of it if women are pregnant -- to protect
their partner. if women are pregnant and a partner has been shopping and has a history of zika infection, they use condoms throughout the pregnancy picked the most important thing with zika is to protect pregnant women. for most women who are not andnant, zika is a rare there are no chronic problems. the principal focus of our chronic health efforts. twitter, what on is a specific symptom zika patients have different from other viruses? guest: the constellation of symptoms the zika virus causes are common. fever, rash, headache, joint ache, tiredness pit not really very specific. cancan have some redeyes or justify this. it is the fever and a rash that are the main symptoms. some people don't even have symptoms with the zika virus.
we have developed new laboratory test we have been shipping out so that the state and city health departments can run the special lab test particularly for pregnant women coming back from a zika-affected area. we recommended that they be tested in the first trimester and again in the third trimester. because the symptoms are so nonspecific, laboratory tests can be important. host: one other question that preventing mosquito bites from twitter. why doesn't the cdc approved the use of ddt, since it was proven safe? they could cut these mosquito diseases down safely. guest: there are several insecticides approved that are recommended right now and there are others that are being looked at. a think it is going to be tough mosquito to control. dicate it but we want to reduce mosquito bites to
women in the hotspots where they are breeding. host: is this type of mosquito temperature control? guest: this is a daytime biter. it lives inside and outside the house. it survives with very little water. with lots of mosquitoes you have to dump out large containers of water, but this one can survive in march circumstances -- harsh circumstances. the extent half and still have them skeeters. we think this is going to be taking a very concerted multidisciplinary task. host: tennessee, where jackie is waiting. caller: good morning. -- goesion is about back to what we were talking about before. i would like to get the cdc's opinion about it. i'm a chronic pain patient and right now i am on morphine. doctor won't right prescription for hydrocodone
because of others tensions and she doesn't want to lose her license, which i can understand --because of all the restrictions and she doesn't want to lose her license, which i can understand it but the ones andhe market, like cdd oil -- one of them is illegal in tennessee. but they are for pain. the cdd oil is legal in all 50 states, but they are coming after that now. why is it that the alternative to pain control are being theeted as well since chronic pain issue is real, and i'm in recovery from alcohol so i do watch everything that i take in. what are thes your opinion about these alternative drugs?
guest: it is a difficult issue and as you know from your personal suffering, it can be life long and challenging. one thing we see at the cdc is a tremendous rising debts from prescription drug overdoses. when we look into this issue, it appears that opiate prescribing has really soared the past 15 years. we've seen a quadrupling of describing for opiates and quadrupling of accidental deaths overdose. recently the cdc issued new prescribing guidelines for physicians and other primary care practitioners intended to help them really reassess when they are starting a person on opiate painkillers, really do think about what the long-term goals are. visit improving function campaign? -- is it improving unction and pain? on the other hand, we do know that some people will get
started on medications and we urge clinicians to start low and go slow to monitor people carefully. there is a very small margin between safe and unsafe use of the medicines, and unfortunately, so many families around the country have lost loved ones to that. that is with the cdc has been focusing on with the prescribing issue. we know there's more research ,eeded ineffective pain control alternatives like behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and exercise can be promising. other pharmaceuticals as well. host: i want to get your thoughts on a topic brought up likable viewers in the first -- a couple of our viewers in the first segment of "washington journal." at least 2 brought up that they think the incentives in the country are wrong, especially on opiate addictions. is type two patient satisfaction and no patient is what is safe air satisfied if they experience pain while they
are in the hospital. how do you cut down on opiate prescription to and make that point to doctors with this system in place? much, we hear that so that if you say yes you get more and more these medicines. it turns out that clinicians are not really rated by patients whether they are getting a medicine or not. the clinicians think they are. leaving that tackling the problem -- we think that tackling the problem is important. we are working with partners on getting into that because we think that how you measure quality of care can drive care and you don't want those measures to drive care down instead of up. host: christie in providence, rhode island. you are on with dr. anne schuchat. caller: i have a two-part question. i am a mom of some teenagers. about zika, i'm wondering if
that is a disease we have seen before. my second part of my question is if there is a cure found, will there be any push to offer it in schools like middle schools or high schools because of a sexual transmitted disease aspect of it? guest: the zika virus was first discovered in 1927. but we didn't really -- in 1947. but we didn't really see outbreaks of it until 2007 and we have never seen an outbreak like what is going on now. we did not realize until this year or late 2015 that this virus appears to be linked to birth defects. that's really why it's getting so much attention. in terms of the teenage population, that is a great question. the one virus that is similar to zika in terms of being a common virus that causes fever and rash but occasionally can cause birth defects is rubella, or german measles. the way we have prevented german
measles or rubella is through vaccination. actually vaccination of teenagers, and now we -- initially vaccination of teenagers, and now we routinely vaccinate babies at 12 months of life and a second dose at four to five years. it is possible that the vaccine that gets developed against the zika virus would end up given to teenagers before they are in that reproductive age. of course, we have to get a vaccine and it has to work first. quite likely if we get an effective vaccine it will be recommended for travelers. it might be used widespread in regions of puerto rico where the virus can circulate. host: your area of expertise was immunizations, vaccinations. what do you say to folks who are concerned that we over-vaccinate our children in this country? that ongoing discussion that seems to crop up every few months or years. guest: it is important for parents to ask questions and make sure they are comfortable with the care their children are getting. what i can tell you is vaccines save lives. before we were using the
childhood vaccines we had thousands and thousands of deaths a year. actually, the last 20 years of vaccinating children in america has prevented about three quarters of one million deaths vaccine preventable diseases and saved - about $1.4 trillion. as a physician and public health expert, i strongly recommend vaccinating your children. they how hard is it in make an political environment to get a new vaccine mandate? guest: the outbreak of measles associated with disney sparked a new dialogue in this country. we saw a change in the conversation in many states. some states have been pushing to loosen up the requirements for measles vaccinations in schools. what we saw after the measles outbreak was an outpouring of concern for the innocent bystanders. >> you can watch the rest of this "washington journal" segment on the cdc on our website. go to cspan.org.
we are going to leave this to go to the british house of commons as prime minister david cameron is about to make a statement on the panama papers and offshore banking. try it to the statement, members are discussing of the business. -- prior to the semi, members are discussing other business. the issue the is honorable gentleman has raised with me previously and i'm happy to continue to discuss this with him and your parliamentary group. andrly there are agency other mechanisms that are available but we will continue to ensure we have a high-quality visa service. >> doubts johnson. >> the speaker is right that the police argument more powers and of course from the investigatory powers, but with greater powers should surely come greater responsibility to will the home secretary confirmed to the house that the proper safeguards will remain in place to ensure that the police have the support of
the general public? i'm happy to give my honorable friend that assurance with crucially, the double lock authorization level be available for the use of the most intrusive hours, but also the work we have done to ensure the stop and searches properly used and properly targeted, and the work we have done to identify how tasers are being used and other constraint is being used so that the police need the sensitive powers. the people want to know that they are being used properly. months,the past 12 uniformed police officers have blocked from history while violent crime including assault and possession of a dangerous weapon have increased by 13%. 10 days ago, mr. speaker, there was an attempted drive-by shooting in my constituency. this situation in a london
suburb is totally acceptable and very frightening for residents that there can be no doubt that the hollowing out is putting public safety at risk. what is the minister intend to do about the situation? >> what we intend to do with the help of the chancellors to ensure that there is funding and not cut funding by 10% like the labour party asked for. incredibly so -- neighborhood saiding, i repeat what i earlier. if you look at the statistics, mr. speaker, if you want more police on the beat, vote conservative. marine units provide vital crime prevention and with the marine environment, the isle of wight, will my right honorable friend that this vital crime prevention service is protected under current reforms?
>> thank you, mr. speaker. my honorable friend races are very important point and shows the variety of tasks and variety of skills and capabilities. i'm very conscious of the requirements in relation to the marine capabilities that they need. it is, of course, and operational matter for the police concerning how they spend a budget and what they use that on. what is crucial is that my friend the chancellor has ensured we can protect the budget over the next four years. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i -- leagues and sibling because of purchase was going on inside the camp. if she agrees with me that measures should be proportionate to the situation and ensure refugees are treated humanely
and address the concerns of this parliament? speaker, i was in calais last week having discussions with french authorities in relation to these issues, and the very clear message is that those who are there should claim asylum. that is the best and most effective way to get the help they need and that is the clear message that needs to come from this house. >> order. --tement, the primacy of the prime minister. pm cameron: thank you, mr. speaker. with permission, i would like to make a statement on the panama papers, dealing with my own circumstances first. yesterday at published all the information in my tax return not just for the last year, the last six years. i've given additional information about money inherited and given to me by my family, so people can see the sources of income that i have -- my salary, the benefit in kind living in number 10 downing street, the support my wife and i have received as leader of the
conservative party, the renting out of our london home, the interest on the savings that i have. since 2010, i have not own any shares or any investments. the publication of a prime minister's texan permission in this way is unprecedented, but i think it is the right thing to do. let me be clear, i'm not suggesting this should apply to all mp's. tesla has public information on his tax return in a similar way to the shadow chancellor and the first minister for scotland. this makes the question of how far the publication of tax information should go get mr. speaker, i think there is a strong case f the prime minister and leader of the opposition and the chancellor and shadow chancellor, because they are people who are or wish to be responsible for the nation's finances. as for mp's, we already have robust rules on members' interests and their declaration and i believe that is the model we should continue to follow. we should think carefully before abandoning completely all
taxpayer confidentiality in this house as some have suggested. if this were to come in for mp's, people would also ask for a similar approach for those who ask us questions, those who run large public services, or lead local government, or indeed come a those who edit newspaper and or newspapers. i think this would be a very good except for our country. it certainly shouldn't -- very big step for our country. it certainly shouldn't take place without long and thoughtful debate, and it is not the approach i would recommend. mr. speaker, let me deal specifically with the shares my wife and i help in an investment fund or unitrust set up by my late father. it was registered with the u.k. inland revenue from the beginning, properly audited and in the annual return was omitted to inland revenue every year. the share price was listed in "the financial times." it wasn't a family trust, it was a commercial investment fund for any investor to buy units and get u.k. investors paid all the
syntaxes as with any other share, including -- same taxes as with any other shukman included income tax. there have been some deeply hurtful and profound entry allegations made against my father -- profoundly untrue allegations made against my father. this investment fund was set up overseas in the first place because he was going to be trading predominantly in dollars security. like very many other commercial investment funds, it made sense to be set up inside one of the main centers of dollar trading. there are thousands of these investment funds, and many millions of people in britain who own shares, many of whom hold them through investment funds or unit trusts could such funds, including those listed outside the u.k., are included in the pension funds of local government, most of britain's largest companies, and indeed even some trade unions could even a quick look shows that the bbc, the mirror group, " guardian" newspapers, and to random, havere let
these sorts of overseas investments. example, iurther have a portfolio of over 50 million of investment in the trade union unitrust with 3% of their net assets based in jersey. this is not to criticize what they do. it is to make a point that this is an entirely standard practice , and it is not to avoid tax. mr. speaker, one of the countries leading tax lawyers has stated unequivocally that , "a was, and i quote perfectly normal type of collected investment fund." this is the man who led the expert study group that developed the general anti-abuse rules so much debated and demanded in this house which parliament finally enacted in 2013. he also chairs the 1997 examination of tax avoidance of .hy the text review committee he has said that it would be, and i quote, "it wrong to describe the astonishment of such funds as tax avoidance,"
and further, that it would "be utterly ludicrous to suggest establishing or investing in such funds would be a piece of tax avoidance." the is why getting rid of trusts listed overseas has not been part of any labor policy review, any conservative policy review, or any sensible proposals for addressing tax evasion or aggressive tax avoidance. surely it is said that investors in these funds benefit from them being set up in jurisdictions with low or no taxes. again, this is a misunderstanding. unit trust do not exist to make profit for themselves but for the holders of the units , andndos holders pay tax if they are u.k. citizens, they pay full you pay taxes. mr. speaker -- they pay full u.k. taxes. mr. speaker, it is right to tighten the line change the culture around investment and to discourage aggressive tax avoidance. but as we do so, we should differentiate between schemes designed it to artificially
reduced tax and those that are encouraging investment. this is a government and the should be a country that believes in aspiration and wealth creation, so we should defend the right of every british citizen to make money lawfully. aspiration and wealth creation are not somehow dirty words. ofy are the key engines growth and prosperity in our country and we will always support those who want to own shares and make investments to support their families. some people have asked if this trust was legitimate, why did you sell your shares in january 2010? mr. speaker, i sold all the shares in my portfolio that year because i didn't want any issues about conflict of interest could i do not want anyone to be able to suggest that as prime minister i have any other or vested interests. selling all my shows with the simple as the clearest way that i could do that. -- selling all my shares was this list includes weight that i could do that. the labour party has said it would refer me to the
commissioner for parliamentary standards. i have already given her the relevant information and if there is more she believes i should say, i'm very happy to say it. i except all the criticisms were not responding more quickly to these issues last week. but as i said, i was angry about the way my father's memory was being produced. i know he was hard-working man and a wonderful that and i'm proud of everything he did to fill the business and provide for his family. mr. speaker, on the issue of inheritance task, there is an established system in this country. far from people being embarrassed about passing things to the children by wanting to keep a family home within the family, i believe it is a natural human instinct and something that should be encouraged. as for parents passing money to their children while they are still alive, it is something the tax rules fully recognize that many parents want to help their children when they buy their first car and get a deposit for
the first time, or face the cost of starting a family. it is entirely natural that parents should want to do these things, and again, it is something we should not just a fan, but we should probably support -- not just defend, but we should probably support. mr. speaker, let me turn to the panama papers and action this government is taking to do with aggressive tax avoidance and international corruption more broadly. mr. speaker, when this government came into office, there were foreigners not paying capital gains tax for selling the victims, there were private equity managers paying a lower rate of tax than the people who clean up the offices, and there were requires getting way without paying stamp duty because houses were envelope within companies. we have put an end to all of these things. in the last parliament alone we made an unprecedented 40 tax changes to those loopholes that raised 12 billion pounds and in this parliament we will legislate more than 25 further measures forecast raised 16
billion pounds by 2021. nobody government, labor or conservative, has ever taken so much robust action in this area. through my chairmanship of the tax,ummit in 2013, i put trade, and transparency on the global agenda, and sought agreement on a global standard for the automatic exchange of information over who pays taxes and where. mr. speaker, many said it would never happen, but today 129 jurisdictions have committed to implement the international standards or exchange of tax information on request, and over 95 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the new global common reporting standards on tax transparency. under this new standard, we will receive information on accounts of u.k. taxpayers in all these jurisdictions. in june of this year, mr. speaker, britain will become the first country in the g 20 two have a public register of beneficial ownership so everyone can really see who really owns and controls each company. this government is also consulting on requiring foreign
companies that own property or bid on public contracts also to provide their beneficial ownership information, and we are happy to offer technical support and assistance to any of the administrations also considering these measures. as the revelations in the panama papers have made clear, we need to go even further. we are taking three additional measures to make it harder for people to hide the proceeds of corruption offshore, to make sure that those who smooth the way will know longer get away with it, and to investigate wrongdoing. assess countries that service financial centers. they have agreed to pervade information automatically and will begin doing so the september. that had never happened before i became prime minister and i got around to the cabinet table and said to them this must happen. but we do need to go further. today i would like to tell the house that we have agreed that they will provide u.k. law enforcement and tax agencies
with full access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies. we have finalized arrangements with all of them except and will a and guernsey, both of which we believe will follow in the coming days and months. for the first time, u.k. police and law enforcement will be able to see exactly who really owns and controls every company incorporated in these territories -- the cayman islands, british virgin islands, bermuda, isle of man, jersey, the lot. this is the result of a sustained campaign building on the progress we've made at the g-8 and i welcome the commitment of the governments of these territories to work with us and lament these arrangements. the house should note that this will place our overseas territories and codefendant sees well ahead of similar jurisdictions but also, crucially, head of many of our major international partners, including some states in the united states of america. we will seek to go further still using our anticorruption summit
to encourage consensus not just on exchanging information but actually on publishing information, putting it into the public domain, as we are doing here in the u.k., because we want everyone with a stake in fighting corruption, from a law enforcement, civil society, to the media, to be able to use this data and help us to root out and determine wrongdoing. another majortake step in dealing with those who facilitate corruption. under current legislation, it is difficult to prosecute a company that assists with tax evasion, we are going to change that. we will legislate this year for a new criminal offense to apply to corporations who failed to prevent their representatives from criminally facilitating tax evasion. finally, we are providing initial new funding of up to 10 million pounds for a new cross agency task force to swiftly analyze all the information that has been made available in panama and take rapid action. mr. speaker, the task force would include analysts, compliance specialists, and investigators from across hmr see, the national crime agency,
and the financial kind of authority. mr. speaker, this government will continue to lead the international agenda to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. this battle is important and needs to become one with the approach we take in this country. low tax rates, but tax rates that people and businesses have to pay. that is how we will tackle these issues and build a strong economy that can fund the public services that we need. ,t is that strong economy creating jobs, rewarding aspiration, that is the true focus of this government, and some that would never be safe under the party opposite, and i commend this statement to the house. >> jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and may i think the prime minister for his statement. it is absolutely a master class in the art of distraction. sure, mr. speaker, the
prime minister will join me in welcoming the outstanding journalism that has gone into exposing the scandal of destructive global tax avoidance revealed by the panama papers. what they have driven home, mr.'s bigger is what many people have increasingly felt death mr. speaker, is what many people have increasingly filtered there is one rule for the superrich and another for the rest. i'm honestly not sure, mr. speaker, that the prime minister fully appreciates the anger that is out there over this injustice. how can it be right that street cleaners, teaching assistants, nurses work and pay their taxes, yet some of the top think the rules simply don't apply to them? what has been revealed in the past week goes far beyond what the prime minister has called his private matters. there are six questions he needs to answer today, to the house and perhaps equally importantly,
to the public as a whole. why he chose not to declare his offshore tax havens investments in the house of commons register of interest. there is a requirement to provide information of any security interest, which might reasonably be thought to influence his or her actions. the prime minister said he mishandled the events of the past week. does he now realize how he mishandled his own non-declaration six years ago when he decided not to register and offshore tax haven investment, from which he has personally benefited? secondly, can he clarified to the house and the public when he sold his stake in blairmore holdings in 2010? he also divested another offshore investment at that time. integral, were any of the 72,000 pounds shares he sold health and offer tax havens -- in offshore
tax havens? the ministerial code states that investors must ensure that no conflict arises or could reasonably be perceived to arise between the public duty and the private interest, financial or otherwise. and that all ministers must write a full list of all -- provide a full list of all interest which are thought to give rise to a conflict, including close family interests. did the prime minister provide the permanent secretary with an account of his offer interests? if not, did he realize he had a clear obligation to do so? part of his personal wealth was tied up in offshore tax havens. and he is now making policy decisions that have a direct bearing on the operation -- for example, in 2013, the prime minister wrote to the president of the european council opposing oftral public registers
beneficial ownership of offshore trusts. thirdly, does the prime minister now accept the transparency of beneficial ownership must be extended to offshore trusts? the panama-based law firm mossack fonseca registered more than 100,000 secret firms in the british virgin islands. mr. speaker, it is a scandal that u.k. overseas territories registered over half shell companies set up by mossack fonseca. the truth is that the u.k. is at the heart of the global tax avoidance industry. it is a national scandal and it has got to end. last year, mr. speaker, this government opposed the eu tax of 30sioner's blacklists and corporate tax havens that blacklist included cayman islands and the british virgin islands.
my fourth question is, will the prime minister now stop blocking the european commission plans for a blacklist of tax havens? the formert that conservative home office minister was absolutely right when he wrote to the cayman islands government in 2014 to reassure them that are prime minister was making a purely political gesture about cracking down on tax havens at the g-8. it was designed, he said, and i quote, "to be a false initiative which will divert other member states from pursuing their treasury" last june, officials lobbied brussels not to take action against the tax secrecy. according to the european union's transparency register, the tech giant google has no fewer than 10 employees lobbying
brussels. bermuda is the tax haven favored by google to channel billions in profits. and conservative mep's have been instructed on six occasions since the beginning of last year to vote against actions to clamp down on aggressive tax avoidance . this is a party incapable of taking serious internationally coordinated action to tackle tax dodging. across the country -- across the country and on the side of the house, mr. speaker, there is a thirst for decisive action against global tax avoidance scams. to cut revenues out of our public services while ordinary taxpayers have to foot the bill. it undermines public trust in business politics -- business, politics, and public life. it can and must be brought to an end. the prime minister's announcement today about new
measures to make companies liable for employees to facilitate tax cheating is welcome, but it is also too little, too late. in fact, it was announced by the former chief secretary of the treasury a year ago. people want a government that acts on behalf of those who pay their taxes, not those who dodge their taxes in offshore tax havens. yesterday, my friend the shadow chancellor set out a clear plan for transparency, and he is a haser of this house who spent all of his time in parliament exposing tax havens and tax avoidance. and his paper included calling for an immediate inquiry into the panama papers' revelations to establish the harm done to our tax revenues and to bring forward serious proposals for reform. so i say gently to the prime minister, tax task force reporting to the chancellor and bothome secretaries,
members of a party funded by donors implicated in the panama leaks, will neither be independent nor credible. so will the prime minister that a credible and independent public inquiry into the abuses of the leaks? our tax transparency plan also calls for specialized tax enforcement unit. properly resourced, mr. speaker, and that has to be the key. since 2010, there have only been 11 prosecutions over offshore tax evasion, situation the public accounts committee described as woefully inadequate. shed resources and cut 14,000 staff since 2010, will the prime minister today guarantee that resourcing her majesty's revenue and customs will increase in this parliament? mr. speaker, we support real action to end the abuses that
allow the wealthy to dodge the rules that the rest of us have to follow. we need to ensure that trust and fairness are restored to our tax system and our politics. realityense and the that there is one rule for the richest and another for everybody else. said tax minister has dodging is immoral, but he clearly failed to give a full account of his own involvement in offshore tax havens until this week, or to take essential or to take essential action to clean up the system, while at the same time blocking wider efforts to do so. there are clear steps that can be taken to bring tax havens and tax launching -- >> the minister standing at the
bar shrieking in an absurd manner, he must calm himself or leave the chamber. jeremy corbyn. mp corbyn: thank you, mr. speaker. i suggest, mr. speaker, the prime minister's record, particularly over the past week, shows the public note longer has the trust in him to deal with these matters. does he realize why people are so angry? does he realize -- do members realize why the blood so angry -- why people are so angry? we have gone through six use of crushing austerity. families lining up at food banks to feed their children. disabled people losing their benefits. elderly care cut and slashed. living standards going down. much of this could have been avoided, if our country had been beend off -- had not ripped off by the superrich refusing to pay the taxes. i say this to the prime minister, mr. speaker, ordinary
people in the country simply won't stand for this anymore. they want real justice, they want the wealthy to pay their share of tax like they pay when they work hard all the time. >> prime minister. pm cameron: thank you, mr. speaker. all, let me join the right honorable tillman in congratulating the journalists who broke the story in uncovering this huge cache of information in the panama papers. what is important is that the information is shared with tax authorities in the united kingdom so that action can be taken. the right honorable tillman accused me of distraction. i think the biggest distraction today has been waiting for the right honorable gentleman's tax returns from which we finally 3:35ublished at about after the session had begun. how incredibly convenient that -- now,ould scrutinize let me answer each and every one
of the questions that he said. first of all, he asked whether we would resource revenue and customs with the right amount of money. we have put 1.8 billion pounds into various initiatives since 2010 to make sure they have the resources to find this morning, first point. second point, he asked me about my register of members interested i've complied with every asked that of the british -- aspect of the register of members interest and even before partybor complaint arrived at the commissioner's door i provided her with all the necessary information. third question, he asked me when i made the sale of these shares. i sold the blairmore shares in january and every thing else in june. next comes the asked if i had a list of these shares with the cabinet secretary. i difficult because i sold them but i sat down with the cabinet secretary, through all of my connectionsll my come all my family, as all ministers are devised to do, so
you have a conversation with the cabinet secretary in that way. why were we not extending the beneficial ownership of companies and beneficial ownership of trust? the reason is we want international action to take -- we would not get any international action done. now he asks about the task forces where others will be investigating all the information coming out of panama. they have operational independence. if they find people to prosecute, prosecute. operationally, and that is what they will do. they are reporting to the homes that rick perry because we want to -- home secretary because we want to make sure that action is taken.
if the shadow chancellor questions this, he should not be doing that. let me answer the last question which is the action we've taken about overseas territories. no government has done more to encourage them to take part in exchanging information, reporting tax information, and making sure they give us the information on beneficial ownership. the leader of the labour party suggested we should force them. how is he going to force them? have we found a potential prime minister that wants to give falkland -- give the islands back to argentina and it may gibraltar? what we have seen from the labour party is we have seen there to colors when it comes to inheritance tax. if you want to help your children, they will tax it. we have seen their true colors. they are the enemies of
aspiration. that is the real lesson of today. i was going to call the chair of the select committee, but the general one -- gentleman is out of the chambers. get in here, man. [laughter] mr. speaker: order. i'm sure it will be worth waiting for. good for you to give me the floor, mr. speaker. i do not think the prime minister has done anything wrong except possibly to comment on the jimmy -- tax evasion is illegal and should be vigorously pursued, if necessary, with
criminal prosecution. is not -- if the government or permit do not like it, there is no point in moralizing. does the prime minister agree that to deal with taxes, we need to reform to close loopholes, -- to ensure there are fewer -- mr. cameron: i am glad that my friend was detained. tax evasion is illegal, and tax avoidance, if the government disproves it, should be legislated against. what i have said before is that there are practices that are aggressive tax avoidance that merit proper questions and legislative actions. carr as soon jimmy -- hewas, pointed out
made it clear to play triggered for doing that. i welcome the prime minister's statement, the new measures to deal with tax evasion. the publication of his tax information and the apology for the way he has handled it. it is estimated between 21 and aroundllion is untaxed the world. estimate is $10 trillion. the panama papers leak is so large that if one -- the final document would be 650 million pages long. it is right that a special tax
force has been set up to go to this information. as the prime minister said, hopefully charges will follow if criminality can be proven. the public are indignant here and around the world. byple are rightly angered the different rules for normal taxpayers and the small ultrarich a leak. we have to ask yourselves whether the scale of the problem has been taken seriously, because it has not been thus far, either domestically or internationally, and u.k. bears a responsibility given the u.k. and its overseas territories and ofendencies sit at the top the top of the financial secrecy index of the tax justice network. in scotland, we are confronted why reality of a small number of aths owners owning huge sw of the country, many through tax
havens. scotland, land is owned through transparent firms based theavens like panama and british virgin islands. may i ask the prime minister, decision notit his to fully cooperate with the european union partners on overseas trust? on the welcome register of beneficial owners across the british dependencies and overseas territories, specific question -- who will this be available to and when? will it be publicly available? and if not, why not? will the prime minister prioritize bilateral tax treaties with panama and other tax havens as part of his global efforts to coordinate against tax avoidance, and will you update this house on progress?
u.k.y, given it is the cabinet that agree government policy on tax rules, potential loopholes, and arrangements with tax havens, will the prime minister ensure all of his cabinet colleagues, all of them, confirm whether they have ever benefited through offshore financial dealings? mr. cameron: first of all, let me agree with the gentleman, that there is no doubt that there is some jurisdictions, there are bad things in happening in terms of hiding of assets, wealth, avoidance of tax, and that is why we want authorities to go through everything they can to recover that money. because those bad things happen does not mean we should condemn ,rust that many investors pension funds, local government, maybe even the pension fund of this house might use as a totally legitimate way of investing and paying tax.
i made that point. he says we need as many criminal charges as possible. i agree with that. -- and they got 1100 cases going through. they can charge up to 300% of the money. said have wehe taken this agenda far enough this is the. this is the first country to make this the number one issue. we have now done it and it is permanently on the agenda come and you see these permanent improvements. i do not think you are being a fair on the overseas dependencies. real was a potentially problem. they have done a huge amount of address that. no better place than other similar jurisdictions, and there are states in the united states that have less disclosure than they do. let's not be unfair on dependencies and territories,
especially on this side of the house where they are in our family of nations. in terms of scottish trusts and transparency, we are happy to work with and help the administrations in any way we can. we are happy to work with and are working with european partners on the issue of trust. we would not have made any progress on beneficial ownership if we included trusts in that debate in the g-8, but we made progress for the reason we give. in terms of beneficial ownership information in the territories, he asked who it would be available to. law enforcement agencies, including our own, and they are not producing public registers yet. there is only about three countries in the world, including britain, that have these public ownership registries. if we tried to push that on the crime dependencies should away, we would not have gotten as far as we have gotten today in terms
of tax treaties. in terms of cabinet ministers, i think the current rules for registering members are right. primeicates that minister's and chancellors are going forward. we are likely to use -- nexttax revenue over the five years because they will sue us in court against the european court of justice to overturn the with we wish to impose another $35 trillion at risk. what can we do here to make sure they pay their fair amount? of cameron: we took a series actions in the budget, and there is a tremendous weapon for making sure these comedies pay their taxes in jurisdictions where they are rightly earning the money. this tool of being able to exchange tax permission and have
a common reporting standard, which is what we set off in 2013, that will make the biggest m.p.: difference. of.:one of the main benefits uncovering the panama papers was they showed some like to some people who do not want it to go. the prime minister makes great play that his government has done a great deal to improve transparency, but is nowhere near enough. when is he going to make sure can publish their tax information so that everybody, the public, can see where taxes being paid? i am not saying we have a perfect record, but this government has done more than any previous government -- but i will answer directly, our system is based on full disclosure by companies to the revenue, but a
basic deal of taxpayer confidentiality between companies and the revenue. that is the way our system and most systems work. that is why the common reporting standards and exchange of information between jurisdictions is so important to make sure companies are telling the truth to us and other jurisdictions. it is only when that happens when we will be able to cover the money. -- to recover the money. m.p.: the beneficial ownership registry that comes in play in six weeks town -- the announcement that the prime minister has made with dependencies. it will do much to deal with tax evasion. will forgive me, it will do more to ensure the proceeds of crime, the proceeds of terrorism, cannot be laundered through this jurisdiction, and that is something to be welcome. perhaps it should be told that the prime minister is the -- a
little bit, which is this -- how do we know personally that we would not have gotten the agreement with the dependencies without his personal intervention and without him being very tough? they should be congratulated on that. it was actually delivered without a single shot being fired by the leader of the opposition. mr. cameron: what he will remember from his time in as he is doing a brilliant shot as my anticorruption lead, we got the crown dependencies and the territories around the table in the cabinet room. day as theame trooping of the color. you do not have to go all the way to public thing -- publishing registers. he says that will mean not only aid, but greater ability to uncover corruption.
mr. speaker: margaret -- m.p.: can i ask the prime minister some questions about the announcement in relationship to crime depends crown dependency. is it true that they have applied for registry of beneficial ownership? have access to that registry? if he does not succeed in getting this territories to publish -- to publicly published those registers he will use his power through the privy council to order the tax basis to publish it? mr. cameron: there are three things we have been asking the crown dependencies to do. one is to exchange tax
information. the second of had a common reporting standard. the third is to establish registries. they have done all three. we still need agreement from guernsey and from anguilla. the second question, well our revenue have access to the register? yes, they will. will we force them to have public registers? we think they should. let's be clear, very few countries in the world -- spain, britain, and one or two others -- have these public registers ownership.al our dependencies will be now advanced of most other countries. we are to praise them and thank them for all they have done. the prime minister's critics set out in indignation and admit that they pay anyone
who has a hint of wealth. may i support the prime minister in sending off those who are attacking him, particularly thinking of this place, because if he does not come we risk seeing a house of commons which is stuffed full of low achievers, who hated enterprise, a people who look after their own families, and do absolutely nothing about the outside world. mr. cameron: i'm grateful for my friend's support. we have a system of members' interest that is put in place at the end of 13 years at the end of a labor government. i do not want us to discourage those people who have had a successful career coming into this house and making a contribution, and that is what i have said for prime minister's and chancellors, shadow prime minister's, shadow chancellors,
it is a different arrangement. does the prime minister recalled at the time after he became prime minister under the coalition, at the time when he was dividing the nation between ask him and scroungers, a very important question about the windfall he received when he wrote off the mortgage of the ting hill,n not and i said he did not write off mortgage the taxpayers were asked to write off at oxford. maybe he will answer it now. -- and by the way -- mr. speaker: order.
order. order. i must ask the honorable gentleman order. any assistancee from -- i invite the honorable general month to withdrawal that adjective as he used a moment ago. he is perfectly capable of asking that question without using that word. it is up to him, but if he does not wish to withdraw in him, i cannot ask the prime minister to answer the question. we should withdraw that word and think of another. i think he knows the word beginning with d and ending with used. he inappropriately withdraw. m.p.: i know what you're talking about -- mr. speaker: very simple -- withdraw. m.p.: this man has done more to
divide this country than anybody else. he has looked after his own profits. i still refer to him as dodgy dave. do what you like. laboumr. speaker: order. i am sorry, i must ask the right honorable gentleman to withdraw the word -- very well, very well -- under the power given to me by i orderrder number 43, the honorable member to withdraw immediately from the house or for the remainder of this day's sitting.
very well. needless to say, no reply is required. we will take next sir edward lee. m.p.: it is a very shocking scandal. we now know that the problem is that are divested himself of all his shareholdings before he became prime minister and paid his taxes in full -- shocking shocking. ande is a windup question, it follows on that question from the chairman of the treasury committee. while hard-working families always use ways of trying to minimize that tax bill? let me give him one suggestion. the better way to stop people avoiding paying inheritance tax is to abide by a commitment and abolish it. mr. cameron: we are grateful to my friend for his support, and
we have met our manifesto commitment on inheritance tax, which was to exempt the family home. he is right we need to signify, but we need to move in different directions, which you need to submit my taxes, but where you see abuses occur, sometimes need to write new tax code in to make sure they cannot be used, and that can lead to complications. i think he is right. with the prime minister now answer questions that both he and the chancellor refuse to answer few years ago and confirm that they both benefited -- to the from their top rate of tax, and on the day that the universal credit pass, that thethink several thousands of pounds of year in which they both benefited our fair? -- are fair? mr. cameron: the information is
in my tax return. everybody can look at it. since we reduce the tax rate 45, we have not only raise more revenue, which we're not only raise, but the richest 1% are paying a higher overall percentage. m.p.: with my friend clarify again that tens of millions of our fellow citizens benefited .rom tax exempt investments in most pension schemes, they pay tax on their investment income. which directly benefits hard-working people saving for and receiving pensions. mr. cameron: my friend is right about that, what i will .einforce the point
many of those unit trusts are lifted in other countries. many of them now in dublin. they are set up to avoid tax but to make sure the revenues are returned to the unit trust holder and they pay taxes. that is the key point. m.p.: does he accept that the revelations last week that he personally intervened in 2013 to water down the effects of the rule does damage to portray his efforts? and would he not commit to fully support the eu transparency rule, including country by country reporting saying how much profit they make and where? eu cameron: there were no proposals. the thing was based on a british proposal, a british initiative to encourage all countries to have registers of beneficial ownership.
the eu joined in by suggesting extending it to trusts, and we pointed out if that happens, no .ne would take up this proposal of things, perfectly reasonable under english common law. the advice i have was that if we went through this proposal of going to beneficial puzzles, the move we would made that is helping to change the world with have failed. mr. speaker, with my friend encourage to write to him to set out in detail the thegations he makes against matter of breaking the law or the rules of this house, because having listened carefully, i failed to comprehend what it is he is going on about. on a separate issue, i like to see my friend stand up to the
overseas territories. as attorney that general i had quite a lot of dealings with the territories in encouraging them to change their rules. they showed them to be responsive to those representations. themay agree with me that territories are entitled to provide financial services and not be gamed for trying to ensure the well-being of their -- mr. cameron: my friend is absolutely right. what we try to do with the overseas territories is a there is a perfect a legitimate business of providing financial services, but they, like us, should be doing it on the basis of high standards. i think that is an argument they accept and are carrying out and we should thank them for the. -- for them. i listened to the right honorable gentleman. m.p.: mr. speaker it could be
forgiven for believing the only virtue is transparency. privacy and quality are both valueant virtues that we in this country. does the prime minister agreed decision-makers in pay probably through service companies if we principle, it is privacy? then we can have a more wide discussion. mr. cameron: i agree with you, that there is a value in privacy, and that is why you have to have this balance, and i have tried to set up the way forward today. on his issue about private service companies, the chancellor will say something about that in the budget, and when public money is involved, there's a case to be made that people declare these arrangements in the proper way. the change the chancellor has
been about is making sure whether someone chooses to have a private service company or chooses to be self-employed, the tax of they pay will be similar. i welcome the prime minister's announcement there will be a new criminal offense apply to corporations who failed to send their representatives to facilitate tax evasion. there are nearly 40 other economic crimes which are unlisted in the crime and court act of 2013 which are susceptible to deferred prosecution. will my friend have a discussion to make sure that we cannot only have the tax offense that he is too to, but those other economic crimes so they can be dealt with under the failure to prevent system? mr. cameron: my friend has expertise in this area, and the point is making his we have to make sure is as we set out these
homemic crimes, and secretary has led the charge to make sure we address this issue, we make sure they are properly understood and prosecuted, and we need to make sure the national crime and that court in a way that was being done when he had that job. minister he is leading on international efforts to crack down tax evasion, but could he explain what he wrote to the then european council president in 2016 and asked him ---- the transparency rules of anti-money laundering rules despite warnings that it could create loopholes for tax dodgers? mr. cameron: with great respect to the honorable lady, i have answered this question several times, was recently to the leader of the green party, which
is that we were keen to get progress on the beneficial ownership of companies, and if we accept the proposal to include trust, that would have gotten locked down and would not have made progress that we had, where we got every g-7 country, host g20 countries, signing up to have plans of beneficial ownership of countries. my advice was the whole thing would have slowed down to a trickle and we would not have gotten the extra money we are going to raise. concerned, its i is currently clear that the prime minister nor his father have done anything at all. in a statement he said, we must defend the rights of every british citizen to -- laughlin. it is the various the description of people who have just done that as morally repugnant. in the prime minister give us a willise that he
give us the role of law and that the rule of law is important to not question the morality of people who act lawfully with regard to their tax? mr. cameron: i am grateful for my friend's support, and i agree with the importance of people making money within the law. the simple point i have made and will continue to make government the tax evasion that is illegal, not tax avoidance. there are many ways people avoid taxation, not the least by putting money into a pension or preferably -- perfectly legitimate ways. i would say what we have seen sometimes is very aggressive measures. i've mentioned some of them in my statement -- people putting properties in envelopes rather than paying stamp duty, where it is difficult for government to catch up quickly enough with the huge changes that are taking
place. i think a bit of leeway on that is necessary, that he is right, it is the root of law that matters. m.p.: does the prime minister realized that the difference of the mass majority of constituents who paid their ands paid in the usual way, tax bids, the use tax havens for reasons. that is why the acquisition is made between them and those people that i have been referring to. mr. cameron: there is bad practice that takes place, not the least in some of these jurisdictions, that needs to be dealt with, and that is why that sharing of information and registry of beneficial ownership are about. yet it things to recognize that happened last week is the the 11,000 pound personal allowance came in so people could learn 11,000 pounds before they take any income tax at all, and i completed our work of taking the lowest pay people out of the tax whole altogether.
m.p.: mr. speaker, the premise or has paid his taxes, has behaved perfect properly, and can i commend him for standing repetition.ather's can i asked the premise or of how much extra money has come into the exchequer under the 13 years of labor government? mr. cameron: we have raised an extra 12 billion. we want to raise another 16 billion in this parliament. also for having a lower rate in corporation tax, we have seen more corporation tax come in, tax rates that people pay, those are our watchwords. m.p.: we've heard the role of law is permanent. the government controls what is legal. and what is illegal. -- thatprime minister
the law will make offshore tax dodging in all its forms illegal? mr. cameron: evading tax is already illegal, whether you are doing it in the u.k. or somewhere else. the point i have been making is we need to have this information sharing and the ability to look at information in jurisdictions in order to see if people have been evading tax, and that is what we are now getting. we should not use that to say it is wrong for people or trade unions or companies or pension schemes to invest in unit trusts list it in other countries, because that is a perfectly normal way of investing. m.p.: can i congratulate my friend for bringing the transparency to the office of prime minister by publishing his own tax report. can he say if he has any thoughts about whether this should be extended to former prime minister some many of whom still receive public money i
would be interested in seeing the tax codes of one mr. t. bla ir. mr. cameron: no proposals to make in that regard. i am not claiming some perfect record. i cut prime minister's paid by 5% and froze it for parliament. minister'se prime mr pension. we have given up the great gavee of state engine that half of your salary in perpetuity. i did it, right? have beenthose steps taken, which are the right thing to do. thank you, mr. speaker. will the chancellor of the exchequer -- of his family company, which he holds shares
in, but paid no u.k. corporation tax? mr. cameron: i would say the chancellor's family farm is exactly the sort of thatacturing small firm is doing carriage in our country. many years i gather they have not been making a profit, but i am glad the company is doing well and they are paying a dividend. that is something we should welcome. is ax matter of the-- m.p.: i would like to welcome the prime minister's statement this afternoon, and when he meets with world leaders in london this may, the first global anticorruption summit of its kind, will you press them to bring actions to expose gretchen were ever do it -- wherever it exists? am writing in a
document that will be released before the summit -- no country, politician, no one can claim they have a perfect and unblemished record in this regard. all countries are battling against these problems, as we did in this house with the problems of expenses. i want to encourage people in of prime minister afghanistan is contributing, the president of nigeria is contributing, and they admit their countries are rife with correction. the problem is that nobody stands up and talks about the issues and says about action plans, nothing will get done. at the last count, 36,364 properties in london were owned by offshore companies. that is one in 10 in one london borough. we should know who owns those
properties. many believe it is dirty money from countries like russia and the middle east. driving up costs, 50's percent since 2007. mr. cameron: the first thing we have done is to say if a property is owned by a company, in an envelope structure, so you cannot get to the name of the person who owns the property, they have to pay an annual stamp duty charge of something like 15%. this has been a massive money raiser to spend on public services and a huge disincentive for this sort of behavior. we need too further, have more information about who owns what in our country. speaker, can i think the prime minister for his creative statement. e-mail from a
person in my constituency, said that he watched sky news yesterday, and he is -- that the shadow chancellor misled viewers and that he should be exposed in parliament. for that shadow chancellor to be so misleading is not acceptable. i am quoting here. motivations are obvious, but not an excuse. the prime minister could not have pay any inheritance tax if he wished to come and taxes levied on the -- mr. speaker: order, order. i am grateful to the honorable lady, and this has nothing to do with responsibility of the prime minister. order. not a wise course of action. the prime minister is not responsible for what the shadow chancellor has said. i say that to the honorable lady kindly, but with some authority in these matters, believe me. no one in the house should
have to feel their family members are being attacked unfairly, and in fact the premise or is absolutely correct. it is not clear to me what he believed about holding shares in offshore trusts in tax havens. does he think it is probably ok? in which case, why with his holding them be a conflict of interest? does he think tax havens are a problem that need fixing? in which case, why kitty have them in the first place? mr. cameron: do i think it is ok to own shares in a unit trust that is registered in another country, whether that is in dublin or guernsey? why, i do, and that is companies hold those shares, pension funds, many people in our country cold unit trusts, because the key point is the unit trust does not exist to
make money for itself. it makes money for the unit holders, and if the unit holders live in britain, they pay british tax and all the rest of it. that is why these arrangements have been in place for many years. the labor government, no labor policy review has ever thought of getting rid of them. it is important they are administered in a proper way. the second question is, why if i thought the resulting wrong with the holding like that did i sell my shares because there might be confident of interests? i sold shares in every company i own. there were two options -- to put things in a blind trust, nothing wrong with that, very good way to go about it, but i thought maybe even simpler or straightforward was sell everything so then i would not own any shares, and any of the companies that i have previously had a shareholder in had dealings with the government.
there was no way to find any conflict of and just. that is why i sold the shares. i thought it was the right thing to do. m.p.: with the prime minister confirm the only irregular thing about the summary of his tax return is the fact that he voluntarily and privately forsook the 20,000 pound prime ial allows, heluding those -- that focused on increasing the personal allowance so that millions of low-income owners could avoid paying tax altogether? mr. cameron: i am grateful to give my friend that reassurance. 0 pounde target of 12,50 personal allowance, and it was the right thing. as it says in the information, there is support for me and my wife from the conservative party in terms of some of the costs and issues of travel and other
things you have to do with as the leader of the party. party money on which i pay a tax charge. m.p.: is it the right thing to do to be claiming expenses to favorn the grace and apartment and at the same time making a big profit on your own main home? mr. cameron: i am baffled he said he was going to refer this to the parliamentary commission. was all the information -- he is not actually made it. i am very lucky to live in number 10 downing street, precise a, number 11 and 12, and as result of that, i receive a benefit in kind, and because of that, calculated that i think
some 7000 pounds -- i pay a tax on that for living in the house. it is not a subsidy i am getting. it is a benefit that i am grateful for. and i give the tax man his money in that respect. m.p.: may i tell the prime minister should not be saying he has the good fortune to be born into a well-off family, he is nothing to be ashamed about. may i tell the prime minister is not a sin for his parents naturally to want his savings to be cascaded down to the generations. he has nothing to be ashamed of. but can i warn my right honorable friend, no matter how much information he wants to die vaults, nothing will satisfy some of those people on the labour front. mr. cameron: i am grateful to what my friend said. there's a point at which you have to say i publish the information that i think is relevant, i have gone back over , but that isyears
the limit of what i am going to release. some people say, what about your wife's or your mother's financial affairs? there comes a time when prime minister's and chancellors have done more than that, but we should rely on the register members' interest to police rest of our affairs. m.p.: given that more than half of that companies implicated in the leaks are registered in crown dependencies, does the prime minister regret telling this house and 2013 it is not fair any longer to refer to any of the overseas territories or crown dependencies as tax havens? clicky rebuild some of the public trust he is lost in the last week by making sure that in terms of publishing information about beneficial ownership, the crown dependencies and overseas territories do follow the u.k.
example and will take concrete example? i haveeron: the reason made that statement in 2013 is we had got the crown dependencies and the overseas territories for the first time to share automatically tax information with united kingdom government. that is something that did not labourunder the last government. now he is right we want to go for the. not only will they share the information, they will give us access to their information of beneficial ownership. just so he knows how different things were under the last financial, that then secretary of the treasury, in response to questions about the territories, said the negotiation of tax information exchange agreements with other jurisdictions, including the u.k., is a matter for the crown dependencies themselves. he was saying nothing to do with me, gov. it is up to them.
that is the government we replaced. we took a different approach, and we are made a lot of progress. --.: mr. speaker [indiscernible] i would have done exactly the same. his father did nothing wrong whatsoever. ae prime minister mentioned debate will come. can i say that when public figures get into trouble, that in the future there are no more knee-jerk reactions, that a long and thoughtful debate is to avoid unnecessary consequences for everybody else. mr. cameron: i think my friend makes an important point which is we should try to make decisions about these things call may after debate. i felt after all the questions i to publishsked was this information. i could not be clearer that i do not want to see that as some every member of
this cabinet should follow. we have always had a system in this country based on full disclosure to the revenue, and taxpayer confidentiality. some other countries have complete location of all caps returns and information. has not been our way. that has not been our system. we should not give it up lightly. m.p.: [indiscernible] if the were not a millionaire he would be a low achiever. speaking of the low achiever, the biggest multinational company earns more income in a single week than all the -- putd companies of the together. that is why we want to make sure that the information that multinationals will be obliged to provide to hmrc should be put in the public domain. well he meet desk will he meet
with me to discuss this proposal? mr. cameron: i have always thought of the lady as a high achiever. the country to country reporting is what we are trying to achieve is a common reporting standards so that companies report to tax authorities in the same way and then the sharing of that information so you can see if x amount is paying x in one jurisdiction and y in another. that is the most powerful way of achieving what we want to achieve. there are those who say we need to go further in public declarations. care interesting argument. let's not make an enemy of the good. we have a solid way of making sure these comedies pay tax properly, and i want to make sure that is completed.
does my right honorable friend agree that any course of action designed to reduce tax does not constitute tax evasion must by definition be legal even if some may regard it as aggressive tax avoidance? and it is up to this parliament to legislate to make such courses of action illegal? mr. cameron: my friend is right, where there is aggressive avoidance taking place that is against the spirit of the law, then parliament should act. as i have said, that is what the chancellor has done what hmrc advises us about. i think sometimes there are occasions when the avoidance is so aggressive that it is right to warn those taking part of it that legislation will follow, and so they should not take part in the scheme in the first place. that should happen, too. will he be issuing
guidance in the form of a leaflet to every household soap taxpayers can you how they can benefit from offshore tax havens? mr. cameron: there are many people in our country, over 12.5 million shareholders, many of whom hold shares in things like unit trusts that do not need information from me. those,invest in one of if you are u.k. reston, you must pay u.k. taxes just like you are share in any other organization. m.p.: i cannot find an occasion where the members raised any of these issues. the closest he came was when he ourcribed the lab government to take control of the turks and caicos islands as medial and undemocratic.
apparently he now advocates for all territories. isn't it fortunate that we had a government after 20 that took up this agenda? mr. cameron: i am interested to see the u-turn, because recently he has been stressing taking control of these territories. i can now see a use for the nuclear submarines as they had man.oward the isle of much more sensible to get them to do the things they ought to be doing. m.p.: why does the prime minister think so many companies are registered in panama in the first place? why not london or new york? mr. cameron: the reason why unit trusts restaurant in different countries, and a number of that registeringght now, in dublin, they want to market their services not simply to u.k. residents who pay u.k.
taxes, but other people. that is why if you look at the inland revenue that way they arrange this, they want to make sure that u.k. fund managers can be involved and paid her taxes in the u.k., we can build the investment industry, that this country can rightly be proud of. m.p.: i think my friend for his open and frank statement today. person with think he has exonerated himself. thate confirm under rules reports for documentation should be retained for seven years? for having: no fine come to the house for having published them. although disappointed we got it in at 3:45. obviously, matters of fines of
taxproductions of returns, that is a matter forhmrc. in 2013 -- was found guilty of an egregious breach of the commons rules and the house of lords rules as to misleading in 2011 andrequired taking 10,000 pounds a month as a payment for lobbying for the cayman islands. he had no punishment from his party. he was allowed to get away with it with a brief apology to the house of lords. will the prime minister tell us if in the future any parliamentarian in his party uses his privileged position and prostitutes it in order to make private gain, he will act and discipline him? mr. cameron: the point is we have now roles in this desperate the declaration of members police in we have a
terms of making sure they are properly carried out, and we have a punishment, including expulsion, for misbehavior. familiar with the situation with the house of lords, but i think they have been moving in the same direction, and that is all for the good. m.p.: the conversations around popemobile are interesting -- around panama are interesting, we have a reality check here. [indiscernible] actually benefit from inheritance as a result. does my friend agree with me that the time is now to reform inheritance tax to help more people get out of the poverty level? mr. cameron: there is a role for making sure that people can pass on the family home exempt from inheritance taxes, and that is why we have set out steps to
make sure that it happened. that completes what was set out in our manifesto. the public will be more inclined to take the prime minister at his word when he was to clamp down on tax avoidance and his government not appointed edward -- as the chair of her majesty's revenue in 2012. this is the way that taxation is legalized extortion, and it is not the only extent of the law. can you promise what source of and doesgot to pay -- someone in his view blog in the hmrc? mr. cameron: a does a very good job, as i think the report in the papers point out. athad a commercial career one of the most respected city legal practices there is, and it is a good thing if we can attract people from private practice into the revenue at customs to make sure we collect
all the money we should. can the prime minister assured house that in the future -- taxation will do nothing to diminish the aspiration of working families so that those families who want to do the right thing, save for their retirement, and passed something on to their children can continue to do that? mr. cameron: my friend is right. if you look at our reforms to inheritance tax, tensions, we are enabled people to spend more of their money. they are also able to pass it on to their children and help with those key purchases, the first home, first car, hoping young people with families. all of that wealth cascading down the generations is actually part of our goal. m.p.: of course, the prime minister's announcement that people be criminalized if they persist with tax evasions.
revisit prime minister to see if they can also play a significant role in dealing with her difficult issue of tax evasion -- dealing with the difficult issue of tax evasion? mr. cameron: it is true the coalition government did a lot in this area. it was led by myself and the second order of the treasury, but particularly at the g-eight, but we had the full support of our coalition partners. friend'sant my statement today and i listen to the statement of the leader of the option. does the prime minister share my concern that the leader of the opposition seems to be unaware that the aspiration, determination, and process support ournancial ingredients of a strong economy we have, which leads to jobs and income for many?
does my friend agree we should condemn the politics of envy -- [indiscernible] mr. cameron: my friend is right. what we want is an aspiration and enterprise society where we set low tax rates, encourage people to make the best of themselves and for their families, and that would will not just a stronger economy, what a stronger society. m.p.: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the prime minister referred to his anticorruption summits. can he tell us which countries will be represented, and will an invitation be extended to either president putin or some of his corrupt cronies, those who fund the propaganda channel to explain the $2 billion held in panama by the corrupt regime? mr. cameron: the gentleman has been restored to rude health.
i welcome 1d him earlier. i think it is fair to say the guest list is still being worked on for the corruption summit. we will be asking people on the basis not that they run perfect countries or perfect governments, but are they going to commit to public declarations of things like open beneficial ownership registration, sharing tax information, making sure that when assets are looted that we can confiscate them and restore them to the people who they belong to? if countries want to sign up to that, however much how their record in the past might be them imperfect, we encourage them to do that. minister'sthe prime mother, she wants to hand that money down to her next generation.
could the prime minister tell the house what message we can send i am very grateful. i am my mother will be to. thicker skinping a with every week because past. many people want to pass wealth and assets and help their children. that is not something that we should be ashamed of. it is something that we should actively encouraged. it is something that we can build a strong society in our country. >> the prime minister acknowledge in his statement that the undercurrent education is difficult to prosecute companies with tax evasion. add fraud and corruption to that list. extendernment wanted to
to all, not just a tax evasion. with the prime minister commit today to review the current position. that is a very interesting suggestion. i will look at it carefully. we have announced this proposal. we will include this in a future bill. we can look at that time about whether what she is arguing for is an extension and tidying up. i will look very carefully at what she suggests. disappoint, but we have had a full exchange. we must now move on to the second statement. >> the secretary of state, the business innovation and skills. thank you, mr. speaker. i like to make a statement on
britain's -- >> members are moving on. you can see the prime minister's questions and see the comments again on a website, www.c-span.org. the prime minister will be answered questions posed to him by the members of the house of commons. that is live on c-span2 starting at 7 a.m. eastern. coming up later today, the future of defense department personnel policy. brad carson is a former acting head of the pentagon's -- he recently left his post lester. 1:00have live coverage at p.m. today here on c-span. tonight it at a eastern, women in military combat admit to limitations. women held to the same standards as her counterparts.
lifespent four years of my deployed. i have been in every environment imagined. i have been alongside women in iraq and afghanistan in a variety of world -- roles. the value and experience of they bring. helicopters and jeff. security, which is probably the most dangerous job in iraq and i can stand -- and afghanistan. areomments in my viewpoints from a very different perspective. i listen to the comments coming from elliott about changing the culture. in particular the marine corps. -- i have read the writings on the topic. holding peopleut to standards. the reality is that everyone has
come out within standards. all of services and branches, it was the marine corps alone, the others planted. the rancourt said we would hold women to the standard. , who filed the lawsuit. against women in combat. they also the same thing. we just want women to be given the same chance to be treated as men. just like how one -- how young men have been doing. >> tonight's program on women in common. morale.ng troop it all gets other tonight at eastern on c-span. >> meta-secretary. we get 72 of our delegate votes it to the next president of the .nited states
instructed to be very brief. that is good. this could go on for an hour. senator richard lower -- lunar. he represented from -- she is the longest-serving senator from indiana. chaired the senate committee on foreign relations from 1985 to 1987. and again from 2003 to 2007. with the ranking member ever since 2007. much of senator lugar's work has been devoted to the challenge of dismantling weapons. , a to defend senator lugar republican who worked with a
democrat. and sharon at the time the senate armed service committee. i would say that this was an exceptional example of bipartisanship. an institution called a cooperative threat reduction program, whose purpose was to secure and dismantle matt -- weapons of mass disruption -- -- mass destruction. and there are many other accompaniments. the reduction program that resulted in the deactivation of 7500 nuclear warheads. the destruction of more than 500 icbms. close to 500 summary and ballistic missiles. he was instrumental in getting senate approval in the last nuclear weapons treaty signed with russia.
of 2010start treaty which reduced significantly the number of the foible strategic nuclear weapons. he is the research professor of science and engineering at stanford university. and senior fellow at the institute for international studies. professor heckert is a nuclear scientist. to 1980 seven he directed the loss alamosa national laboratory. which most of you know had a chief mission of ensuring the safety and reliability of the american nuclear arsenal. in recent years, professor heckert has worked with russian nuclear laboratories to secure the enormous stockpiles of fish out materials that russia has
inherited from the soviet union. book on theng a history of cooperation between russia and an american laboratories since the fall of the soviet union. me, the current research involves reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism worldwide. wealth -- as well as with the nuclear aspirations of iran. he has been an important contributor to the public about nuclear issues in the united states and beyond. recent publications the call my attention the credit article entitled, stop killing iran's nuclear scientist. petrovich is next to
professor heckert. the founding director of the james martin center. that is for nonproliferation studies at the moderate institute of international study. professor potter served as a consultant to the u.s. arms control and disarmament agency, and ranked preparation, and a national laboratory. a prolificotter is author. his written, edited, or co-edited at least 20 books. he is contrary the chapters and articles to more than 120 scholarly books and journals of such objects as nuclear terrorism, nuclear arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, and nuclear issues involving the states of the former soviet union, especially the russian .ederation, kazakhstan
he is an exceptionally well informed researcher. lectures nuclear proliferation. last but not least, is dr. george package, was vice president for studies of the carnegie development for case. as a nonprofit organization devoted to promote international cooperation. this is one of the world's most influential think tank. areas includess nuclear security. he wrote a book called india's 99 ear bomb, polish and shortly after that country's second test of a nuclear device. recently, he has published an important monograph in a book on the subject of abolishing nuclear weapons.
to educaterelessly the american public on nuclear issues. whatever i teach on the subject of nuclear weapons, or nonproliferation, has articles almost always make the ways onto my folders. one that i might be likely to send this fall is a study that he co-authored last fall entitled the iran deal. this is one of the most impartial and objective analyses that i've encountered. and i looked a lot of them. of this highly controversial deal. i would say this is the study designed to help leaders make up their own minds, not to tell them how to think. and what can be better for the classroom second ? i've been asked to make a few introductory remarks that i will keep brief. after that, instead of asking the cameras to prepare comments,
my mandate is to engage them in a conversation. i will do. non-variety of issues from proliferation to arms control. end, will have questions from those of you in the audience. students at iu. end, i will give the panelists an opportunity to make concluding remarks. let me start by framing the subject. there's been no development and international relations and the last 70 years that his pose a greater threat to american and international security and the actual or potential spread of nuclear weapons. there is a national community that has taken significant steps to deal with an address this
threat to reduce it. this, but the first of for most of the steps was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. the npt. it went into effect in 1970. this treaty limited the states authorized possessive to nuclear weapons at the time the treaty was "signature. it also provided for international inspection of the nuclear activity of other states that aspired for nuclear programs for peaceful purposes. the vast majority of states in the international system used at treaty. and more important step was the the initiation security initiative. this is a global effort to stop massive -- weapons of mass destruction and the delivery
systems. this initiative is endorsed and supported by more than 100 states. quite a substantial number, as well. we have had a series of bilateral russian and american strategic arms control treaties. it is also help this curb nuclear proliferation. by reducing the number of weapons and the amount of fissile materials available to those would like to acquire them. likeis what some analysts to call horizontal proliferation. the reduction of the number of actors who possess this material and weapons. it is also reduced vertical proliferation. and more moreger dangerous arsenals.
big robert of threat reduction program, which senator lugar was so important establishing, has made a profound contribution i would argue to international security by reducing in securing nuclear weapons and materials, as well as other weapons of mass destruction in the former soviet union. as important as the steps have been, the world is far from these from the threat of weapons. moreover, the challenges inherent in the proliferation of discussion seems to be increasing rather rapidly. for example, if we take the. of present obama's tenure in office. highly troubling development. i hesitate to use precise -- ins, in the present the presence of his expert panel, but according to one estimate, by the summer last
year, iran had reached the point --re their climate had taken the time of her take to create and nuclear weapon was as low as to my. that time appears to be extended to one year. during president obama's time in office, north korea expelled international nuclear inspectors of from its country. it tested three and a, including one that includes -- that it claims to be a hydrogen bomb. i conducted to test of a long-range missile, which it claims is capable of hitting the united states. during this. acquiredn required -- material for nuclear weapons. they repeatedly blocked negotiation of the post -- of the proposed fissile activity. it also failed to prevent taliban linked groups from attacking tightly guarded government and military targets. some of which are located near
airport nuclear facilities. iraq, both the assad regime and the islamic state are using chemical weapons, lb at crude ones. despite president says at claim. hadelgium, the government their nuclear facilities would be attacked. footage of the top nuclear official in one such ability -- one such facility was found in an apartment of one suspected militant. facility members traveled to syria. may have been planning some kind
of operation at a belgian nuclear facility, possibly one that uses highly enriched uranium. president obama is concerned. tomorrow, he will be opening the fourth nuclear secure summit in washington. this gathering of world leaders will focus on nuclear material. these are the challenges of the next president will need to confront. it is not meant to be an exhaustive list. i expect a conversation today will explore these components. without further do, let me sit down and begin posing some questions to our panel is. i like to start with senator lugar. mentioned, -- i haven't mentioned yet, you're been working on the problem securing nuclear materials and weapons for two and a half decades at least. maybe more. how is the community doing?
if the problem being addressed in a promising way? if so, how? >> without going into the history of the situation, let me 1986,ay that back in president ronald reagan felt that after a meeting with iraqi baked, there's a possibility that the nine states and the former soviet union might again arms-control negotiations. senators,hat about 16 eight republicans, eight republicans, democrats, go to geneva, switzerland. the treaty would require two thirds of majority in the event that it could be negotiated. i was selected as one of those. dole and senator byrd. met with a lotd of russians. it was an instructive experience. educational for all of us.
this was not to be in 1986, so we're not close, really. it took several years. during that time, sam not and i visited with a good number of russians that we had met. we heard stories about the deterioration of the former soviet union. it is not a total surprise that in 1991, a group of his russians came to sam's office. they met around a roundtable and said you folks in the u.s. have a lot of problems because the people that are guarding the missiles on which the warheads are located, those folks are deserting in a good number. they are not getting paid. as a result, some of those weapons might be unguarded and it could be an accident. that could be a firing inadvertently. this came after so-called 40 years of mutually assured destruction.
thought there was the vi states in the former soviet union each had close to 10,000 nuclear warheads. enough to cover every military installation in either country. likewise, most of our major cities. mayor ofg indianapolis, indiana for eight years, i know idea. -- a couple ofs those weapons were aimed at indianapolis and could have obliterated the whole base will stop none of us understood that. time which im a was shocked when i went down into a pit there and pulled a muscle out in siberia. at the bottom of that, when the cars are located, were pictures of american cities. that led me to come back was indianapolis one of the targets? it certainly was. the property reduction act,
it has been suggested that it was 500 warheads aimed at the united states have been removed. from the soviet union and the missiles that would fire them. correspondingly, we have reduced on both sides roughly 1500 warheads. materialtill a lot of and at each other. nevertheless, 1500 is close to five digits. is a big difference. salute -- the the situation came in to a conclusion. i went to russian and 2012 to plead that we need to keep talking. the soviet foreign office and said sure. but the other office said no. no more americans. that was in the venture. that was one story. huge amounts, potential destruction.
countries including our own. now we are at a different point in his nuclear security summit meets in washington starting tomorrow. support time around the track. a lot of the discussion will come down to things much more like what you have described in belgium recently. i don't want to skip over everything, but nonetheless, the , duringthat in belgium the last attack, the belgians situations down to that are power stations. they dismissed all of the employees. you said why would they do that? because in previous weeks, they found that their event to employees at one of these places that have gone to join eiffel -- isil. that was a real problem. the could be people at the stations were not loyal to the
thousand government. they can create more of a problem that had arctic air current down. -- that had already occurred there. we are at a point where we can count major nations that have warheads, and this is bad enough. now we are at the terrorism stage. the extent to which people are able to get material. the point to which some mightists might as -- create dirty bombs. radiological material that could not create a nuclear explosion, but would, in essence, render whole square-mile uninhabitable in your city. is toope of situation vaguely discussed will stop and to frequently it comes up without much of an answer. what is to be the answer? is a new international
organization for the agreement? and international inspection situation? movie and that's really be respected by nations? jessica matthews has been involved. i remember the board. especially the board that has occurred recently. the index includes theft and sabotage. this is an essential book for anyone deeply interested in the subject. it goes through what is happening in all of the countries on earth. potential.ny it rates them one by one in terms of the amount of safety that has been attained and the amount of danger.
i appreciate this. nti hasuation in which cooperated with the economist magazine. data which instrument is the important. plus, at least indicators of how extensive it is. how many countries are involved. it will also be measured in that there were at least 35 countries that had substantial amounts of nuclear material a while back. up.t of them have given it 24 still remain. the u.s. and russia have the most. ofertheless, 1800 tons nuclear material is out there. in one form or another. much of it is not safeguarded as it ought to be. and finally if you terrorists
who don't need a kiloton. they only a few ounces. the question is how it going to do with terrorism and people and european countries apart from the middle east. who are prepared to do in the citizens of the country. let me posit that point. i wonder what my fellow panelists, whom i have a tremendous amount of respect, to continue. professor potter, senator lugar alluded to the fact that informedthe russians us that they are not interested in any more collaboration with the u.s. in securing their nuclear material. if you open the front day of times, you'll see president putin has decided to bow cut -- boycott this round of nuclear summit.
what is the current russian era juncker his is it something we should be worried about? their unwillingness to work with the u.s. anymore. >> before i respond, i will put it in historical complex -- and her struggle contact. it's an honor to appear with a number of my good friends, and also i real cute -- my real heroes, senator lugar. as set out none knows, i have had the privilege of nominating those for a peace prize. i want to applaud the tremendous efforts that the two senators have been able to promote over there years in government and
out of government. -- respond to your question. again, acknowledging that both of us was about time focused on soviet affairs rather than russian affairs. the point is important looking at the nature of u.s./russia relations is a per turn -- pertain to nonproliferation, for probablydes, beginning when the good negotiation of a nonproliferation treatment that was concluded in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. peaceful so-called nuclear explosion conducted by india in 1974, the united states and the soviet union began a very concerted and routine
foraboration nonproliferation. every six months, at the assistant secretary level, they compared notes about the different proliferation activities and concerns. suppliers' group meeting, the united states and soviet union collaborated more closely than did the u.s. with his traditional allies, including the french, germans, japanese. in the review process, the united states and the soviet union routinely acted in concert but the most part, because they were both nuclear weapons states and not anxious to see other nuclear weapons states emerge. to other agencies. what is important to notate --
during thehis went frigid moments of the cold war. after 1969, after the soviet union invaded afghanistan, all other by laterals were shut down. the only one that persisted in the security rum was cooperation in the nonproliferation sector. historical message. meetings seized in the latter parts of the 1980's. although you have other forms of cooperation, they were of a different age group. it is, indeed, most unfortunate will not be atns the nuclear securities summit. it is most unfortunate that russia believes that in normally
-- that it does not need to cooperate with the united states. to identify an area in which it may be possible, u.s./e the nosedive in russia relations, nonproliferation remains a promising area. next week, and monterey, we will and u.s.or russians officials joining us to talk about these matters as they pertain to north korea. i would say that by way of background. set ofuld make one other points. it has to do with nuclear terrorism and nuclear security. years ago, i
co-authored a book on the four faces of nuclear terrorism. as it has been alluded to, the spaces of terrorism -- what people talk about is a dirty bomber, you can and sabotagetacks the nuclear facilities. it is a concern about the russians and americans. one could talk about an improvised nuclear device. even if it is not a sophisticated one. also the potential for the theft or seizure and use of nuclear weapons from actual arsenals. those are four very different
forms of terrorism. subsequent to the publication of that book, i have become concerned about a fifth facet of nuclear terrorism that i don't think has received enough attention by national governments, including our own. for -- the potential a nuclearmpt to build device of any sort, but thinks they may be able to precipitating nuclear exchange between countries. spoofing.ll this an incident that occurred in rocketen a scientific was launched off the coast of norway. norwegian authorities had informed rush and authorities of their plans to make this launch.
that information was not relate to appropriate control in moscow. as a consequence, when this rocket took off, rush and command -- russian command thought it was a ballistic missile. singletely, it was a -sounding rocket that was fired. but have there been a dozen of these launches simultaneously -- the concern for me is that that is the real form of an existential threat posed by nonstate actors. i am equally concerned with the potential by isis and others to make use of radiological sources. that would be horrendous. but if you are really talking about an existential threat, i think it is spoofing that one
needs to be concerned with for a number of reasons, including george's favorite area, which is salvation. professor,opinion how acute is this problem with insecure new care material? what countries are facing the greatest dangers? >> let me first address the russia issue. the russianst walking away and how vulnerable does that leave nuclear materials? amigo back to 1991-1992 -- they were entertaining the russians in his office. we were interfacing with the russiand -- with the nuclear weapons scientists. when i first went to their
secret city in february of 1992 make mymonth, i will 52nd visit to russia since that time. is addressing this issue of the security issues we've had. 1991-1992, back in 1, 2, 3 greatest nuclear threats were related to russia and the coming part of the soviet union and what happened. then we had this incredible combination of u.s. government action that were really important, including president visionary. bush legislation. force, head ofin the government to sort of push into action, talking to each
other. they knew it was going to take a lot of cooperation. then, we as scientists, in these labs, started to work together. at that time -- and that is the story we tell in this book. i will try to give you a quick synopsis. [laughter] faced in 1991-1992, is a soviet union coming apart in the 15 nations that made up the soviet union, particularly russia federation, then having access to these a norm is nuclear assets at a time when the country was literally coming apart. turmoil,my in total the political system changing, the safety net for the soviet people going away.
call awas what i would perfect nuclear storm. you had a soviet union with 30 nuclear weapons -- 30 some thousand nuclear weapons. russia then left somewhere around 1.4 million kilograms of fissile materials, the stuff you make bombs out of. that means plutonium and uranium. just to remind you, the plutonium bomb, 6.2 kilograms of plutonium blew up a city. of plutonium is this much. that's it. hiroshima was-- more. say you can make a bomb today out of 25 or so kilograms. we are talking about 1.4 million
hundreds ofd facilities and buildings. this is not for knox stuff. knox stuff. you can't lock these materials up. you dissolve them in acid. you work with them. there was all this. we talk about -- concerned about loose nukes. the second was the loose materials. could some of this material getaway? in 1992, i really did not see how we were going to get to the next 10 to 20 years without significant loss of rush and nuclear materials. russian nuclear materials. the soviet complex had about one
million people working in the nuclear complex. not with all nuclear weapons, but let's just say lots of them. the fourth was loose exports. 90 look at 25 years later, and loose nukes did not happen. loose nuclear materials, a little bit. small amount of fissile materials. it is unbelievable what happened to the russian complex. loose exports, a bit of a problem with iran in the 1990's, but russia has come around to be a responsible nuclear exporter. so, those four things did not happen. today, the situation in russia is significantly improved that
where it was in 1991-1992. there nuclear weapons are now well protected. the nuclear materials are much better protected. their experts did not get paid for six months at a time. they are getting paid and doing well. in exports, they are exporting legitimately and making significant money that way. hasrussian nuclear complex become an enormous way -- one of the reasons they shut off -- >> they don't need us. >> the have made progress in most of this program was focused at improving their facilities, there are people, and they said, hey, we are is good as you guys. stop focusing on us. to some extent, that is good news. , if you are is
talking about nuclear safety and nuclear security, you are never done. just when you think you are done , and you get complacent, is when the problems happen. we have had those problems in this country, more so than in russia. what's so important is for us to continue to work together because this issue of a nuclear security, from the weapons, to the materials, to the exports, it doesn't just require government action. we had this visionary legislation, that by itself would have done nothing. all the way down the line, we had several thousand scientists and engineers from the u.s. labs and russian labs help each other. literally thousands of projects
back and forth. it was only through that that we got the sense that they are doing well, and now they have cut off that interaction, and that is a pity. percentage -- pakistan is where people are likely to obtain nuclear materials. how accurate is that assessment? i think some of the things that they talked about the progress made -- they are welcome good news, but indicative of a logic that i think we ought to remember, and includingtates pakistan and their leaders, have
greater motivations even then we do to maintain their crown jewels. nuclear weapons to pakistan of the most important thing to a pakistani army. pakistani army is the most competent organization in pakistan. nuclear weapons of the safest thing in pakistan. enough, you may say, they are still not safe. but from a pakistani point of view, what more are you going to do? they have a lot of things to worry about. have they been amenable to american systems? >> it is very quiet, but there ongoing department of .nergy cooperation
it is very, very difficult because the pakistani military -- we worry the most about terrorists getting them. when the osama bin laden raid happened, they started moving nuclear weapons and securing a nuclear sites because they thought the u.s. was coming after there nuclear weapons. there is good news in that, too. they can secure their nuclear weapons against us, they are probably securing them against other people as well. i don't have a problem if that is the motivation. but the psychology of this issue firstferent than you must think about it. but it is fairly positive, i would say. and their openness to cooperation without getting too close. they want to make sure they can hide their things from us. now, the more the u.s. cooperates with india, which is a bipartisan objective in
washington, then the more the pakistani say, wait a minute, their new best friend and arener are the indians, who our biggest enemies want our nuclear weapons. we have to be aware when we are going on and on about pakistan. >> the new president may the iran deal. -- anblished an article editorial. i wonder what the other palace think of the iran deal? how much more secure does it make us, and what other problem s? i share the assessment as is
conveyed in the title. deal probably a better than many folks thought was possible just a few years ago when we were in the midst of these negotiations. problem will be in the implementation of the deal. problem as anic international one. their unparalleled inspections -- i am quite confident on that side of the street, it will be all right. it is the question of the opposition in both countries by large, important factions to the deal in principle.
think that is something we cannot take for granted if we are going to be able to sustain over time. but, in balance, i think if you were going to ask about the nonproliferation ledger, what is the good news and the bad news? the good news is the iran deal. let me share with you and unanticipated, i think, consequence to that deal. most americans, in particularly, those who work in the government have had a very negative view of iran as it pertains to international negotiations with very good reasons. terrorism is one of those. in the area i focus on a lot, that is the nonproliferation treaty due process. the gatherings -- four out of every five years countries come together to review the implementation of the treaty and looking forward.
.t is rather striking whether there are all kinds of reviews at the last conference. i recently wrote an article called "the ethical promise of a -- i had a subtitle that the 100 ways to say no in french and arabic." iran was not a problem. it was a constructive force in those negotiations. it is also telling that the first committee of the united nations this past fall, all of the nuclear weapons possessors referred a resolution put forward by iran dealing with the so-called open ended working
group disarmament with a resolution put forth by our allies such as mexico, chill a chile, austria, and the like. these are esoteric issues. it is pertinent to the question of what is the consequence of this iran nuclear deal? >> would you let to chime in on this? >> what i find amazing about the enron deal is how much division an deal is how must division there is. everyone has a strong opinion one way or the other. i don't understand the underlying technical issues. is thethe common things are giving them the license that 10 years from now, they will have an industrial nuclear weapons capability. that is one concern. the second concern i have is, i
wish we had more people talking about north korea instead of the iran deal because that is the real problem. they have lots of nukes, and they have been building them up regardless of what the rest of the world is doing. it is the failure of the international community and we are just sitting by. it was mentioned earlier of this thing called strategic patience. it is neither strategic, or patients. it is just a very bad move. [laughter] i have had a chance to interact with the iranian technical people and what they are iranians. what has happened is over the they30 years essentially, made the decision that they would go ahead and reconstitute a path toward -- a nuclear cap in the mid-1980's.
if you watch what they have been doing, over 30 years, this is my opinion -- they had been putting in place, the capability to build a bomb. so when you add all the pieces together, that is the only conclusion that i can come up with as to why they would do with the are doing with the centrifuges and what they would build a reactor that would make plutonium, and why they do certain types of tests. they have been putting that in place, and also, regardless of what happens politically. it just kept on going along. iranhappened with this deal was, in essence, the administration agreed they would disaggregate the nuclear problem .rom the rest of the iran issue separate the problem. by separating the problem, the good news was, that the only way they could get the rest of the
world to come on board, particularly, china, russia. there is no way if you fold in you are going to get russia on board. but if you focus only on the nuclear peace, they manage to get all of those guys lined up so now, they have the makings of a nuclear deal. what they did with this new theory deal, the technical stuff is very straightforward. at the time they started the deal discussion, the iranians, and a month or two, could have made enough highly, enriched uranium for a bomb. it would have taken them six more months to build a crude bomb, taking a couple of years to build something more sophisticated, but they were within a couple of months to make the materials for a bomb. that is how close they were. , and i havel does these discussions with the iranians, and i kept on telling them, you have two open space
between the military and the civilian capabilities. they opened space and that space they opened, that year you have heard, and it is pretty good. what they have now done, with the deal, it will take them a year if they want to reconstitute. if they want to cheat, or as george's buddy say, sneak out instead of breakout, that would be more difficult because the whole inspection regime is much more rigorous than anything that has been put there. what they did with this plutonium, what could have been a plutonium producing reactor, was remarkable. they agreed to totally redesign the reactor to make the americans less concerned about making plutonium, which are be the second cap to the bomb. they took all of the steps, and from a nuclear standpoint, that is all good news.
in 10 or 15 years they want to go back and marched towards a bomb, they can do that. they have the capabilities to do so, but we would know what they were doing it. so that's the good news. disaggregating -- that does not believe -- that does not mean they will behave at all. what are they going to do with that money? what is going to happen in this next 10 to 15 years? my bottom line to that was, i don't know what is going to happen. we don't know which way iran is going to go, but i rather not face the next 10 to 15 years with them having nuclear weapons , and then worried about all these other issues. far thee, this was by best you could do. to get towe are about questions, and i appreciate that. -- theant to say that
deal of life are, as his came about, every single republican in the united states senate indicated opposition. it was a situation in which the white house called me and asked if i could help. they implored me much more strongly than this. it and called my partner. john kerry called and said, i am going up to philadelphia to try to make a case for a national audience. i would let you to come on my plane. as started out by talking about some of their experiences with arms control and what have you.
it was an interesting trip. secretary john kerry gave a tremendous speech point by point everything that has been suggested today. even at that point within the democratic party, there were not enough votes to get across the threshold of the parliament early situation they had. nevertheless, by the time we onished that day, word came the democratic side and they finally said, yes. it looked everywhere finally going to get across the finish line. i say that because we have not had an arms controlled treaty. when john, that was kerry was chairman and i was a ranking member of the senate. it isuent to that, semi-miraculous that this got across the finish line, but it was very important that it did.
i commend everyone involved in the process. >> before we get to questions, i want to take you up on it and talk about north korea. koreans to obtaining a weapon that can strike american territory? i would say there are many, many reasons for that. as you can kind of tell with my response, to talk about the threat doesn't motivate me very much. for aw what they are, long, long time. north korea, depending on how you measure the worry, 1992 with the latest that we were really worried. so i was really young. the issue is what you going to do about it? we talk about the north korean threat, but what do we do about it? that