tv Capital News Today CSPAN May 10, 2013 11:00pm-2:01am EDT
saying the following. india believes in the u.s., believes in major states, but not in the european union. i'm summarizing, simplifying, but that's more or less the message. there are threats facing us, vownting us, greater than ever even if public opinion is not aware of this. look at what's happening in syria. of course, we do not wish to see a military intervention there, but it might be necessary if certain forces lay their hands on chemical weapons, and so it would be interesting to hear your assessments of the situation. now, ahead of the e.u. summit on security, i'd like to hear from you op behalf the nato, would
you call on europe to form european defense policy? military resources and budgets are dwindling, the u.k. and france have to make serious disastrous choices if we continue to operate in the national flags only, we will not have a credible defense policy in europe so the time has come to pull our resources, particularly, in the light of dwindling budgets, but this is not a discourse that we hear in national parliaments when discussing the economic crisis. the fact is, though, it's a vital move. will nato, therefore, clearly adopt such a position? that would be a first. nato has always sought for countries to do more within
nato, and i support the attitude, but will nato call for integration of the military resources of the e.u. member states? >> thank you. good afternoon, two points, first, we all appreciate that impediment to stronger relations between the e.u., is always the turkey-cypress problem. do you agree with me, therefore, prudent to ask the turkish prime
minister to be at the december meeting of the european council? i think if he is asked, this will be his first chance to speak to his peers since 2004, and that's a long time before. secondly, following the trip that was spoke of, could you say something about nato's approach to the future of the atlanta
thanks. >> thank you very much indeed for a very relevant question. first, thank you, for your kind words, and you ask me how we could possibly better coordinate between nato, the european union, and asked questions in the same direction. i think we have three areas in which we need very close cooperation and coordination between nato and the european union. first a operations.
we operate together in afghanistan, in kosovo, and also have to say that despite all the overall political problems, let's call them challenges in our corporation, we manage to coordinate smoothly in theater, so e.u. poll and isaf work first timely together in afghanistan, k4 and e.u. work together in a very efficient mapper in kosovo and help each other which i think in daily life we manage to get along. secondly, we need close coordination when it comes to development of capabilities that leads me to answer the questions about smart defense and pooling and sharing that several of you
mentioned. mentioned smart defense, pooling and sharing, and mr. click also mentioned that, and we have to ensure we do not pursue parallel programs but compliment taxpayers' money. no unproductive or duplication of work, and an excellent example of impact on what i call a productive division of layer. at the chicago summit last year, european nato allies committed themselves to develop capacity with in air to air refueling,
but all and all, we have similar, but dependent on u.s. capabilities. what we need is european investment in that capability, so allies made the commitment in chicago, an excellent example of how we can divide labor, no reason for nato to embark on that. that's for the european defense agency. thirdly, we need more cooperation, consultation, and coordination when it comes to politic, and really we have an absurd situation, an ab surd situation. in former meetings, we're only allowed to discuss one issue, one issue, bosnia, because the e.u. conducts an operation in bosnia within the cross frame
work as its called. i will not go into technical details, but bottom line, it's the only issue we're allowed to discuss in former meetings. those meetings take place with e.u. at 26, that is without participation, and that's because the e.u. is reluctant to have too many of the meetings with only 26 out of 27 members. we can only do it in informal meetings and then in exchange, the turks are reluctant to accept too many of those meetings. that's where we are. that leads me to the conclusion that unless we find a solution to the cypress problem, we will
continue to have this absurd situation. this is app area where we should move forward. i issueded pragmatic proposals how to move forward, but i had to realize that to find the political solution, we need the parties in cypress to find each other, and they should. they have huge economic challenges. they have natural resources they could exploit once they reunify the island, and the european union could play a role, some lev religion to fa till sit a solution to that problem. they asked me about nato, post 2014. we really looking for now
activities to ensure that they continue to be relevant? no way. there's no need to invent new things. we have full play. our hands are full. they are prepareed to take action if needed. a way to do that is ensure we have to work and operate together in afghanistan. that ability will be maintained and further developed in the coming years. we call it the connected forces in initiatives because it's about training and education so what we learn in afghanistan is maintained even if we draw down in afghanistan, and, believe me, there will be new tasks, went restand ready.
we are preparedded for the up expected. if we asked when you took office as secretary general in office 2009, could you imagine nato? i would not only probably, but definitely have answered no. threferls, it was a task we have to handle. this is my point. we have to stand ready for the up expected, and that is nato post 2014. he asked a question about syria, and recent reports on israeli strike in syria. i have, of course, seen the press reports, and i've also noted that no such activity has take b place --
taken place in areas for deployment of missiles in turkey. obviously, the situation in syria remains a matter of concern. we are concerned about the humanitarian situation, and we are concerned about the risk of spillover in the region. we are concerned about the use of chemical weapons so we urge the international community to find the political solution as soon as possible. that would take agreement among the five members of the u.n. security council. the only way forward is a political solution, but to that end, we need a strong and unified message from the international community. i was asked whether the
so-called u.s. pivot will weaken the transatlantic relationship. brief answer is that depends on us, the europeans. it's in our interest that the u.s. rebalance its interest and focus a bit more on taking into account the rising powers. if we are to ensure that the americans still find europe relevant as a partner, that europeans must also invest in that transat -- transatlantic relationship economically, politically, and militarily, that's my point. they asked pretty much the same question, would this u.s.
situation downgrade nato? no, not in itself, but, of course, if the europeans don't invest in the transatlantic relationship, it may, it may weaken that bond, but, actually, we have seen a strong u.s. commitment to european security, and, for instance, the u.s. contribution to the nato defense system, that's a u.s. commitment to addressing emerging security challenges, the newest rates, so instead of having a lot of stationary forces in code watch washers in europe, the u.s. is now engauged in ad moo earn way, in a way that actually addresses the threats of our time. in that respect, you also ask me
about obsolete infrastructure. do we have any research that indicates how much money is wasted on obsolete infrastructure and old fashioned structures in general? i'm not aware of such, but we are very much focused on reforming our military forces in the direction of more deployability so more democratic structures, more mobility, more ability to diplomacy employee ways actually necessary. that's actually the essence of ongoing reform efforts and transformation efforts within nato. i was asked quite directly, would you, as nato, recommend the european union to develop a
european defense policy? as the general of nato, i'm not going to interfere with e.u. policies, but i think you have heard my words today. i do believe that we need a strengthened european defense, and i don't see any contradiction between a strong nato and a strong european defense cooperation. on the contrary, that strengthens the european pillar within nato, and so if a strengthened european defsz policy is about investment in capabilities, and not -- now i speak very openly and frankly, and not new brock sigh -- bureaucracies and institutions, then it could contribute in a valuable way to strengthening our overall security. otherwise, it will just be hot
air, as i said. in that respect, i'm in favor of it, but i don't interfere with it. just to conclude on that point. very often we discuss whether -- i know in some political groups, you discuss whether we should actually have a common european defense. now, to speak real ligs -- realistically, i don't think we'll see it in my lifetime because when it comes to -- because i intend to live for a long time. [laughter] i say this because as secretary general of nato, i have learned how much individual nations protect their integrity and national sovereignty when it comes to defense and security
policy. that's really untouchable. i believe in the coming years we see nations cooperate much, much more across borders because they need it, they need it. so you will see projects on pooling and sharing, whatever, but the bottom line is nations are not able to acquire vast expensive military equipment on their own, and even the bigger european nations need to cooperate so in that respect, i think we will see much more collective defense efforts in europe in the coming years. andrew asked whether it would be a good idea to invite prime minister to participate in
december. i would refrain from interfering with european on who they want to invite, participate in european council meetings, and, finally, on piracy, it's a subset story, and the lesson learned is through a close, international coordination, the e.u., nato, and individual players, we can actually achieve a lot, and i won't exclude the possibility that based on lessons learned, it would be worthwhile deploying assets in other parts of the world to in an international effort to ensure free and open sea lanes because piracy seems to emerge
in other parts of the world. thank you. >> i give the floor to someone who want to commend remarks on the good relation between nato and e.u. and the need for the cooperation and division of labor. [laughter] >> thank you very much, and delighted to see you hering secretary general, always great pleasure to have a whiff of reality in this institution. could i say, first of all, i mean, you made a remark just now about nato has no need to invent things in 2014. of course, the european unionments to invent things all the time. it scours the world, looking for a role, trying to find opportunities to put the flag down in order to justify
european defense policy, and it seems to me that the question we have to ask is low should we strengthen the capacity of the democracies? how should we stengthen their ability to act in this dangerous world, not how should we try and find and justify a role for the european union, and the fact is, secretary general, i mean, you know, you're in a very difficult position. you're a sort of diplomat from a bit of politician, and, you know, you're mainly a diplomat to speak in a way that will not offend your 28 member states. you -- the fact is that we're having a different conversation, it's about finding a role for the european union to act and don't you think in this time of scarce resources it makes far
more sense rather than creating parallel structures and institutions, if it was to concentrate on the european effort within nato because that's really where realistically it's going to happen. of course, all duplication of effort is compounded by the fact we have the same member states talking to one another in this same city. my concern, i suppose, in the way things go at the moment, is, first of all, we don't have a truthful conversation because the conversation here is all about roles for the european union, whereas, i think, in reality, what you'd like to say is, please, stop playing politics, stop billing new institutions and structures and things. create more capability. that's what we need. you're not going to do it through the european union because their objective is
something entirely different, but aren't you worried about an eventual biforcation of the alliance and there's an alliance that on the one hand we have the european union, and on the other hand, we have the north american? i know there are people here that would see that. the transatlantic organization would like to see that. that is the objective that they have in mind, and it strikes me that that's a very dangerous direction to go in, so i'd be very interested in your view on that potential, but secretary general, really, what i would ask you to do is encourage the european countries to put their effort into the alliance that'll stop all duplication and stop dressing it up as if somehow or another they are adding capability when exactly they are not. >> i have seen this is in
situations as the prime minister, outspoken president of the european coup sill, but i've never seen it as a diplomat. [laughter] >> thank you, and thank you for giving this opportunity to have a dialogue with nato. i'd like to focus on the missile defense. you remember there was a great between russia and nato and one would work together on missile defense, and since then, there's been lot of problems in missile defense. i'd like to hear your assessment now that the americans have at least postponed, maybe canceled stage four of the missile defense, does it open up new possibilities to work together with russia on the missile defense, and what is the situation in that nato-russia council? i would also like to just ask
additional question. i saw that you are the chair of the european parliament dell gracious and you mentioned in some news that maybe natos would have a role in iran also. are there any plans on this, and what would you say would be nato's role in this case? thank you. >> translator: first of all, may i say that mr. rasmussen is constantly abading to advance and ordinary people across europe, not as a matter of principle.
what's going on now is that new systems are being used, military technology such as drones which actually kill people, a lot of people died in afghanistan. support this, and then we all understand what you mean when you talk about strengthening the european element of nato. it's quite simple for anyone who looks at the state of the defense. natoments to be -- nato wants to be able to decide what crisis to intervene in, and when they don't see fit to take action, leave it to the europeeps. i pick up what you said about supplying planes in flight.
we talk of cooperation, but there's none because of the clashes of interest amongst nato imperialist powers, and, obviously, the united states will use its leverage in nato. nothing can change in nato unless washington gives the nod. it's also clear that when the united states applies the brakes, or if one of the members applies the breaks, france, then the united states will say, oh, well, we don't want to intervene. let the europeans do it. ..
this pooling and sharing or defend. we heard for a a general on the security and defense committee for 300 million euro could be saved by pooling and sharing, where's the cuts being made at member states, 30 uyuni around, and other rates 100 times more pas is anything being done by nato to check this out these numbers state has? and now on missile defense, there is disease and there are skeptics. regardless of what the politicians say, how do you intend to persuade the people of europe that the missile defense is in the interest of the people
of europe rather than just the interest of the united states? faq thank you for your help regarding georgia. the political parties and people in georgia are very much in favor of nato membership. how are you going to persuade nature european governments to drop their resistance to georgia and nato? thank you. >> mr. vacco. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you. thank you, secretary-general. there's a lot of them put to affect your summer security.
we need to reduce the number of fat is in relation to what we have today. there are too many such that there is a present. david me to my question, do you believe the coordination between nato and the european union might be, for example, anticipating bringing forward the processes, those kind of processes we have and those that then harder to foresee. none expected events we see nato has not been terribly successful. it is actually failed. i believe we need to start our
cooperation not just by expanding capacity, that ability to apply thought to our missions. what is happening to macedonia? so be well aware of why amazed that. i'm talking about the international court. clearly this is a region with the image of nato is significant. >> thank you very much. first, commissioner vanguard, let me tell you i am not an institution. i not care who exactly does what. caring that it was done. we have identified critical
shortfalls when it comes to military capabilities. we have learned notably in afghanistan and libya learned a lot of lessons. based on that, we have identified critical shortfalls in my focal point is to fill those gaps, whether it's a nato framework for an e.u. framework, i don't care. but 21 nations are members of both organizations. obviously we owe it to taxpayers to make sure the work we do is done efficiently. we have one set of military capabilities. we need more investment transfer capability and where the letter letter soldiers in europe, but we can't move them to speak
briefly about it. we learned that from the libya. we need a better capacity when it comes to surveillance, reconnaissance and to speak in terms, that would invest in jones used to gather to guide our military and political decisions. these are critical shortfalls and as i mentioned at the nato summit in chicago last year, european nato allies committed themselves to advance in air refueling capacity.
if they want to do that through the european defense agency, i don't care about institutions. i care about the work to be done. now, this is why i do agree the most important thing to decide would be to invest a sufficient amount of money and critically needed military capacities. that would be the most important decision to take. now mrs. kronberg asked me whether nato envisions a role in iran. no, i've never made such a state and.
on the contrary, not engaged in the iran question. we support international efforts to find a diplomatic solution. missile defense to ask me whether the change of the so-called face adaptive approach could also facilitate closer cooperation with russia and that's an important question. my insert bs,, i think it should because the russian concern so far have turned airily been related to the source of facts and now face has been abolished. so if there's a political will in moscow, that.
paved the way for an agreement as to how nato and russia could cooperate on missile defense. let me stress having said that the fact that face lawyer, the fourth and final phase has been abolished does not change that the whole of the population in european nato nations will be called by the nato missile defense because the first three phases will be implemented as planned and that will cover all populations in european nato nations.
asked me when the up a ration of kosovo comes to an end. well, the interesting thing is people in the region don't consider it an occupation. on the contrary, recently when concluded the agreement, both parties requested nato to stay in guarantee peace and stability and help implement the agreement. so that's not an occupation. of course i am pleased to see nato is considered such a guarantor of peace and stability and of course it will stay as long as necessary to them laments the u.n. mandate. we operate on the basis of the u.n. mandate.
we have an obligation to implement the u.n. mandate, to ensure free movement. you asked me about afghanistan. that in 2014, the isaf mission will come to an end. that will complete our combat mission, but we will stay after 2014 to help the afghan security forces. mr. lisette asked me whether we do anything to stop cuts and defense budgets. as you know, international decision as a benchmark according to which nato allies
have stated those allies that spent more than 2%, 2% or more on defense commit themselves to stay above the 2% while those will try to work towards the 2%. it's not a legal requirement. it's a political obligation. whenever i visit capitals and soon i will visit, i will repeat that message. and i can tell you i've had political dialogue with governments, but also with parliamentarians in some capitals. i have seen a positive response. i can mention one country in which the main political parties have reached a broad political
agreement according to which they will now move gradually toward 2%. so that his life for the nato secretary salsa port to engage directly with parliamentarians because this is very much about budget, defense budget and financial fiscal policy in general fours. now how can we convince people but it's also the europeans interest cliques it is quite clear we are faced with a real missile threat. more than 30 countries in the world of missile technologies someone arranged so they can hit targets in europe. so it is clearly in europe's interest to develop and affect
dave missile threat. finally the decision we took in bucharest into designated the nato eight at the nato summit still stands. restated will become a member of nato. of course provided they fulfill the necessary criteria. we've established a nato georgia commission on within the commission we were to go forward said georgia continues her reform process the theme to one in the future be able to join the alliance. we are not there. i am pleased the new government has reaffirmed nato aspiration. so it's very much for church to identify the necessary criteria.
finally, ask me about future enlargement. we've engaged actively. as you now, we have made a decision also than 2008 in bucharest that we have ready to start negotiations as soon as a mutually satisfactory to the main issue is found. so from a nato perspective, we've done all we can. we are ready to start negotiations and the solution to the main issue has been found. i encourage more parties involved to do their utmost to find a solution to that main issue. to my mind, it is not
impossible. it is within reach if there is good political will. thank you. >> thank you very much. i had originally for names on my list or three names. now we have six. adiabatic but if everyone keep his part for one minute, perhaps we can make it. [speaking in native tongue] >> thank you, chairman. just one question. were you a nato conversing with the bombings carried out israel on damascus. the reason i put this question to you is on the seventh of
march 2013, nato did find it partnership agreement with israel, a bilateral agreement in their headlines in the press at the time to the fact that israel is becoming a member of nato. the eight io us to strengthen the process of military planning between israel perhaps any future actions in the middle east events before and it's hard to believe there's been no coordination. so how do you analyze their action? thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary-general. if top about the need for leadership in the change relatives capacity without much political leadership is quite empty. i wanted to ask you about the capacity of the so-called
cyberdomain organization to technology and defense. and the united states, it's an established capacity is legitimize the necessary. i read with great interest the manual. could you tell me what nato is planning in relation to cybersecurity and how we secure the freedom and security also relationship to take knowledge you to not become a zero-sum game. the last question to syria, which unfortunately is now one of the few options. i followed closely for the past two years and on a number of occasions, you mentioned but not get involved. i simply want to ask you why. >> thank you, chairman.
i just came back from development and talking about the balkans, we have unfinished business there besides the nato enlargement is concerned. massacre news mentioned, but what about countries and how do you see the prospects can we expect the next nato summit with the enlargement summit? thank you. >> thank you, chair, secretary general. three questions. what should nato in your opinion due to promote nuclear disarmament? second, there's an arms race, and incipient arms race going on in the station. we are feeding into that with our arms exporters. what's your opinion on that?
shouldn't we be more cautious in policy regarding arms export to that region? third, beyond missile defense, what is according to your opinion the top of the agenda that we should pursue this europeans and particularly u.s. nato with regard to security cooperation with russia and i'm sure you seen the port that alters statesmen on building mutual security. that's your opinion on that? >> mr. kilowatts. >> encina last year was the small mountain borders.
basic to begin a large-scale on the european territory and a lot of coordinated investigations and so on, the united states and israel believe it is the and the even press the allies to deal it has allowed in an official manner. on the other hand, they still have some controversy here. of course these are not the dvds, but this is discussed. the connection of course if hezbollah and the last straight. is it possibly related with the fact that he sent the series gets to be undertaken in the future regarding iran, hezbollah probably has to be dealt with before.
other nato in its row house or have coordinated straight -- definitely not. we have a partnership with israel, yes? with a partnership called the mediterranean dialogue, which actually comes not only israel, the six other countries in north africa and the middle east and we have a cooperation program with each of these countries. but we haven't coordinated and straight. cybersecurity, that's absolutely
one of the new security challenges on which we need to focus much, much more in the coming years. we are in the process of strengthening our cyberdefense. first step has been to strengthen the defense of our own nato networks and may need that because i'm a regular basis, where attack, which shouldn't be surprised. so far we've been very successful in defending our system. so that is the first step. next of course we will also have to consider whether and if so how we can develop a capacity that can calm to the help of
individual allies that are set to two attacks. some allies may have the capacity to defend themselves against such cyberattacks. other allies would appreciate an avid nato capability and kind of a rapid reaction team that can assist upon request if needed. so these are some of the element in the work that is being prepared and obviously, cybersecurity is also an issue with which -- on which we need a strong co-op aeration with the partners across the globe because cybersecurity is a cross-border issue and should be dealt with also in partnerships
with like-minded countries. now you ask me about syria. why is it that nato doesn't have any intention to intervene militarily in syria? very often i get that question because people refer to the very successful nato operation in libya and asked me, why could you do the same in syria? i have to say there is a clear difference between libya and syria. the only operate on the basis of united nations and eight to protect the civilian population against attack by contacting support from countries in the regions. none of these conditions are fulfilled in syria. syria is a much more complex
society and i do believe that an external military intervention might have unprinted will regional repercussions. this is the reason i do believe the right way forward is a political solution. having said that, i fully share your frustration. it's absolutely outrageous what we are witnessing in syria. and this is the reason why it is indeed a matter of urgency at the international community sends a strong and unified message to the regime in damascus. so far the u.n. security council has failed to reach a consensus. i strongly regret that. i do believe we have a political framework that could use.
in june 2012, the so-called action group of syria issued a statement of declaration signed by all sides permanent members of the u.n. security council. in that statement, it clearly stated that the regime in damascus should initiate a process of transition leading to accommodation of legitimate aspirations of the syrian people. i do believe that a political solution could be based on that declaration. add to that meant, of course you need the u.n. security council resolution could not mr. birkbeck asked me about the
case for the balkans. montenegro has made substantial progress. this is the reason why we have granted what we call and membership action plan. they do not fulfill the necessary criteria, but i am quite impressed by the work done in progress achieved in montenegro. there is a political statement made. a couple years ago we granted what i would call a condition based membership action plan to bosnia as a government. we declared we want to activate the membership action plan as soon as the bosnian carie through certain modest reforms related to defense property.
secondly, to become a member of nato, you need to fulfill certain criteria. so it's it's for the african countries to too -- to do their homework. nuclear disarmment, we have adopted a strategic concept. in that strategic concept we re-affirm what most nations in the world subscribe to already in 1970, to work toward a world without nuclear weapons. we share that transition. however, we are not naive so we orchestrated as long as nuclear weapons exist, nato will remain a nuclear ally. but having said that we would be pleased to see a reduction in the stockpile of tactical
nuclear weapons in a balanced way, and here i have to tell you, that nato allies have reduced the number of nuclear weapons substantially since the end of the cold war. the same is not the case when we're speaking about russia. so that's why i have to stress that, yes, we are indeed in favor of reducing the number of nuclear weapons, but in a balanced way. and on your atlantic security, i have read the report from the group with great interest, and definitely we need a positive engagement with russia. that's also why we have invited russia to cooperate on missile defense.
we have moved forward with roche on -- with russia on a lot of practical cooperation, but so far, our invitation has not been positively received in moscow, which i regret. but we continue our dialogue. now, i was asked whether this incident would have taken place if sweden had been a member of nato. i don't know. i don't know. and i'm not going to interfere with the domestic swedish debate on nato. i have followed it with great interest, but i have to
reiterate what i have also clearly stated on swedish soil, that there is a clear difference between being a member and not being a member. to be covered by article 5, you have to be a member of nato. but we appreciate the very close and very positive partnerships we have with sweden. >> thank you very much, secretary general. [applause] >> thank you, secretary general, for your remarks and explanation. >> the next speaker is here. >> i'd like to thank the
secretary general for attending, and i think that between now and the eu summit, there will be and should be discussion between the e.u. and nato, given the synergy effects which can only be achieved through european cooperation, and also for reasons of the clear lines of complimentary cooperation between nato and the european union. perhaps all of you at the book could remain seated until we have closed this item. and we'll see that this is all the more necessary, given the possible changes in u.s. policy. i don't know what u.s. middle
eastern policy is going to be if the u.s.a. becomes self-sufficient in energy. that will change the balance of interest between the u.s. and europe, and, therefore, also between nato and the european union, as is very important for the two communities in this city to continue to cooperate. i'm very grateful to you for the opportunity to debate today. but sometimes in this nato/e.u. discussion we have to recall that in foreign policy, the e.u. plays a phenomenal role in terms of its nonmilitary assistance. nonmilitary preventive assistance is provided for -- to
a large proportion by the european union. 60% of foreign aid comes from the european union so if we want to talk about burden-sharing and being fair, we want to take those numbers into account. i do hope that this cooperation will flourish, and i too hope the europeans will take their military responsibilities more seriously. thank you very much for your explanations and remarks, which will help us to continue with our work ahead of the summit. thank you again for coming to join us. >> opposing slavery, she influences her husband to switch from the whig party to the republican party, and she hope hosts the first annual white
house easter egg role. as we continue our series on fir ladies with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter, monday night. and also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> you're watching c-span2, with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate, and at night, public poll events and weekends, booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web sites and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> for the second time this week, senate republicans blocked a commitey confirmation vote on the nomination of gina mccarthy. president obama's pick to run the environmental protection agency. all eight republicans pick cotted a meeting thursday, saying the nominee refused to
once questions about transparency in the agency. chairman barbara boxer called the republican's' actions outrageous ask part of their recent pattern of, quote, obstructionism. >> the meeting will come to order. i've been informed a few minutes ago the republicans are boycotting this markup for one of the most qualified, if i could say, perhaps the most qualified nominee to ever head the environmental protection agency. i've left a glass of water here for senator vitter out of friendship in the hopes he would come and clear his throat and join us. i am rather stunned this has happened, frankly, because i have never seen a nominee in my life, answer more questions than gina mccarthy has done. we have been informed the republicans are boycotting, and i hope that members will stay
and make a comment how you feel about this. so, gina mccarthy deserves a vote. i delayed the vote at the request of my ranking member, and i delayed it long past when i wanted to mark up, and i was under the impression that as soon as she received the answers to the 1,000 questions. 1,000 questions, record-breaking number of questions -- that they would allow us to move forward with this vote. every nominee is entitled to a vote, particularly a nominee like this one. denying a president's nominee, who has this level of experience, who has been confirmed by the senate for the position she now holds, is wrong. it's unacceptable. gina is tremendously qualified to head the epa. she has more than three decades of public service experience, including at the local, state, and federal level. she has a very well-demonstrated
record of working with republicans and democrats. she has received support from business. she has received support from health officials. she has received support from environmental organizations and scientists. and i would say today that, at this stage, their opposition, even to allowing us to vote, shows how outside the mainstream they are. it shows how obstructionist they are. it shows how their pledge to do better with women voters 'is false. how could you have a more qualified woman than gina mccarthy? this is outrageous. 1100 questions were submitted to her. and i would say that every member of the committee has a right to ask the questions, but
once they get the answers, if they don't like the answers, if the answers aren't in accordance with their philosophy, don't be that surprised. we just had an election and this isn't m-romney's cabinet or mr. rick perry's cabinet. this is barack obama's cabinet. so, don't be that shocked that you may not agree with her views. now, i'm going to retain the rest of my time because i know everybody has important meetings to get to, but i'm going to stay here and have many more comments to make at the way we intend to proceed on this, but it i'm going straight down the row in order of seniority. senator carper. >> thank you, madam chair. it is with a heavy heart i'm
sitting here today. i talked with a number of our republican kole -- colleagues today, urging them to support the nomination of gina mccarthy, and while they did not commit to doing so they had positive things to say. they expressed concern she had not fully answered the questions asked of her, and i said to them, do you know how many question she has been asked? over 1,000, and said, compared to what? well, compared to mike live visit, the former governor from utah, who served as a administrator and sect of health and human services. when he was nominated for the same position he was asked fewer than 400. she has been asked over 1,000, senator -- she has answered a
bunch of their questions. a lot of their questions. and if you want to -- if they want to say, why don't we ask maybe 2,000 or 3,000, she may not be able to answer all of those but i think she has answered most of these questions, and they may not like the answer but she has given them answers. our chairman has indicated this is not the cabinet of mitt romney or george w. bush. this is the cabinet of barack obama. and i'm -- i believe that elections have consequences and if you're the governor or the president of the ute, you have an obligation to nominate good people. the president nominated somebody we didn't know. i think this person was unanimously confirmed by the committee and the senate for the top position at epa four years ago. she is not somebody that comes
ises.f left field on these she is someone who has actually worked for republican governors before. not one, not two, not three, not four, but for five. five republican governors, somehow she is just unacceptable. i worry about something i call executive branch swiss cheese, and when i say that, i'm talking about an administration -- i don't care if it's this administration, republican, past or future, but when you have cabinet positions that are vacant, are filled by acting people, deputies that are positioned deputy secretary that are vacant 0, are sis accept secretaries or undersecretaries where you don't have somebody in a confirmed position, that's not good. maybe friends of the republicans doesn't think that is bad or hard for the obama administration. it is bad for our country right now and what is even worse is the example is set, and the invitation that extended for
future administrations. some day there will be a republican president. some day the republicans are going to be in the majority in the senate, and that republican president is going to want to have his or her cabinet in place. again, i think like an old governor, nominated for governor, the president nominates good people, honest people, hard-working people, they ought to get a vote and ought to get our support. i'll close with this, madam chair. i remember -- i'm sure i remember some meetings we have here. i remember a meeting eight years ago. i was not the chair of the nuclear safety subcommittee but the ranking democrat on it, and i met with eight or nine utility ceos from all over the country, talking about clean-air issues. one of the -- at the end of the
meeting, guys from the southern part of the country, curmudgeon, and he said, senator, what you ought to do? you should tell us what the rules are going to be, you should give us a reasonable amount of time, and some flexibility and get out of the way. the problem with what we'ring too here is that it makes it hard to do exactly what he said. it makes it hard to tell them what the rules are going to be, to provide a reasonable amount of time, flexibility and get out of the way. we need to move this nomination. we should have a good debate and we should vote. this nomination deserves a vote. this nominee deserves a vote, and frankly our country needs it. >> thank you very much. senator cardin. >> the committee record should reflect not a single republican has shown up for this scheduled committee markup, and this is very sad. we have seen two months ago -- over who monthses ago the president made the nomination of
gina mccarthy to the be the epa administrator, a key part of the president's cabinet and the american people deserve confirmed administrator, and the president has made that submission in our responsibility is to vote, to vote up or down but to vote. this is obstructionism. pure and simple. has nothing to do with gina mccarthy or the answers she. it is republican obstructionism. we know her, we know she is well-qualified for the position. every senator had an opportunity to meet with her and many took advantage of that. she answered over a thousand questiones. that's unprecedented. the maximum number before was in like 300, and when lisa jackson was confirmed, it was 100 questions that were asked. so, the republicans have used every opportunity to delay the confirmation process, not because of her qualifications
but because of their their desire to obstruct the confirmation process on president president obama's appointments. they don't like her answers. i understand that. they don't leak the laws. has nothing to do with her answers. has to with the fact she answered them honestly and they don't like the laws and they want her to too -- to do what cannot be done. this administration is going to care out the clean air and water act and they have the obligation to vote up or down the nomination. there's many endorsements of gina mccarthy to be the administrator. i want to chose from two. the former epa air chief under george w. bush, mccarthy has shown a willingness to listen and understand industry's legitimate concerns, and then william becker that's correct of the national association of cleanary agencies: she is brilliantly honest, very fair, how manious, and incredibly hard worker. she is a practitioner, and after her nomination, i listened to
the comment modifies republican colleagues and they had nice things to say about her. so she has worm for democrats and run runs. it's well past time to vote on this nomination. madam chair, this has been a pattern on the republican side of the aisle on obstructing president obama's nominations. yesterday we saw in the -- in one of our committees, a technical rule used to block the vote for tom perez to be secretary of labor. that was the second scheduled meeting they had on his vote and they used the fact the senate was still in session, you cooperate have a committee hearing -- couldn't have a committee hearing. so this is a pattern of blocking president obama's confirmation votes on his nominees for key cabinet positions. i know tom perez well. he is a decent person, who turned around the department of justice, civil rights division. he is a -- speaks out for what is right for all americans.
and he is imminently qualified to be secretary of labor. that nomination is being blocked. not by a vote on the floor of the united states senate but by procedural ways to gum up the operations of the united states senate. the same thing is true with gina mccarthy's nomination today not being voted on. has thing to to do with information not made available. it has everything to do with obstructionism, and as we saw with the majority leader's request for us to go to a conference committee with the house on the budget, again, they used procedural hurdles to block the actions on key issues here so we can't even take up bills. this is a pattern we have seen. my friends on the judiciary committee have seen how the republicans have blocked on votes on nominations for judges and how long it takes to get a judge confirmed here. not bus of the vetting process but because of the obstructionic that the republicans have used
to block president obama's appointments from being considered with an up or down vote on the floor of the united states senate. madam chair, i remember very vividly, when we had the nuclear option that was being considered and we had senators who got together and said we don't want this to happen. we want to act like the senate and do it constitutional responsibility. we're seeing it employed by the republicans today in a different way. by using -- not showing up to committee hearing as a way to block the constitutional responsibilities that we have as senators, to take up nominations and to vote on nominations. this is wrong. and you want to know why some of us are going to be in favor of reforming the rules of the senate? because of abuses like this. we see the republicans deploying every day. we have a responsibility to make sure that we carry out our responsibility, madam chair, we're going do it.
we're not going to let today's failure of republicans to show up on this committee to block the responsibilities we have as senators. >> thank you, senator. senator sanders, i'm going to put in the record gina mccarthy's answers to these thousand questions. small print, both sides of the page, going the record, for anyone who wants to see, and call on senator sanders. >> well, madam chair, let me just pick up on what senator cardin just said. this has nothing to do with gina mccarthy. that's clear. in my view, global warming, for example, is maybe the major, according to the scientific community, the major planetary crisis facing it. we have not dealt with it aggressively is an embarrassment for the country and the world. we need an administrator at the
payne, -- at the epa but this not just an administrator. we're seeing how republicans make it difficult to get judge on the deck court of appeals. ic morning there was a significant discussion whether or not in the national labor real estates board will continue to function. tom perez is a very strong and competen candidate to be our next secretary of labor and that's being delayed. i think we understand where our republican colleague leagues are coming from, and i think we have to act strongly in response. we have the american people understand that we're living a difficult time and they want this government to function as efficiently as it can. now, somebody -- madam chair you help me out. as i understand it, ten votes can bring this nomination to the floor. >> that is correct. >> i would respectfully request that as soon as possible, as the rules allow, that we hold another meeting, make sure there
are ten senators here and we pass that. and let me take at it step further, and senator carden talk on this as. we if we bring this nomination to the floor and there's a question q for 60 votes which we're not going to get, it's time for the democratic leadership do to what the american people want and that is to have majority rule in the united states senate. when i was a kid in elementary school we elected class presidents by majority rule. it is the minority that is ruling right near the united states senate and this type of on instructionism is enormously antidemocratic. sometimesup win in politics, sometimes you law enforcement obama won the election and we won our senate election, that's where we are and if we do not exercise majority rules, we are more to blame than they are. we know where they're coming from. it's time for us to act. so i would -- i don't need a motion here but respectfully suggest that as soon as possible the rule as i lou, we have another meeting, we have ten votes and bring it to the under.
i would then respectfully urge the majority leader to allow 51 votes on the floor bring forth not only the nomination of gina mccarthy, but other nominations where obstructionism is taking place. >> let me quickly respond. let this committee speak very clearly today. the majority -- believe you speak for all of us here, but i'm going to tell senator visiter and my ranking member, because i'll see them on the floor on a bill going better than this -- that we do intend to use the rules. that's it. we do intend to use the rules and that means ten people present. if he wants to provide some of those ten, we would be very appreciative, and if not, we will attempt to get everyone here. >> madam chair, how quickly can
we do that? >> depends on the health of senator lawtenberg here. but knowing that senator vitter would provide the tenth vote in honor of northern lawtopberg's ways right now, which we hope is improving. we'll definitely -- >> do we not have proxy votes on this commitee? >> you need to be physical hi present under our rules. i also -- >> can we look at the rules? >> well, of course we can. >> all that i'm saying is, i believe in process. and when people have honest differences of opinion we debate. but when the goal is simply on -- obstructionism, we're not working for the american people if there is not an epaed ayear moore, and we should look at our options in order to move the nomination. >> senator, we will look at all our parliamentary actions,
including changing the rules of the committee, which i don't know if we can do it with just the majority. we're going to find out, and i will be in touch with you and all colleagues. just want to thank all colleagues for being here today. it means a lot to the people of america, who support clean air and clean water. that's what it's about. it really is. not about us. it's about -- and it is about gina. i would say certainly as impacting her and her world and her life and her future, and -- but clearly it's about the american people at the end of the day. senator sanders were we'll work together on the parliamentary ways we can move this. senator white house. >> thank you, chairman. let me quickly review some of the folks who have written favorable comments into the process in support of gina mccarthy. the american automotive policy
council. the united states hispanic -- chambers offers which. in the president and ceo of the southern company, a huge energy utility. the alliance of automobile manufacturers. believe it or not. the president of the national pork producers council. american electric power's vice president. american forest and paper association's president and chief executive. the national mining association's spokesman. the past presidents of the american association for the advancement of science, trout unlimited and, of course, jody rell, the republican former governor of connecticut, who ms. mccarthy works for. so that's the backdrop to this letter that we received today, which is an interesting kind of carefully phrased letter that,
on its first reading, would suggest she hasn't answered the questions. as you pointed out she had a thousand questions. that is a senate record in the history of the confirmation process. a thousand questions. to a known commodity who already works at epa and already confirmed by the senate. really? a thousand questions? they're just trying to throw sand in the gears and not get their questions answered. when you actually look at the letter, they're not asking to have their questions answered. they may even concede they have had their questions answered. what they're saying is that, they haven't had five requests honored. now, you can take those five requests and put them all in one category and that is, some she agree with us. she should agree with us. she should not agree with the
president whoa appointed her. she should not agree with the majority of the environmental public works committee. she should not agree with the 59% plus majority of scientists who said that the issues she is going to be involved in, which relate to carbon pollution, are vital ones. she should take the side in advance, honor their request, to take the side of them, the oil industry, and the coal industry. that is what this is really all about. they want predetermined answers in favor of the oil industry and the coal industry. well, forget it. it's not going to happen. the oil industry and the coal industry and for reasons that are hard to imagine nowdays the republican party are on one side of this issue and alone, against the entire scientific community of the united states, every single major scientific organization, folks like the scientists as nasa, right now
there is a vehicle the size of an suv being driven around on the surface of mars. they shipped it there, they hasn't and it they're driving it around on the surface of mars. nasa scientists aren't clowning around. they're clear about what is going on with carbon pollution and climatement you have the joint chiefs of staff. the american conference of catholic bishops. the property casualty and re-insurance industries. the vast majority of the american business community, and they want in advance, for this woman to take the side against all of them and that's just crazy behavior, and i would say, you look at what happened to gina mccarthy, you look at what happened to kaitlin hallagin, the candidate for the d.c. circuit. you luke at what is happening to tom perez as the candidate for
director of labor, and i have to say if this is the run republic's party's new outreach to women ask latinos, guys, you need too bring up your game. this isn't working. this is not working. this is not good outreach to women and latinos to be just throwing the sand in the gears for very qualified nominees because they won't agree with you in advance when you're wrong. that -- it's not the minority's right to get nominees to agree with them in advance, and it's certainly not the minority's right to get them to afree with enemy advance when they're so clearly in the wrong. thank you. >> thank you so much, senator. thank you for the statement you made last night which i'm sending to kole legs -- to colleagues in which you take the phrase they put out there, which was, why are we worried, god will protect us from climate change? y -- and use your incredible
understanding of religious philosophy and put that whole notion to rest. i thought it was brilliant. so i'm sending it around to others. senator udall. >> thank you very much, madam chair, i also echo what has been said earlier. i think it's a sad day when we have an entire party not show up to do their work, and i would just, at the beginning, if i was watching this and sitting here and saying, well, who are the people that haven't showed up? that would be my first question. and so i just thought i would read the roll here. senator barrasso. senator bozeman, center crapo, senator fisher, senator inhofe, center session, center vetter, all of them serve on this committee. they usually participate and are part of the process, but they're
not here today and they're boycotting this committee, and the thing that hits me about this is that this is just an outright obstructionism and abuse of the rules, and we're starting to see this spread throughout our committees and on the floor, and it's spreading like an epidemic. it's spreading like wildfire. and the list here goes on and on. we had all of this talk about, we were going to return to the regular order. we were going to do the budget, and we have stayed up until 5:00 in the morning and in the senate produced a budget and the house produced a budget and now they don't want to good to conference on the budget and are objecting on that front and so, more obstructionism. the court of appeals in d.c., one of the most important circuits in the country, a lot
of people argue just as important as the supreme court. justices roberts' position has not been filled. for eight years. and once again, obstructionism on appointments, in order to achieve a political objective, and an ideological objective. so it continues over in the -- on the judiciary. continues -- nlrb, we have pushed to have appointments. the president's put appointments forward. once again we have obstruction. so, it is infecting every part of the government, and it's on display here today in our committee. they're not showing up. they're not coming to do their work, and they're using the rules to slow down the process and to prevent very good woman from being the epa administrator. another case that has been
mentioned earlier by my colleagues, tom perez. very qualified nominee. using a technical process and the abuse of the rules to obstruct. so what we have going on here is across the board in a number of circumstances outright obstructionism can and i think the american people would say, i think they would say, the president's entitled to have his team. just four or five short months ago, the president of the united states was elected to a second term. he is trying to put his team in place at the epa, and here with we have this boycott. and i'm just reminded a very short time ago, it used to be the republicans would say, we're entitled to an up or down vote. on our people.
well, that's all we want. we want an up or down vote. madam chair. that's what we're looking at. and so i would just recommend -- others have said this here today. this is an outright abuse of the rules. our obligation as a majority is to rule and take action and to move forward. if we're not going to get any cooperation. if we're going to get boycotts, then we have an obligation to move forward and we should use the rules as best we can. i understand on this committee, madam chair, what we can do is if we have all of us present, we can vote out the nominee, and i would suggest we do that as soon as possible. and i would also suggest that we work with our leadership and find a way where there's this obstructionism, that we come to at the floor and use 51 votes to pass these nominees and give the president his team. this should not be tolerated.
it's something that is such an abuse of the rules, that it can get you angry every now and then. it -- here we get angry. we get sad. and these are colleagues we have worked with, and i don't understand why they do it. don't understand why they're doing it but they're doing it today and they're doing it across the board, and we need to stand up and govern. we were elected to govern. we have a majority in the senate. we need to carry out the policies and give the president his team. so, thank you, madam chair. it's a pleasure to be here today with you and i just want to say, you have been a very good chairman. you have tried to be fair to the republicans. the thing that is amazing about jeep na mccarthy is that chairman boxer has been -- leaned the other way, leaned into the republicans, helped
them out. a thousand questions. the last republican nominee had 300 questions. gone three times as far. this is -- she is benning -- bending over backwards to make sure we are fair to them, and then what happens? you do that, and -- this has been pending since march 4th. we have had the nomination. so here you go. over and over and over again. and now we're down here, it's may 9th. and they're boycotting. so, i think it's our obligation to move forward. i would suggest to the chairman, let's move forward as quickly as we can. we know what the situation is. we know they really don't want answers to questions. they just haven't showed up. so let's move forward. thank you very much. >> want to thank you, and before i call on senator -- i want to make the point here. we have held up this hearing for
three weeks already based on my being willing to give the republicans the time they needed. now, let's go back to levitt we we asked 300 plus questions to levitt, and we said we wanted the answers to the questions, and so we said to the republicans, we're not going to come and mark him up until the have the answer. this is what the said, senator corporation anyone called the democrats' behavior political blackmail, and senator michael crapo said democrats are turning the nomination process into, quote, an attack on the president. so, this is what they said when we held up the levitt hearing and markup for two weeks. they have already held her up for three weeks, asked three times the number of questions,
and they're not here. so, you know, it seems to me unbelievable that when we wanted answers to questions and we held it up for two weeks, now they've held it up for three weeks with no -- nothing in sight because the bottom line is, they've gotten the answers to the questions, folks. they don't like the answers. because they are holding gina mccarthy hostage to their fringe philosophy. , prepolluter flagstaff. they want thor say i'll give up, wept enforce the clean air act and help the polluters. if she did that she wouldn't represent president obama. this is his pick. and, b., she is in her position, has to enforce the clean air act. if my friends want to change the
clean air act, try it. everytime you tried it, we beat you. so this is their way to try and harangue the administration -- i have to say they're harassing and hard ranging -- haranguing this nominee. i happen to know that. and it's because they're trying to get her to change the views of the obama administration and the views of the american people. i'm going to -- i just want to show one chart, jeff. here's the deal. you're fringe. you're fringe. here's the last poll. 78% of voters say the clean air act is extremely or very important, and 69% of voters favor epa updating the standards with stricter limits on pollution. they're fringed. they're out of the mainstream. they're forcing their pro-pollution. they're trying to force their
pro-pollution stance on the obama administration, and they're not going to take it. and we're not going to take it. and i agree for nominees, i ought to be 5 1. otherwise no president will get their pink, democratic of republican. >> thank you for the incredibly fair process you have had in this committee of providing plenty of time in the first round and additional round of weeks for questions to be addressed. way we have today is an apple bare wassing dereliction of responsibility and embarrassing does not capture the great arm that is coming from members of the body deciding to abuse the advise and consent obligation this body has, this senate has, under our constitution. to abuse and it turn it into attacks both on the judiciary,
and upon the specktive branch. in this room it's the attack on the executive branch. we're going to use advise and consent to undermine the other coequal branch, the executive branch of the united states government. just a few days ago we had a situation where we couldn't get a vote on a judge for the d.c. circuit. then it was an attack on the judicial branch. and it wasn't just isolated. a coordinated strategy, playing out at the committee level and on the floor to undermine the bipartisan or nonpartisan nature of the judiciary, and to damage and delay the president because he happens to come from a different party than the member whose are missing in this room today. i am deeply, deeply disturbed by this strategy of obstruction. i have here -- i borrowed the
chair's binder clip full of questions, hundreds of pages of questions, asked and answered. i must say answered incredibly are articulately and seriously. thoughtfully. and these are available. the public can certainly take a look at these. this lays out the thoughts of someone who works hard on the ground to make the law work, as it's been stated, not that perspective of an ideal yawing. -- these are serious thoughts about responsibilities under the law as asked for in these questions. and so and so i -- once these questions have been asked and answered, over a thousand questions asked and answered, then at it time to -- it's time to take an up or down vote. on the floor of the senate, we
are seeing this strategy continued. and i have no doubt that after our nominee passes out of this committee, that there will be obstruction on the floor as well, trying to prevent an up or down vote on the nominee. we had the first ever filibuster of a defense secretary. the first ever in the history of the united states of america, and ironically that nominee was a former republican senator. but it was more about attacking and undermining a newly elected president from leading our nation and taking on the serious issues than it was about who the nominee was, and today we have an extraordinarily qualified nominee, and it's not about the nominee. at it about undermining the ability of the executive branch to do what is required of enemy the law for clean air and clean water. now, i think that if anyone doubts the popularity of clean care and clean water, you just have to take at trip to some of the countries that don't have rules that control this.
many of my colleague on both sides of the aisle have been able to visit china where you can't see 100 yards because there's so much par articulate inside the area it's equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to walk down the street. that is not the america we live in because we say we want to teen this pollutants out of the ware and we want to have fish in the stream that live and eat the fish. this is part of our natural resource-based economy, where our air and our water are an incredibly important resource. so, chair boxer, thank you for your leadership on this. we, as a senate, as a body, are failing to meet our responsibilities of advise and consent under the constitution, and that failure is unacceptable and therefore we need to have
that conversation among our members about how we are going to keep -- change how the senate worked because the curtsy has now become abused, complete dereliction of responsibility and unacceptable attack on other branches of the government. so i look forward to working with the chair and my colleagues as we take on this important issue, so the senate, once considered a great deliberative body, can become a functioning body. >> thank you, senator forks all your leadership. i want to thank my democratic colleagues for being here. the record should know shat senator gillibrand had to leave in order to go to a white house for a meets on another important issue on sexual harassment and crimes in the military. i want to just put in the record this other poll -- actually this quote by william rubbingleshouse
and christi tom witman who served at epaeded aor. >> eat we should take heart in the progress and not seek to tear down the agency that the president and congress created to protect america's health and the environment. well, want would say that's to my republican friends, why don'tous listen to these rum republicans and get out of the fringe lane. get out of the fringe lane. the mesh people want clean air, they want clean water. they want safe drinking water, they want action and tougher rules and regulations to protect their health and the health of their families. ask how many of the kids who are in your state, who are in public school, how many of them have asthma, how many of them know somebody with asthma? half the hand will go out. get out of the fringe lane. work with us.
i will tell you this nominee, one of the most qualified ever put up for the epa, her name was put up on march 4th. aisle going to close with some of her supporters. robert angle, vice president of domestic policy at american automotive policy. upon confirmation we look forward to working with gina mccar which i who demonstrated the willingness to consider the views of of the impacted and to find practical answers for issues. not enough for the republicans, the president and ceo of the united states hispanic chamber of commerce: throughout her career, gina human being car the has shown environmental responsibility and living side-by-side with economic growth. my colleagues should get out of the fringe. david levin, ceo and founder,
american sustainable business council. he says: we applaud the nomination of gina mccarthy. we believe second provide a strong leadership needed at epa, working working collaboratively with the business community. so i say to my republican 'colleagues-get out of the fringe lane and join the mainstream of business in this country. it goes on and on. steven harper, global director of environmental policy at intel. we haven't auld agreed with everybody action by mccar if the but we always respected her commitment to finding solutions that protect our nation's economy. it goes on: chairman and president company had beautiful things to say, the partner at baker llp, had beautiful things to say.
and i ask unanimous consent, and since there's nobody here -- to put the rest of these into the record. it goes on and on. it's business. it's organizations. it's respected individuals. in our communities. how about this? served four republican governors, including the republican governor of connecticut. she says, gina's leadership is national hill respected and comes as no surprise obama reached out to her. chev is dedicated public servant, tremendous talent and passionate. i mean, gina mccarthy is one of the most mainstream nominees every to come before the senate. and the fact that every one of my republican colleagues on this committee would not show her the
respect of being here today, and are hiding from this public arena, the fact that they would treat her in this way, after she answered respectfully over a thousand of their questions, no, did she say she wants to overturn the clean air act? i guess not. did she say she wants to redefine the waters of the united states so that nobody has any rights to clean water? i guess not. did she say she wanted to overturn the superfund program? i guess not. i don't know who they want to be the head of the epa. maybe the head of some polluting oil company or coal company. that would make them happy. but that's not what the american people want. the american people want, in
overwhelming numbers, they're health protected. and if the republicans think we're going to be quiet about this, they have another guess coming. gina mccarthy is going become the poster child of their obstructionism. gina mccarthy is a woman who deserves this promotion. 78% of voters say that clean air is extremely or very important. 69% of voters fav epa updating standards with stricter limits on air pollution. say to republican friends, it's a pleasure to work with them on infrastructure, but when it comes to the environment, they're in the right fringe lane and we're not to take the story of jeep ma mccarthy and her success, her record, her
fairness, her broad support in america, going to take this to the american people and so will the president. i assure you of that. and by the time this is over, i hope the republicans will recognize this is one of the best nominees' either party could ever fine to -- ever find to head the epa. and i want people to understand today that we did not intend to vote this nominee out with democrats. that was not my intention wife. not do that unless forced to. let's be clear. i would not have voted this out just with democrats. i am asking my republicans to come home. to come back.
to your responsibility. you want to be here and vote no? be here and vote no. that is your right. but be here. don't anyone say would would have voted it out if senator bachus were here. no. that is not the intend of the anyone saying that is incorrect. any reporter. today we are asking the republicans to come back. and we will schedule another markup. it is my intention, if they continue this obstructionism, to report this nominee out. if have to, with just the major members. that was not my intention today. never my intention. i never even knew they were boycotting this until i got a letter this morning. so, let's be clear. the republicans have blocked this. they have done it on purpose. they have done it by making up
false accusations she never hansed their questions when she answered every one of them. they're in the record for everyone to see. and i will continue this. i will talk to senator vitter on the floor as we work together. it's a little bit strange that we're working together on winterra and we'll get that done but i've always said this is an odd situation when you have environment and public works in one committee. you have a team working together on public works when it comes to the environment, we have clashes every single day. and this is an example of one of those clashes. unnecessary. and we intend to keep on pushing and we invite them back to do their job. maybe some of them slept in this morning. maybe it was a little early for them to get up. we stand adjourned.
>> a new america foundation hosted a discussion on how i'm an aerial drones are used for nonmilitary purposes. the first portion of the analysis of public opinion or mark summers and republican, paul gosar unit drugs are used in the safety patrol theand figt u.s.-mexico border and fight forest fires. >> and editor of your great new america foundation, theica fodan coordinators of her partnershipa
between the america of the slate magazine in arizona's eight university, which looks at the post implications for emergingap tech elegies. before getting started, i want to say what we're planning this event a few months ago, i youe thought to myself so approve or if we that's. turns out i was wrong by a day. tomorrow is the official commemoration of the end of world war ii, at least in europe. the reason i thought that was appropriate was because obviously no other conflict has so altered the nature of warfare and particularly the way to disguise them became lethal to populations in a way it never had them before. also, world war ii of course has the pit mines the way in which
warfare alters technologies but then come back home. that is one of the themes we are going to explore today that there's a broad fascination, a technology evolved tremendously in large measure to the mobilization and the conflicts overseas and the application of this technology for domestic uses. people are naturally unsettled by that, but there's also opportunity this technology affords them that is another aspect we are going explore today, not just the pitfalls and dangers that concerns, but the opportunities. this is the recurring theme i have familiar with and i see a
crowded room, so this is a timely subject, one of great entries. as you make room for neighbors come a few of an empty seat next to you. thank you for that. also a couple house keeping reminders. the first being this event is being webcast on the new america site as well as c-span. obviously, everything is on the record and everything will be on the record from now because of all the drones in the skies. last night if you want to ask a question, wait for a microphone to people watching can be part of the conversation and listen to you can also identify yourself. if you are following on twitter, please use the hash tag ft drums. now if they could segue into our opening presentations, which is
going to explore this question of what does that mean to us when we hear the term drones? what do we associate with? sort of a primal reactions to find robot as a substitute for technologies. i can think of no better person to set the table and connect the dots between the politics, the culture and the technology then will stop him. he's a great partner of ours come of our future times collaborationist national correspondent at slate, longtime writer and editor at slate where he covers technology, politics among many other topics. well, please get us started.
[applause] >> banks, andres. and thanks to partners that new >> banks, andres. and thanks to partners that new america into all of you who manage to get get here, not just the here covered the hero person, which in the future won't necessarily be presumed. with a lot of great people, so i'll try not to drone on. chilcott that one. i do that for two reasons. one is that you can't than the others to raise the question when is the last time you heard the word used in any context other than the one we use today. there's a lot of debate over whether we should use it, but i suggest to you essentially the current context owns the word on i wouldn't worry with connotations. what i like to do if it's your birthday is about how you think about drones, which is not very
much. obviously other talk about technology, it is received politically. the first thing i want to do is point out some of the dimensions we talk about today. drones are enormously various. the term drone is very old. in terms of whether we should use the word, we've been using it. this is good with aircraft going back for two thirds of a century at this point. it's not a new term. it's been moved over this technology. so we understood in the context of work and understood the payload. a lot of talk today about whether drones a robot when
actually these pilots behind them. i would raise the question to you, that doesn't resolve the question politically because even if you're not afraid of a robot, you can be afraid of the person who is operating drone. another difference, i'm a big or small? people think of drones is these big things. i too will not resolve the political question because although the smaller are less powerful, they are not carrying the payload. it is invisibility. in terms of fear of being spied on, it would be a bigger threat in a lot of people's minds. finally, the question had been armed or unarmed out of the question is killed or spied on. that i suggest to you is the one
that right now is the bigger driver of the politics of this topic. so let's run this video from the website funny or die unassertive captures. >> g.i. joe is back and ready for a new age of warfare. [inaudible] feel the adrenaline. ♪ >> comes with the back post to g.i. joe can set all day without back pain. >> g.i. joe, american hero. >> because there's not run a
good place. i [inaudible] >> that captures the alternative to what used to be fine and military aircraft. there's lots of jokes about spot compared is the mayor, but it's all about assab rating to drown. it's all about and that is the context in which we've learned about drones. people take it seriously, this is code pink protesting john braining hearing. again the context as the victims are people overseas. they are foreigners. thus the presumptions. this is from the tv show homeland. under the characters on the other side is working against the united states because of the
story, an american drone has filed a missile into a school and cut a bunch of children overseas. it's not a fair representation, but the understanding is the first is other people and so one of the care bears turns against us. then we begin to see some notions of americans being targeted. mcas los angeles, the drone impacting tpb of hijacking. the drone taken over by a hacker and a missile fire. the point is that can happen to you. in this case the hacker is an islamic fundamentalist in the united states. but then we had last year the bourne legacy, a movie in which not only is the target an american agent, the people firing the drone fassero dusted the government.
but against the vat of uncle sam is the threat of popular culture. so i'm going to talk about public opinion to put some meat on the bones. i'm not going to belabor the numbers today. this is a fox news poll from late february. basically shows as the target of the military becomes more american, the support goes down. you can see how it works. the numbers go down. if the attack is on american soil, the numbers go down further. the basic structure of public opinion. some of you may remember this guy walked on senate for a filibuster. basically he says we have american drones in san francisco or houston or wherever. is absurd because it has been a demand its government would make
no sense. david is government mandated health insurance. [laughter] andy borowitz had fun the senate oppose filibuster. majority americans opposed to being killed. the poll showed 97% of those surveyed strongly agreed with the state and a purse i do not want to be killed by a drone. you see down below white house press secretary jake ernie tried to make the best inside people are afraid. we did that come, but there's broad public support for killing somebody else. here we have the popular t-shirt, don't drone me bro. you probably can't see, but the people targeted our man in women and child. not a fair representation, but you understand this is what's penetrated popular culture and
it has now been served. if you're afraid of the word company should be afraid of the noun drone. but the real problem. here's another poll, a gallup poll from march. this is after senator paul's filibuster. same structure as public opinion. as it becomes more american, the numbers go down much further. the lowest number used to be 45, number 13. presumably because of the filibustering people think about the idea drones may shoot, we have a big dip in public support for drones. okay, who is operating drones? this is a fox news poll from february. notice the difference in the questions at the first is do you approve or disapprove of the united states using unmanned
aircraft on u.s. soil? not much difference between white and nonwhite republicans and democrats to address the question coming to think the the president of the united states and his son should do a quick a big gap opens up between whites and nonwhites, democrats and republicans and presumably because democrats and nonwhites think the president is one of us more so than whites and republicans in so there's less anxiety. it matters who's targeted in who is operating the drone. now we could on to domestic uses of drones. who's the target? again, difference of public opinion. search and rescue were going to help somebody. tracked on renwick criminals. 67% support that. they're probably not looking for a mere anybody like me. issue speeding tickets.
no, absolutely not. that could be me. i think that's what's going on about the poll was telling us. we see another breakdown within the population. this is the margin of support. when we talk about speeding tickets, tracking criminals is not much difference demographically. on the control illegal immigration, whites are in favor. hispanics and blacks half for less than that the ied about who's targeted and by whom. it's not just drones people are worried about. this is a poll taken in the organization and what they show when you ask about unmanned military aircraft killing -- targeting killing citizens suspected of being terrorists,
32% are worried, but if you ask about your local police department can be where they might invade your privacy% to 40%. the smaller threat. you're not going to be killed. i'm probably not a suspected terrorist, but it's more widespread, more people identified with being a target of the drones. today we'll talk about people knew more, if they simply understood more, that's not necessarily true. in the military context of history. the more people know about military drones, they go up whether that's domestic or overseas, as long as we target suspected terrorists come at the numbers go up in all categories if you've read or learn more use of drones à la terry lee. the domestic context come you don't get that. hope the search and rescue, the
margin to seven the third column if you're more familiar with the use of drones militarily. the margin was down by 14 points. i think that is because the respondent by thinking you are going to shoot the criminals. i think that explains the immigration numbers didn't go down in criminal numbers did go down. the job by 34% amongst people who know more but the usage drones militarily. this shows us that people learn in the military context is they are very affect this and that is not at all resolve because whether you support the mission for that use depends on whether you like to drones, but the mission. but that i will wrap up and that everybody get onto an exciting
day of a lot of interesting facts and observations. thank you. [applause] >> and now we are going to shift into the practical rom. great thinkers at an institution like the america have the luxury of analyzing issues over time and think about where will the essay society three, five, 10 years from now. but will not get the the somebody who has to wrestle with a lot of issues in real-time as a legislator, a member of congress who has to draw lines and sat rules and ballot security imperatives with their individual liberties and veg. to moderate this conversation with congressmen paul gosar, i
have the pleasure of introducing rosa brooks at the new america foundation edition to professor fletcher shyne university, columnist for foreign policy and a good friend. rosa, i am going to hand it off to you. >> i'm told i am not physically attached to this chair. thank you and good morning to you all. this is a terrific turnout in thank you all for coming. we are really thrilled to have representative gosar with us this morning. a lot of the action is now moving to capitol hill and he's going to be able to tell us a little bit about what these issues look like as a congressman from arizona fourth district, but also about how this whole discussion is beginning to play out on the hill and what the prospects are for regulation in the future. representative gosar, urls the
one the unmanned systems caucus and document your bio, you are a person. you were born as a member of congress. in fact come to you at practice in flagstaff for 25 years. this issue is a good one for you because people's reaction to drones is the media. so are drones lake dentistry? without a lot of irrational fears, but frankly we should get over it and realize what properly thought about, drones are good for us, not something to be feared? >> well, my staffer once said dr. gosar commute from the roadway. value to the government i'm here here to help you.
but there's a two-sided aspect of drones. i look at it as a colony of bees. what we have to do is flush out the detail as a dentist, duties in the detail and that's where we have to look at it. >> so give us some examples when they are doing their good wald things, what does look like? >> we have in my first term, in my first or the largest forest fire in arizona's history called the wall of fire. u.s. taxpayers spend $400 million but it out any plus $2.5 billion worth of assets. imagine for a second you were able to use one of the worker drones into a pattern of cutting
as it makes it more efficient for the lumber company, more efficient to make money, but also illustrates to be built because environmentalists don't trust the logging company. you can actually build a pattern. the walker does it very, very quickly, but then you get confirmation from the environmental community. so here's an application that makes the worker puts it into real-life perspective. you can take it into an aspect of the canada reaching infrastructure or you can look at the rose and determine how you prioritize roads and repair and that the materials experimental and how they are weathering and working under stress. >> this is an important point and well has made it is thought that we need to separate the issue of the technology itself from the issue of the various ways we might choose to use those of us are a set of policy questions. i can certainly imagine unmanned
aerial platforms, including disaster relief purposes in the wake of earthquakes, hurricanes, that sort of thing. even looking at potential genocides another atrocity oversees the u.s. satellite imagery during the balkan service critical in locating in tracing responsibility for massacres and i could imagine similar value of surveillance footage even more so when of our real-time kind of way. but i guess the challenge your obvious way is the technology itself has nothing deterministic and it enables people to do things they haven't been able to do before. then they give you an example of one of the tough ones i think. presumably i could build a sub
for her by a remote-control vehicle using publicly available technologies. i can buy one at amazon.com for a few hundred dollars i can also take a legally registered weapon. an offense unto smart enough, i can connect these things to make my own but denies drones. you're someone who's known as a staunch second amendment advocate. should this change the way to think about second amendment issues? is this no issue at all? is god a legally owned remotely piloted vehicle. he put them together, or is this the thing we need to start going witty sidekick, this is qualitatively different. this isn't just one plus one is due. this is vile, something just happened here i would need to worry in a different way than our constitutional assumptions
apply in a different way. >> this is exactly why we have to flush this out. i'm also the person that voted against the nba, thinking about constitutional obligations. >> can you explain? >> this is our cybersecurity aspect. afghanistan under hit the rules in this didn't even come close to a requirement supposed to protect my patience. i'm very keen about the privacy with american citizens are entitled by our constitution. i don't want people to be detained without being charged. i have a wrath of making sure the government is an arms length away. so these are the issues we find ourselves in. i also said that friend paul in the senate chamber when he was having a filibuster to have the conversation from the administration. it is one of those who need to have a conversation about to
mobile to see some of that by the congress passing the 20 top faa modernization of type to see how they can articulate them but you can do with it. and what are the rules that govern not. >> dissent is the constitution is to be touched on for figuring this out. these obviously our technologies that are the framers of the constitution could not even have dreamt of. do we even have an adequate framework for thinking about that as privacy implications for the legal applications of these technologies in the hands of private citizens? ..
had the conversation. you methodically go through this and have the conversation in the public. you don't keep it behind closed doors. that's why you have to air it out making sure the american public. once aired out, the american public is going to decide and put the parameters in, and too long, you are a normal person, you know, i tell everybody i'm a politician, and things have to rationally make sense to me is is that when you share that with the american public, are they difficult issues, absolutely, but you have to have the conversation and sort them out by having a clear defying articulated conversation. >> do you think that this clearly defines the conversation happening on the hill? what's the prognosis of the likelihood we are or going to get a serious discussion op the hill to lead to actual legislative action? >> i think you are. i mean, just as the whole fact,
and it's a libertarian base of a district. we have the conversations all the time. that's the conversation that you want to have is take that technology and say, listen, what part of that application can you use? like, for example, the forest industry, a pest control in farms, and border security, and i mean, arizona's front and center, look at the questions we are asking, so this is, you know, sometimes what i said is that, you know, be a leader in the discussion, ensure you turn up all the questions and start that discussion, and that's one of the things arizona's prom innocent about is that we came into the country kicking and screaming. we wanted to recall judge, and that's why we were delayed coming into the country. we continued that onslaught of questions, and asu, you know, helped sponsoring this today, is another key element of
education. we have riddle, one the stop aeronautical schools in the country doing this. it's on the forecast, and it's on the forefront, and this discussion is coming home now that we see its deployment on border security, identification, and the commercial side of it. >> is this something -- i know the border control authorities already used unmanned vehicles -- >> just minimally. >> just minimally. is this what you see from your constituency, interest of private citizens talking about how to develop the technologies, put them to use commercially, are you getting that from local law enforcement? where -- is there a ground swell of interest at the grassroots level or mostly an executive branch, federal matter? >> no, it's all over. i mean, from, you know, from police and local dribbings, search and rescue, think of the example, the mass atrocities,
but what about what happened over in colorado in an avalanche? sending one up with a thermal imaging, you can identify where the bodies are so that you get quick responses or if you have a hiker stranded on a mountain, look at thermal currents and drop food or first aid. there's a lot of applications, and it's happening right now. in arizona, we're seeing at the police level, talking to people, this is what we have for bomb squads, scares, the search and rescue, and people who are having the decision, -- the discussion, people bring them into the discussion asking what do you see, congressman, from your perspective? i see from mind the scenes that most colleagues have that discussion with their con constituents. is it early on? absolutely. we're going to flush some of these things out here, shortly, in regards to where the test sites are, what's the applications, what are we going to allow the faa, the military,
the police state, the commercial applications to do? that's part of the legislative process. >> it's -- i did research for a recent foreign policy column on how easy it is to access the technologies just as a private citizen right now, and i was a little astounded at the level of sophistication i personally, with my visa card achieved by oring things off the web. i own three drones, two are tiny helicopters, my kids open three drones, two are tiny helicopter, the other a giant flying goldfish, none recognized. i don't think we'll mention the recent poll that recent magazine commissioned, and, obviously, as we know, the details on the polls, depending how you ask the question, there's a different answer coming up with the somewhat astounding revolution, if we believe it, 47% of
americans felt if their neighbors or any other person or government agency for that matter were flying a surveillance drone over their property without their consent that 47% of americans felt they believed they had a right to shoot that down, so i'm careful with a little fish. [laughter] i mean, back to maybe irrational theories, are you concerned that in the time it takes our political process to sort of slowly chew over this stuff that there's a messy situation rising on the ground as private citizens engage in creative, but could be idiotic uses of the technologies? >> you know, we've seen it already. when you start seeing the applications of planes after world war ii, helicopters after world war i, and hell coppedders after world war ii, you see the technology. even in den tis ri. you remember the belt driven
drill, like, oh, my god, i got to see that again, air driven, and now lasers. applications come. there's going to be sticky wickets as we call them, that we come across, and you bring them up not to be scared of them, but bring them up to shed the light of the air to the aspect for a discussion with those. i think that's going to come. that's the natural progression of human nature and new technology is, you know, finding out what it can do, what the parameters are, and how do we place it into the best light when limited in the negative light. >> congressman, you're on a tight schedule, but a few minutes, if you don't mind, any questions from folks in the audience here? let me ask if you could, when you speak, stand up, identify yourself and your afghanistan as well. sir? >> thank you.
>> i'm a national defense university professor, and recently arrived as a fellow so this is personal to me and so op which you've not talked about, and maybe you could understand the way we feel in pakistan. a lot of people told me the fact that it has its own strategic objectives to main tape its own interests, and one is to harm its own people, and so what i fail to understand is that why the american public finds that it's easy to demonize pakistan for not liking drones for the fact it's killing, killing their
children of the country. there's many, many children that have died, and it's consistent effort where, by one hand, you provide money, especially in the 2010 floods, for example, but on the other hand, children are killed. >> we talked about positive applications was technologies, but, obviously, to people in pakistan, the face of drone technologies is there killing people, including those who are innocent. is that speak to, in your mind, congressman, is that a failure of u.s. policy? is that -- is that something where we got the policy wrong, or we need to e review how we think about the so-called targeted killing program, whether by drones or something else, or in your mind, is that more of a we need to do a better
job explaning what we're doing and why in >> well, i think there's a lot of different as pegs, i mean, personal accountability and personality responsibility are huge in my world. just to let you know, i'm the first of ten kids, five democrat, four republicans, one independent. when my wife met the family, my wife called her mom and said, oh, my god, these people hate each other. [laughter] with that, it's a responsibility of people to know they are not harboring criminals or international thugs, and i think that's the telltale of the communication or a community, so i think from that point, there's the agent of pakistan and harboring criminal, and there's app aspect and there's a way of doing technology in a way that fashions that drops can start to do is depict who are the people picking a civilian against a militant. that's a conversation here. i don't think that there are any
right answers right now because there's plen tiff of wrongs to go around, but we have to reward good behavior, not honor bad behavior. most of today's program is focused on domestic res, but we are going to talk about the foreign policy issues today. in fact, i'm talking about them around 12:30. we'll come back to the issues later on. >> i think you can hear me. >> no. >> retired air force scientist. i started running drones in the 1930s, called kites. my model airplanes were drones, and 90% of the drones in the world are good, peaceful uses. we use them in medicine, run them down into your body all of
us will have drone cars which we'll run in the next ten years, so reality is drones are here, and that's not going to go away, and most of the uses are peaceful uses, and they are going to increase the quality of life. it doesn't matter what technology you have in the world when it develops, there's some negative aspects. this is included. i hope you just don't emphasize the negative issues because they are a small part of the development of drones.
>> i'm president of the dc area drone user group. we have about 320 members, about 320 intern euros in waiting who are -- entrepreneurs in waiting who are ready to open up in our country to be able to operate our equipment for social good and commercial purposes. there's a lot of talk about large institutions, large companies using drones for commercial purposes, but most of us are operating equipment that costs under $500, pretty simple to use, weighs under five pounds. how are we going to make sure that the costs of being certified age legally allowed to use this for commercial purposes doesn't exceed exponentially the
costs of the equipment itself? we want to make sure somebody who wants simple wedding photography is not strangled by regulations and various other requirements. how do you see striking that balance so that the small operators are allowed to flourish and contribute to the national economy? thank you very much. >> first of all, if i had that answer, we'd already have a dynamic economy going right now. that's what the mission right now, problems in washington, d.c. are, how do we look at small business applications, how does an administration look at the backbone of the country as a small business person? i was a small business person. there is a happy medium, and, boy, tell you what, it's not just in this application of unmanned, you know, drone aspects, but it's across the board, and all business aspects. you know, we need to have tax reform that's more for
investment, broad based, and making a co-investment policy in the united states. that's the problem we have right now in washington, d.c. so i wish i had the answers. we have to have that applications. companies are cutting edge, you can argue it's the small entrepreneur moving that across the boferred so there's the dynamic interchange, and i like and invite you to utilize your voice when you gather people together as a co-op to articulate that message and make sure that you have the ear of legislators and of congress like the big companies do. >> congressman, i know we have more questions, but we have to make sure you are not late for the next engagement. we should wrap up and thank you very much for joining us today.
he was part of our informal rents terming sessions on putting together the entire day. i want to thank shane for his leadership on this subject and now i turn the program over to you. >> can everybody hear me okay? that was a great introduction to the meddlesome policy challenges now we're going to survive a zombie said try to understand the state of the technology is and where it's going in the relatively near future because it is true to say this is poised to take off essentially and be transformative and perhaps disruptive, but also extremely exciting. the two people today help us do that. first amendment is missy cummings, an associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics
at m.i.t. she spent 11 years as a naval officer and military pilot with one of the first fighter pilots and read a book called the hornets nice. she's great. and then michael toscano who represents the tremendously diverse and growing side of the commercial application is the president and ceo fragment ecosystems, which includes numbers is so and previously served as program manager for research and development the defense department. the first question i want to start right is to start with you and the next five to 10 years of
the landscape, what do you see is probably going to happen application in the technology in one or the more pie-in-the-sky that might have been given the right circumstances in the next five to 10 years click what does america look like? >> would have been happening right now is a revolution industry. we just can't get enough people for help across surveillance and being able to see what is happening. john deere is an amazing thing ever but it director. this is a community that needs it. the next revolution in the cargo industry in a very quiet corner of afghanistan, there are two
areas that had item sells trekking back and forth have carried over 3 million pounds of goods by themselves. i think you'll see the civilian cargo community go that way as well. there's a lot of interest from fedex and ups can reduce cost quite a bit. [inaudible] >> the aquaculture is happening now. inside you'll see a much more mature industry. japan has all of the cross testing with uavs. so in fact in the united tasted like a little bit in terms of implementation of the technology. the cargo you will see more military missions turned over to cargo with the capability and
the regulatory agencies, faa, global regulation that will basically slow that down a little bit. we're probably looking at 10 to 15 years for that. >> is their new kinds of aircraft for repayment systems into existing claims or is it going to look more like a aquatic >> what most people don't realize is if you're not airbase you are flying in a uav variants. some boeing aircraft are highly digital, highly collimated and the pilot is their babies the aircraft. so it's not hugely -- we could convert most commercial planes right now with little fanfare, but what happens in the future is they will include new types of sensors and submillimeter
raised to allow them to have more capability for example. >> will talk more estimate the technology is capable of doing. so michael, from your days, what does the next five to 10 years click click >> the real question is then we get into the national airspace? within the first three years 70,000 new jobs in over 10 years the numbers go up to over 100,000 jobs and over $82 billion. there were a couple issues product. first of all, the weaponization among the aircraft runs. if you look at the department of transportation, they are the authoritative body. we don't use the word drone
because the faa is the system. there's a human being and we've heard about accountability. that is truly important that there is accountability for someone operating the system, which is about 30%. the communication then it says in human need makes up the system. anytime you see any, that's the system being operated. that being said, the faa right now says no aircraft manned or unmanned can deploy any weaponization. there's no way you can deploy. the young lady, rose, she can't put a weapon on not. if you break a leg should be held accountable.
that's a key issue people don't understand that there are provisions in place. so when you get to the point of agriculture, the information is the then misrepresented or not being disseminated that he realize his 7 trillion people in the world paid by the year 2050 will have about 9 billion people. so precision agriculture will be within the first deployment of the system's. that's where the tremendous ability. many feed millions of people, you could almost do a starvation by utilization of the technology. that's the upside of this type knowledge she. you stop and think if there was no privacy concerns and if there
was no safety issues and if that happens in the next three years or so, the ability to utilize technology is unbelievable. when you look at the hatch partners which is mentioned here, it'll be unbelievable to understand how nature interacts with us in a way they understand. the exploration to human beings understand how to do things in a more effective vision in a safer way to motivate determination were going to cut it in the. this has tremendous capabilities unlocking the door. >> september 2015 and i want people to chime on this.
the dates by which the faa has to integrate the airspace. tell us what that means briefly of both of you once we had that data in the skies are effectively opened, how is that going to roll out? are we going to start seeing drones immediately quick >> if you look at the faa, it does say that a 2015 timeframe. anything that goes into the national airspace has to be saved. that is their paramount and only responsibility. that's a different issue for the supreme court or homeland security rather agencies have to determine that concern. but the faa is right in
identifying that those sites will be utilized to ensure their safety and anything that goes into the national airspace. once we achieve that camille understand it's okay to fly these things and take all the advantages. >> so they look at this and set ceiling tops and who can go where. >> it is worth noting it's not for integrating large uavs for commercial aviation and cargo. so everybody points this out number 2015 is some magical date when only it's a small step in knowing in what has to happen to have truly integrated uav integration across airspace and away classes. >> so if that's step one come in do which are talking about an order of magnitude more difficult? >> it should be, but the faa is going to make it that way.
they have a very hard job to do. it is their job to make sure they're safe integration of attack about a substantial leap of faith, more of a psychological barrier as it is to a technical barrier. we do need marbury commission in terms of what it takes to have sensitive away. the reason you can't have uavs is because they can't see and avoid like a human can. for those of you who sat in the front of a commercial pic come you know you can't see anything from a commercial cockpit. we in terms of the community are going to make commercial manned aviation safer as well because we essentially put a protective bubble around an aircraft in terms of safety and allow aircraft to talk to one another. so it's really more in terms of integration and infrastructure technology itself.
you actually talk to a group of people may faa their whole life is unmanned aviation and it's causing a bit of a crisis for people in the military. look at the air force to see how much trouble is causing great of a start turnover aviation to robots, what does that mean for mankind if all of a sudden our cars and planes and trains like in europe are highly automated? or is not just aviation on the cusp, many, many sectors of the industry is causing a lot of people heard eight because of what they're capable of doing. >> you're a fighter pilot. you come from an elite culture on human and effort and initiative. dear colleagues look at she like you're trying to put them out of a job and pilot endangered
species? >> i am considered a traitor but many people in my community. patrick smith on salon.com is chasing me around to basically harass me about trying to put the commercial pilot out of work. the fact of the matter is the heyday is over. israel announced a couple weeks ago that in 40 years is a bold claim on my country says were going to replace everything, but i'm here to tell you it's really fun, really cool. i'm a makes a better as i can land a plane on an aircraft carrier by myself, but it doesn't make it better than the computer. the computer always plans the aircraft better on the carrier by itself. the computer doesn't get tired. the computer puts the bomb at the weapon on a targeted is
supposed to and doesn't make mistakes. i know there's a lot of concern in this room about but the nice uavs. i definitely nemec or matt we need to revisit our policy in terms of how we weapon eyes and a platform, but i'm here to tell you humans make so many more mistakes at the tip of the spear the cop they tried to drop tom, connecting warfare from the uavs for you have a group of people with a lawyer sitting next to you for release on the radio if you try to make these hard decisions is a much better form of warfare been a kind of thought then. even though we're scared in terms of weapon is enough, in doing so we saved a lot of lives. >> i want to come back to humans. shaking again assumptive data were off to the race is.